Lighting for photographing watercolors

[Jonathan Rice]

Having read about LF and bought a Sinar monorail camera with 210mm lens I'm halfway to starting to photograph unglazed watercolour paintings which are non-reflective. I need practical tips as to achieving a close degree of colour accuracy and subtle tonal range. I will be making these records occasionally and am inclined to utilse daylight, if that is sensible, at least as part of the light source.

I already have a single free-standing powerflash and flash meter which I can use. Do I need two? Are white or silver reflectors/umbrellas a big advantage? If I did decide to shoot in my art studio instead of outside, I have a white alcove around which ambient flash light could certainly be bounced. Would that be preferable than attempting to use daylight? As far as the camera goes, would it still be an advantage to use a polarising filter over the lens? Which transparency film would you recommend for this copy work? I want 'true' colour rather than overstated. Is there an advantage in taking one shot with polariser and one shot without? I may decide to use Quickloads, so which transparency film would be best suited to my purpose given that fact?

I'm definitely going to get the transparencies developed by a professional lab. Do they accept 5x4 transparency film for processing from conventional film holders or Graphmatic holders? (This will show my ignorance, but) do you hand over the exposed film still in the holders of do you extract film before you hand it over to them? Does anyone know a supplier for the colour cards used for checking colour accuracy in the transparency?

Any and all information will be of help. I realise there are a lot of questions here but I'll be grateful for any practical pointers.

Many thanks


Jonathan

[Greg Lockrey]

This will depend on your budget. The least expensive way is to take your watercolors outside on an overcast day. Position them to be the least reflective. If you want consistant results, you want a pair of Polarized lights and a polarizer positioned crossways to the direction on the lights. I personally use four Lowel Total 750 watt lamps (two on each side) with a 20 x 36" polarized filter on each fixture and a polarized filter on the lens. There are better lamp fixtures such as flourecent but they are pretty expesive but a great deal cooler. The lamps are positioned from 30-60 degree to the work. Most of the time mine are at 45 degrees. Looking through the lens, turn the polarized filter till you remove the glare. I process my own film so I can't comment on labs. most slide work is done with 35 mm however. For print work a good tungsten balanced fim works fine, I happen to do all of my copying with digital (I know, it's a bad word here.)

[Henry Ambrose]

What will you do with the film after its shot?

For consistent results don't use daylight. The color temperature varies a lot and you'll be hard pressed to get repeatable color. Its probably impossible.

I don't think polarizers will be needed for your non-reflective watercolors. Maybe a gel for color correction but you won't know about that until you've tried out your set up.

If I'm imagining your alcove correctly, I'm seeing a small white room. Can you set up the camera and flash -in- the alcove with the subject in the doorway or opening and frame the subject as needed? Or do you have such a small room that is painted white and from which you can mostly exclude all other light? Cover the floor in front of the art with something white.

What you're doing is putting your camera and the light source inside a big white light box with the subject at one end. The subject is at the open end or doorway so that in a practical sense the only light entering the lens is that which is reflected off the painting. The light that is hitting the subject is bounced all around the small room and will be quite even and diffuse. Behind or beside the camera is fine and pointed up.

For exposure, use your meter and see what it says. I'm guessing that you may only be getting f8 with this set up, maybe less. With a good square set up of camera and subject you don't need to stop down more than that if your lens is good at that aperture. I don't know about your lens but I'd maybe try to get to f11 or 16.

To get enough light on the film leave the shutter open and pop the flash more than once. One more pop gives another stop of light on the film. So if you were at f8 with one pop you're now at f11 with two pops. Need even more? Then for each stop you will double the number of pops of the previous f stop. If you can't get what you need in four pops I would give up and go buy more lights. Not that you can't use more than this but it gets complicated and harder and harder to get right.

Assuming you can get the light you need on the film then proceed to shoot one sheet at 1/3 stop under, the second at the meter reading, then a third sheet at 1/3 stop over. You'll do this with the aperture lever as your shutter speed is now effectively set by the flash duration.

Process those three sheets and see what you did! If its good then using the exact same set up next time will be good again. If the color is a bit off then you get to research which gel filter will fix it for you.

Things that complicate this might be; different size paintings and the resultant change in exposure from varying extension of the camera, inconsistent flash output, big changes in the subject tones, recycle time of the flash and your ability to open the shutter, popping the right number of pops while letting the flash recycle fully each time and then closing the shutter, other changes in your set up distances and where the flash is aimed.

Fuji Astia seems a good choice of film.

Wow! That took a lot of words. But it is easier than it sounds and you don't have to buy any more equipment.

[Greg Lockrey]

Depending on the brand and quality of the watercolor, there is a reflection to it. I highly recommend using cross polarization if you want accurate reproductions. I do this for a living and I see a lot of watercolors come through my studio. And I'm a watercolor painter myself. Yes you can get by without it. But you said that you wanted accurate copies. Get a copy of "Copying and Duplicating Photographic and Digital Imaging Techniques" it's put out by Kodak and can be found in most good photo stores.

[Henry Ambrose]

Hey Greg,

I'm not trying to contradict what you suggest. I was offering a possibility for Jonathon to get started without buying anything. Which may not be what he's asked for but it seems reasonable to use whats on hand.

It might be that the smartest thing would be for him to pay someone to do this unless he's going to do a lot of it and can justify the expenses of building a great set up like what you use.

[Greg Lockrey]

Hey Henry...I know your not. It sounded like to me that he was interested in getting into it himself. After thiry plus years playing with numerous techniques, I thought I would share what actually works most of the time. Now if this turns out to be more than he bargained for, the he should go to a pro. That's why we are here.

[Jonathan Rice]

Thanks to both of you for your really helpful suggestions. I think the differences in your advice give me useful choices. I do get some of my paintings professionally shot for reproduction but I have come to a point in my career where I need to keep a LF transparency of everything, which would be very expensive. Hence my interest in setting up a dedicated 'alcove' in my own studio. Predictable colour results are important to me.

Few of my watercolors have any reflective areas within them, though occasionally I do get an area in which the medium has pooled as it has dried off, leaving a small patch of reflection where the gum arabic has been concentrated. Such exceptions would pose a problem, as would an oil painting or painting with sheen. Maybe one in five of my paintings would present this problem. But as I say, the majority are perfectly matt.

Seeing as I am a newbie to the LF camera its self and have some considerable learning to do just handling camera and film I may well start by trying Henry's suggestions. I'll also buy the book you recommnded Greg and may very well end up investing in the polarisers and extra flash units. In the meantime I'll hedge my bets by handing any awkward paintings to the professional photo-lab.

So you've both helped me a lot! Thanks.

[John Curran]

I'm definitely going to get the transparencies developed by a professional lab. Do they accept 5x4 transparency film for processing from conventional film holders or Graphmatic holders? (This will show my ignorance, but) do you hand over the exposed film still in the holders of do you extract film before you hand it over to them?

Jonathan,

Not sure were you live. I send my 4x5 trannies to AandI photo in Hollywood. I remove the film from the holders and repack them in the original 3 fold box (and wrapper) that the film comes in, tape it up and mail it off. You can request that the lab return the empty box to you for future shipments.

Hope this is of help

John

[Jonathan Rice]

John,

Thanks a lot for that. You have answered one of my questions in that I see you remove the film and place it safely in a dark box. I'll probably do that too. I live in England (UK) in fact but am lucky because I happen to have a very good processing lab within walking distance of my home.


Jonathan.

[Ed Richards]

Stick a grey card, or, better, a Gretag color checker, in the first shot of a series or in the corner if you are only doing one. Then you can correct the color when printing or scanning, and minimize the issues of color temperature for the lights.