What lens is best for slides of artwork?

terrafirmanada

terrafirmanada

Well-known
Local time
12:22 PM
Joined
Jun 8, 2005
Messages
342
I am looking for a lens which will be good for taking pictures of my paintings. I Only have a Canon 35 2.8 and 40 Cron. The 40 would probably be good, but since I have an M3 it seems silly to not use the 50 framelines. I am leaning toward the DR, but I would love to hear from people who might have experience first.
I currently shoot everything with my Canon F1, and have good results. I am also interested in other tips people have. i.e. How far should I stop down? I always use a tripod and cable. I appreciate any insight. Thanks Leica Gurus
 
not a guru

not a guru

Hello:

No Guru but I might suggest a good example of the 50mm (f3.5, f2.8) Elmar used or even new. Sharp and with a flat field it may outperform a DR (unless you need add close up ability).

yours
Frank

PS Others may be able to comment on CV 50s. I've suggested the Elmar because of field curvature for Summicrons-I've a DR which I consider impeccable otherwise.

PS2 Try f8-11.
 
Last edited:
I find a longer lens is better to flatten the perspective and keep the frame in line, roughly speaking a 75mm or longer although you can get good results from a 50. I've not used an RF to do this though.
 
I would go for a 75 or 90 to give a more comfortable working distance if you were to light the pictures. They would also give a tighter cropped picture on smaller work. To be honest though an SLR would really be a far better choice for this kind of work again with a short tele. These days an MF nikon with a standard or 105/2.5 lens should be dirt cheap and much better to use for this type of work. It would also be useful for close up work to compliment your RF's
 
Fred said:
...I've not used an RF to do this though.
Click to expand...

Will the pictures be destined for formal portfolio submission, publication, or advertising purposes? (Do they need to look like Sotheby's catalogue shots?) If so, I'll go further and state that, if I had access to a reflex camera and a decent normal lens, I would deliberately avoid using a rangefinder for this kind of work. I would want to see any possible edge distortion and lighting inconsistencies exactly as the film would see them, as well as getting my framing square and centered. That's SLR territory. Or view-camera work, for that matter.

As far as stopping down goes, with good lighting and shooting from a tripod, you can simply stop down as much as you need to to keep your lens within its "happy aperture range". Cable release is mandatory, as you've surmised, and I've also learned to appreciate a rock-steady floor and support for the artwork. (An air force studio I briefly worked in had lovely smooth concrete floors, and monstrous steel photo-repro tables and racks to hang stuff up on. They did everything from officer portraits to instruction manual pictures to recce photo printing. Their principal repro stand had a worn old Nikon F with a 50mm micro lens more or less in permanent residence. )
 
So, maybe the SLR setup I have been using is the best tool for the job. I was thinking that my slides could be superior with Leica glass.
I have not thought about using a longer lens before. My paintings do range in size considerably. I have had frame line issues with framing with larger works.
I do submit work to gelleries, so it needs to be as close to pro quality as my budget permits.
 
Choosing a method of capture may only be the start. The real difficult bit will be the lighting, this can be hard if the paintings are mounted behind glass.
 
terrafirmanada said:
I do submit work to gelleries, so it needs to be as close to pro quality as my budget permits.
Click to expand...

Okay. I've had no formal training for reprophotography, but a local camera shop/studio owner and professional industrial photographer once gave me a crash course. I've since done a few paintings for some friends. I've also had to shoot some large flat signs and book covers to sell on eBay, and I'm damned fussy. Here's what I've learned really works, and you might not need to spend any money on gridded focusing screens, either:

You will need a carpenter's level, a tape measure, and a patient assistant.


EVERYTHING MUST BE SQUARE AND LEVEL. If you are hanging the painting vertically to shoot it, put a carpenter's spirit level across the lens filter ring and make sure it's straight up and down too. (If the painting is small enough to shoot on the floor or tabletop, use the level to make the lens parallel to the painting, in both axes.)

