flat art - getting it right in the camera

Hi all.

Looking for some technical advice for shooting flat art. I'm not concerned with lighting or reflections (that part is working for me).

What I find extremely challenging is how to ensure that the camera is perfectly centered and square to the art piece.

No matter how carefully I eyeball things (which probably is part of the problem) the results are such that the artwork just isn't square by the time the image is in Photoshop.

I then use the various Transform menus in PS to get the artwork back to square. However, by doing that, I easily can distort or destroy the aspect ratio of the original piece I was shooting, since there's no frame of reference to work against.

Would love suggestions on how to get this portion right. Of course, it may need a really cool laser-based leveling device to measure the distance to all the corners of the flat art - but even then how do you guarantee the camera's imager (or film plane in olden days) is perfectly parallel to the artwork?

Thanks as always!

somewhere I once saw how to make a little tool that helps you get your camera squared to the artwork. If I remember correctly, it involved a tube (like a papertowel tube) holding it up flat against the center of the artwork and using parallax to square off your camera.

Jerry

from my old days with film, I can tell that even the 4/5' haven't been all the time really perfectly squared.
Now, with a DSLR, it's even harder to figure it our through the smaller viewfinder.

Therefore with 3 small lasers, one for setting up the center axis; the two others for marking the image's position, when exchanging them, it works quite fine. The cam is levelled with a precision level; but still, I'v to correct a tiny bit in PS later.

You might notice, that most of the canvas aren't perfectly squared either. Our eyes tend to °cheat°, but the cam will record these irregularities as well.

So sorry, no perfect solution for that.

I've had the best results from a Nikon 85 mm f 1.8 lens. Maybe it's the fixed focal length, but it gets a straight frame. I can never get a straight from with my Nikon 17-35 F 2.8.

Good luck.

D

try a google for "Zig-Align"

I was once advised to place a small mirror in the measured center of the art, and when you could see the camera lens reflected in it perfectly, the camera was both centered, and perpendicular (to the mirror).

I suppose this probably won't work well with paintings with any substantial texture, or if you need to shoot them on the wall.

doug anderson said:

I've had the best results from a Nikon 85 mm f 1.8 lens. Maybe it's the fixed focal length, but it gets a straight frame. I can never get a straight from with my Nikon 17-35 F 2.8.

Good luck.

D

Click to expand...

yes doug

reproductions are best done with a good tele; I use the 100 mm macro, which is excellent, but never a wide or even UW.

Charles;
>I suppose this probably won't work well with paintings with any substantial texture<

Museum and collectors handle the art works with white gloves - so I do when working for them.

Michael Fontana said:

yes doug

reproductions are best done with a good tele; I use the 100 mm macro, which is excellent, but never a wide or even UW.

Charles;
>I suppose this probably won't work well with paintings with any substantial texture<

Museum and collectors handle the art works with white gloves - so I do when working for them.

Click to expand...

I was refering to the difficulty of getting a mirror to lay flat on a textured surface, not the need to touch the surface. I wear white cotton gloves even when handling my own prints before they are mounted and framed.

<Chas>

I've had good luck with the mirror technique... even when you don't get it perfect, it's a lot better than trying to eyeball it. And a geared head like the Manfrotto 410 makes the adjustments a lot easier than the trial and error of a ballhead. (And don't let the "Junior" fool you — it'll hold a medium format rig.)

Nill

all - Thank you for your input.

Hadn't heard of using mirrors, but makes a lot of sense, even if to try and get in the zone. Nill - I already use that head, and love it!

The hard part - trying to utilize this approach, and still get the images shot in a reasonable time frame. For example, have a client with a lot of art in their location (the art is complimentary to their business as a world-class spa). They want photos of the art pieces for their website, and hope to have these all shot in one day.

While I think they're OK with moving all the flat art to a single location, so we can attempt a production-line shoot, it's still a time-consuming process for each piece to get set up (I'm guessing). Maybe setting up a mirror just won't add that much to the overall time of the session - hard to predict til I get there.

And to the one comment - yes! many times square art isn't square...

Regardless - great suggestions, and very appreciated!

On my second question - if you're having to get things back to square in PS - does anyone have a suggestion besides ensuring you know the dimensions of the art work for each piece prior to the PS work, to keep the aspect ratio correct?

Thanks again!

Jerry Levin said:

..........
On my second question - if you're having to get things back to square in PS - does anyone have a suggestion besides ensuring you know the dimensions of the art work for each piece prior to the PS work, to keep the aspect ratio correct?
Thanks again!

Click to expand...

In my experience, if you' ve a solid setup, the corrections shouldn't be that big. So the aspect ratio will not change really.

If you've art work in the same size/aspect ratio and you manage to hang them precisly - that's why I use the 2 mini-lasers - you even can script - and batch-apply the correction in PS.

For drawings, I use a °sucking wall° which means a metal plate with plenty of small holes in it and a fan behind. It keeps the drawings straight, even they have little waves, due to the nature of paper.

For production work I just put the pieces on the floor. That way once the setup is good you can just replace the pieces and keep shooting.

Nill

The place to start is with a good leveling device, level the tripod and level camera. Use as long lens as possible. Place the camera in the center of the artwork. The other tool to have is a portrait / landscape L bracket from Kirk so that if you have to shoot a series of vertical horizontal pieces you don't have to change the lens center...

Even in the bests of circumstances Photoshop is a good post production tool to square things. I thing that if you develop a procedure with the SKEW tool you can maintain proportions...

Is is same with Perspective Control: It feels too easy to be good for you, and also seams as if you are cheating, but I have seen clients look at the end result --of PC-- and say things like: "I like that...", so I suppose a combination of good capture procedures with some digital corrections would probably be the way to go...

leonardobarreto.com said:

The place to start is with a good leveling device, level the tripod and level camera. Use as long lens as possible. Place the camera in the center of the artwork. The other tool to have is a portrait / landscape L bracket from Kirk so that if you have to shoot a series of vertical horizontal pieces you don't have to change the lens center...

Click to expand...

That gets the picture square. Have the center of the lens exacty opposite the center of the picture if possible. If you do have to shoot at an angle, still make sure you are shooting on a line going through the center of the picture. Then you can correct in photoshop.

To achieve this, we need numbers to correct foreshortening. Measure the sides of the frame exactly. Then in photoshop make sure the ratio of the pixels match. Width/length = Pixels in width/Pixels in Height.

Asher