|
Shooting paintings
Chris,
I have a 8x10 camera that I have been using for 15 years to archive my paintings. But, I don't anymore. I use the D100 for that too. I am published by Millpond Press and they are now using my digital captures to produce high end limited editions of my work. It is amazing how much better the reprodutions are, too.
Here is the biggest selling point though: For years, we have been sending in transparencies to printers and have been at their mercy once it gets in their hands. Now, I control much more than ever before. I can retouch any problems that I could not take care of in the photography end of things, such as pinpoint highlights and dust. I set up the color management on my computer to match the printer's and I can see what they are going to see. I also, and this is important, send a sample print with the disc so that the printer has a standard to judge if he is on the same page as I am. This is important with transparencies or digital.
All my articles and catalogs are printed from my digital captures as well. I have never been satisfied with my reproductions from transparencies anyways. I shoot with color bars and the whole nine yards that I have learned from museums and yet I am still at the mercy of printers that don't pay attention to them.
When I work from my photos, I blow them up at a minimum of 19" X 13". Most of the time I size up my photo to 19" X 28". The resolution is wonderful.
On the color end, it's unmatched. I shoot under northlight and the digital captures I get pick up every cool and warm beautifully. Better than any film I have ever shot. My Epson 1270 prints those shots perfectly too. Anyone that thinks that working from slides is the best way should really look into it. A digital CCD can pick up way more information than film can in the darks.
What I often do in cases of extreme bright light is shoot and set my exposure for the lights(just like shooting slide film). Then in Photoshop, lighten the shot and create a light exposure of the same shot. I then use a handy Photoshop action from Fred Miranda that combines both exposures. You can't believe the amazing landscape shots you can get this way. It's not as hard as it may sound either. Some may say that they don't want to have to learn too much about photography and digiital darkroom, but I think that's crazy. That's like saying you don't want to take time to get good models or you don't want to learn too much about good composition.
I don't think any artist should settle for "good enough". That's the biggest problem I encounter with students and professionals that come to my workshops. They want me to critique their paintings they bring in but I can't get past the reference that they thought was "good enough".
If I am about to spend days and weeks on a painting, you can be sure that I am "thrilled" with my reference first. Just as thrilled as when I pose models and work from life. Often I have people tell me that the reference is just a stepping off point and doesn't have to be all that great since they are going to "improve " it anyways and "change" it. The problem with that is that I very seldom see the improvement. I usually just see someone who didn't take the time to gather good information for the painting. My teacher always taught us to pick models, lighting and reference that paint themselves.
Painting is hard enough all on its own without adding more problems that you can avoid.
Morgan
p.s. Notice how her hands are perfectly exposed and yet her head is in shadow and yet not devoid of detail and light. If this was shot with film, either her hands would be exposed correctly and her head would go black or her head would be exposed correctly and her hands would be blown out to white.
You all know I mean.
|