EVERYTHING MUST BE CENTERED. With a tape measure, find the exact center of of the painting. Put a small piece of masking tape or some other non-damaging marker right there. Now, using the tripod mast, raise the previously plumbed camera until the view through the lens is centered. The center-spot in the viewfinder focusing screen should be dead-on the marker you put on the painting.

LOOK THROUGH THE VIEWFINDER AND CHECK FOR PARALLELISM OF THE TOP AND BOTTOM EDGES OF THE PAINTING. This will show you if the lens is square to painting side-to-side. If the top and bottom visibly converge, you must rotate the camera and then re-center the tripod. Several corrections may be required. Be patient. (This is where a gridded focusing screen pays for itself. My digital camera has one, and it makes eBay work so easy.)

NOW (AND ONLY NOW) BALANCE YOUR LIGHTING. If necessary, get the measuring tape out again, and install your lights at the same distances and angles from the painting. A 45° angle is what repro stand lights are typically set at, and there are usually two of them, one at each end if we're talking horizontal format.

Finally, since you're shooting slides, METER OFF A GRAY CARD HELD DEAD SMACK OVER THE CENTER OF THE PAINTING. If you aren't using a gray card for repro on slides, step away from the bong and go buy one at once. Bribe an assistant with beer to stand there and hold it, if you have to. And, if the painting is very large or your lights are very weak, it may pay off to move the camera around and meter at every quarter of its length, adjusting the lights until you get tolerable variances. (A hand-held spotmeter would help here. If you don't have one, simply take the camera off the tripod without disturbing its setting, and shuffle sideways remaining the same distance from the painting while your lackey crawls along the floor holding the gray card up. (And if you can find a way to do this outdoors in a flat open area on a cloudy day with the painting facing north, you will solve 98% of your potential lighting problems.)

Are you having fun yet? No you're not, dammit, because this is not fine art photography, this is technical photography of fine art, meaning it's boring old work. But squareness and plumbness and well-balanced lighting will pay for your time.
 
Biggles,

Thanks a lot for your post! Most instructive and illuminating! If I ever have to do this, I'll keep it in mind.
 
I don't know whether you're going to be duplicating slides of artwork, or will be shooting artwork on slide film. If you're going to be duplicating, I don't think an M3 setup is a good idea.

If you're going to be taking pictures on slides of artwork, I would advice against using a rangefinder setup, for the framing may not be as accurate as you would expect. Is this artwork flat, or is it of objects? If it's flat you may want to use a duplicating table, and use an SLR.

If you have no options, I think the Summicron DR may be your best bet; using a telephoto may be conducive to camera-shake-induced blur/lack of sharpness.

For slides, use neutral tone film, like Provia 100F. If you're using artificial light, then use a flash, don't use household lightbulbs, otherwise there will be a yellow cast in your slides.

OK, this is perhaps way more info than what you were asking for, and I'm being very high-level. I hope this helps.

(oh, and what Biggles said, I missed his post)
 
Hey thanks everyone for the great advice. Biggles- I never thought to measure for center- great idea. I almost always shoot these outdoors in front of black velvet. I do have a grey card (made that mistake one time). I guess I was looking for an excuse to buy a DR, but a collapsible is probably more convienent anywho.
What does the F stand for on the Provia (Fuji??)? I have used that film, but never noticed the F. Just wondering.
 
I shoot my wife's jewelry all the time, but I usually use my Nikon FE SLR with a Sigma 24-70mm lens. Wish I had something along the lines of a 105mm prime, though. Frankly, I think the SLR is better for this type of work than an RF. Especially if said SLR has a depth-of-field indicator. (Actually, that might not be so useful for paintings, but it comes in real handy for 3D artwork.)
 
I just gave this demonstration yesterday to a class of university art students- lighting, film, lens, etc...
I've used 50 summicron's on both m and r systems, with good results. My favorite is the 60 Elmarit Macro on a R body, and of course for works smaller than 18"x24" the Leitz Reprovit is just downright fun to use.
Do avoid zoom and wide angle lenses. Even lighting, corner to corner is critical, as well as careful framing.
PM me if you'd like a set of my notes.
 
terrafirmanada said:
I am looking for a lens which will be good for taking pictures of my paintings. I Only have a Canon 35 2.8 and 40 Cron. The 40 would probably be good, but since I have an M3 it seems silly to not use the 50 framelines. I am leaning toward the DR, but I would love to hear from people who might have experience first.
I currently shoot everything with my Canon F1, and have good results. I am also interested in other tips people have. i.e. How far should I stop down? I always use a tripod and cable. I appreciate any insight. Thanks Leica Gurus
Click to expand...


Hmmm, I've only ever shot this kind of this with a view camera on a rail, if you want perfect reproduction the best way is to use two very diffused flashes on equal intesity at 45 degree angles from the subject, and make sure your camera is dead in the center of the painting, or failing that make sure the painting is dead straight using tilt/shift. I'd hesitate to try and reproduce artwork without some kind of t/s system ;)
 
This may be a less obvious thing, but if it's your artwork you want reproduced, you'll want to reproduce the colors and contrast as accurately as possible. So, you need to use a very neutral film -- Provia was suggested as one such; I think Reala would also be good print film choice. (Slide film is probably best for true reproduction of colors.)

You also need to pay attention to the characteristics of the lens itself, and this is where things can get tricky. Some lenses (and entire brands of lenses) exhibit certain characteristics, or at least that's the received wisdom. For instance, Nikkor lenses were known for being a little "cool" in their reproduction of colors; Zuikos were regarded as higher contrast (so you might lose some subtle color gradations). How true these generalizations are, I really don't know. But you're talking about a very exacting task here.

You'll also want to use lenses with as little distortion as possible -- I'm referring to barrel and pincushion distortion here. You want a lens that will reproduce a square as a square! To that end, I think a macro lens probably will do the job best.
 
the longest, most distortion free, sharpest, more contrasty lens you have. 50mm is OK, but not as ideal as an 85mm would be. Or a 100. The longer the lens, the less distortion (for the most part). Of course too long is too long. I would choose the 85mm-100 mm range with nice fast aperture. When shooting something like that, I used an 85mm F1.4 on my D70. I think it was 1.4. No matter, not an RF anyway. The format does not matter though. Longer is better when you want totally accurate representation of the work. 85-150mm. Don't try anything shorter than 50mm.
 
If it paintings or drawings you're taking pictures of, I'd take an SLR (your F1)with a fixed focal length macro lens for flat field performance. Scourge the *Bay for one preferably somewhere between 50 to 100 mm. Off-brand or not, cheap or not, macro lenses are good performers for reproduction with high resolution.

I'd stop down to somewhere around f8 on a 50, f11 on a 100. Stop down further and the image degrades because of diffraction (gets soft). Stop down less and the imperfections of the lens start to stand out.

Light with two flashes aimed at 45degs from the sides through softboxes (could be made of cardboard boxes with transparancy paper) to diffuse the light and make the light sources larger. Rig a lenshood to avoid the flash spilling into the lens directly.
 
The best lens I have ever used for this sort of thing is the 100mm APO Macro Elmarit R. Perfectly flat field, absolutely no distortion, the best sharpness you can get in 35mm. It does not get any better. If you have a Canon F1, I would say use that. An SLR is much better for this sort of thing than a rangefinder, particularly if you are doing it on a regular basis. The 50mm, 100mm and 200mm macro lenses in the FD system are all quite good and should be obtainable for a modest investment.
 
I have been shooting slides for myself and a friend of mine that is a proffesional artist.. 50mm lens is the lens of choice in art slides... at around f8..very controled light so not to change the colors of the painting.. also if it is heavily varnished watch out for light reflections.. if so move your lights more towards the wall.. open them up alittle.. and use a black back ground...
 
Thanks for all this great advice. I appreciate the detail and thought in all of your answers. Many of you have explained why I have had some less than perfect results in the past. I am going to try the films suggested. Any more thoughts and insights would be appreciated as well. -Thomas
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom