Here’s a great article by Rasmus Rasmssen (of rasmusrasmussen.com) on stock photography. I feel like all to often people get so caught up in the technical aspects of stock (where to submit, how to keyword etc…) that they forget about the creative/aesthetic side. This article does a fantastic job of analyzing the creative aspects of making a good stock image. Take a look!
Aug 092007
Aug 022007
Photography is many things. It can be art, it can be a story, it can be a record. It can be ugly, beautiful, evocative, or plain.
However, to me, one of the most fascinating aspects of photography is the fact that it is a method of *direct visual communication*.
To clarify this term, I’m going to go on a pseudo-psychological tangent for a moment, bear with me!
Consider: Each and every one of us experiences reality differently. We perceive the world around us through the “filters” of our senses, and then our minds and our consciousness “process” this input into our “inner” perceptions, which becomes our unique experience of reality. Just as no two people’s fingerprints are the same, so to no two people’s perceptions are the same. One may argue the minutiae of this statement, but it is essentially a truism.
The entire idea of “communication” is to allow people to form a “common ground” by which everyone’s “reality” can be referenced. The most common way of doing this is through language – be it spoken or written. Words provide a description of one’s reality to another, in other words you can try and describe your subjective reality to someone else; however it is at best an indirect representation (ie words representing imagery).
Now consider – in contrast to this – that a photograph is essentially a direct, objective visual representation of one’s subjective experience of reality.
To explain: when one takes a picture, one is actually crystallizing their own experience into a tangible form. By the choices the photographer makes in lighting, composition, subject, and the way the picture communicates, the photographer is displaying how the world looks TO HIM (or her).
Instead of merely *describing* a visual experience, the photograph actually reproduces that visual experience to the viewer. It is almost like looking directly into the mind of another person, which is a fascinating prospect.
I believe this is the case, moreso than with any other visual art form, because a photograph is an exact replica of reality. The camera “sees” the world in much the same way that we do, and the photography is simply what it “sees”. Now of course a camera can be “tricked” and the photograph manipulated by various methods (lighting, dof, movement etc…) but so to can our own eyes be tricked. It is all part of the visual process. The camera is like a “third eye” except instead of transmitting images directly to our brain, it can transmit them to *anyone*!
The counterpart to this is the painting. Now in some ways they are similar – a painting is also a direct visual communication method, and a painting can even be “photorealistic”, much like a photograph. However, the fundamental difference with a painting is that the painting is *projective* – i.e. it is entirely dependent on the artists subjective vision, while a photograph is objective – it simply records what is there.
In this way, a painting is more about communicating the artists “inner world” to the viewier, while a photograph is more about communicating the artist’s *perception of the outer world*. It is a subtle, but meaningful difference.
As someone with a background in psychology, this is an idea that really draws me to photography. It seems to me that photography relates a lot to the “Theory of Mind” (Wikipedia link) as a way of bridging the gap between individual’s outer and inner perceptions.
In other words, to me a photograph is the ultimate declaration of: “this is the world as I see it!“
Jul 192007
Every visual artist faces a similar problem at one point or another. While they may not necessarily be a photographer, photographs are a necessity in the art world. Websites, portfolios, slide, prints – all require high quality, accurate photos of the artist’s paintings/drawings/whatever. Any artist who has just thrown up a painting on the wall and snapped it with a camera knows that getting a good image of a painting *isn’t as easy as it sounds*
but fear not! with a little know-how and a few simple tools, anyone can take a portfolio-worthy photo of their artwork!
note: I started writing this as a single-piece article, but it began getting so long that I decided to split it into 2 installments. Part 1 (this) will deal with, equipment, setup and using natural light. Part 2 will deal with studio or artificial light.
First off,
EQUIPMENT:
While photographing artwork does not require a huge amount of gear, there are a few things that are necessities if you want the best results.
- a camera (obviously!) a dslr will give you more flexibility, especially in terms of lens selection, but a point-and-shoot is usable in a pinch
- a tripod. Photographing artwork is all about maximum detail, and camera shake will destroy any fine detail. a tripod will hold the camera steady, to avoid camera shake
- polarizing filter – especially when using artificial light, a polarizer will cut down on glare and reflections from the pice – the bane of photographing artwork!
- a cable release (optional) like the tripod, this will help cut down on camera shake. if your camer does “mirror lock up” when using the 2s timer, that is an acceptable substitute (check your camera manual for “mirror lock up”)
- optional – a tripod bubble level. This will help “square up” your image. it’s not necessary, especially with the vast amount of correction tools available in photoshop etc… but it will help avoid perspective skew when photographing what is essentially a flat plane.
For the rest of the article, I will assume you are using a dslr, but the techniques are equally applicable to a P&S.
lens selection:
Selecting a lens for photographing artwork is not as straightforward as for some other applications (eg. sports = fast telepohto, street=wide angle to normal etc…) what focal length is appropriate – do you use a telepohoto and back up from the piece? do you use a wide angle and get close in?
before even deciding on focal length, let us consider the 2 main criteria (in my opinion) to look for in an “art” lens:
1. sharp throughout the frame
2. low distortion
we need a sharp lens, because no one wants their painting to look blurry on the edges, and we need low distortion since we don’t want to warp the perspective of the artwork.
To me both of those criteria point to a singly type of lens: the macro lens. Macro lenses are *known* for their sharpness and low distortion, perfect for photographing art (who said macro lenses are only useful for super-close-ups!) Now when it comes to focal length, a lot depends on the size of the art, but the standard 50mm macro (which becomes appx 75mm on a cropped slr sensor) works for most applications. I have used a 50mm macro for everything from a 2″x3″ miniature all the way up to a 6′x6′ monster piece. Just back up as needed 
now if you don’t have a dedicated macro lens, and don’t want to spend the money on one, just pick your lens with the lowest distortion and field curvature (probably a standard zoom in the middle of it’s range or prime, and stop it down until the edges are sharp throughout. If you are using a P&S, set the zoom to wherever the image is the sharpest (probably somewhere in the middle of the range) and stop the aperture down to a mid-aperture (something like f/5.6 or f/8. “Stopping down” a lens usually increases it’s performance, as few lenses are at their best at max aperture.)
Now that we’ve got our camera and gear, lets get set up!
The primary concern when photographing artwork is to eliminate/minimize glare. 2d artworks, especially paintings are essentially flat, reflective surfaces (moreso if varnished!) When light hits them they tend to just reflect it back, causing ugly “hot spots” and blown out areas in the photo. NOT conducive to good reproductions!
To avoid glare, we need “soft” light – something diffuse and indirect that will not create “hotspots” (or “specular highlights” if you want to get technical!) There are many approaches to this, and vary depending on whether you are using natural or artificial light. Both methods (natural and artificial) have pros and cons, lets examine them separately.
natural light:
The good thing about natural light is that it requires no special equipment or tools. It’s cheap and easily available. It also requires very little modification to make it nice and soft. The downside, of course is that it is not always available, and it can change rapidly – altering your exposure. Still, in terms of bang for your buck it’s hard to beat!
Now in terms of natural light, the softest light you can get (more or less) is from a northern exposure, preferably on a bright but overcast day. I *love* this light, it actually makes photographing paintings quite easy since it is so soft and even. Other artists have had good luck using natural light outside, in the shade (to avoid direct sunlight), but since I live in an apartment with a northern exposure and big windows, that’s usually the way I go!
I have also found the easiest (and most effective) way to photography small-to mid size pieces using natural light is to lay them flat on the ground, with the camera pointing straight down from above (obviously this won’t work for really big pieces, since you can’t practically get the camera high enough to get the whole thing in frame This is good for 2 reasons 1) it provides an even more diffuse light and 2)it makes sure the piece is “flat” to the camera.
set up the camera on the tripod, use the level to make sure it is straight vertical and you are ready to go. Usually aperture priority works the best – set a medium aperture for optimal lens sharpness and to ensure the whole piece is in focus. zoom to fill the frame as much as possible with the artwork (without cutting off the edges, you can crop in PP) I usually use manual focus, as autofocus often has trouble locking on to a flat artwork. Set your cable release and timer, and you are good to go!
but wait! there is one more consideration before you begin snapping away – Assuming you are photographing something other than monochrome charcoal drawings, color balance is an issue. We need to make sure the white balance on the camera is set correctly, else there will be ugly color casts on the final product. Now you may rely on the camera’s auto setting for “daylight” or “shade” but for best results, it is good to set the white balance manually. There are 2 ways to do this:
1. if you camera has a “custom white balance” setting, turn it on. Put an 18% grey card (or a plain white piece of paper) in place of your artwork and photograph it using the same setup and lighting that you will use for the final piece. This will give the camera a “reference” point to base WB on for the rest of the shoot. Note: if you are using rapidly changing natural light, you may need to do this more than once, and option 2 might be better:
2. if you are shooting raw (and/or your camera does not have an custom-wb feature) simply include the edge of a greycard or pice of paper in the actual frame when you photograph the artwork (it is unlikely that the piece will fill up the entire frame of the camera). that way you can use your post-processors white balance feature to select the grey/white area of the picture and base white balance off that.
So now we’re set up, got our artwork flat and framed, got our natural diffuse light, set our white balance, focus, zoom. now grab your cable release and click away! Presto – professional quality slide results in your own home
Personally I like natural light, and If I’m not in a rush to get my work repro’ed, I’ll save up a bunch of pieces waiting for a good day and photograph them all together. However, sometimes using natural light is just not an option (slide deadline, or at night or whatever), in which case we must resort to using artifical light which will be covered in part 2 of this article.
Click here for part 2 – using artificial light!
CLICK HERE to subscribe to the RSS feed to get the next installment as soon as it is published!
Jul 052007
Got a couple of decent shots. Next year (if still in Philly!) I am thinking of setting up along kelly drive, across the river from the waterworks, and trying to catch the fireworks reflections in the water, with the waterworks in the background.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Jun 152007
having a discussion over at George Barr’s “Behind the Lens” got me thinking about the creative process, and more specifically – artistic “ruts”.We’ve all had ‘em. we want to work, we want to
create, but the “juices” just aren’t there. we have no ideas, no inspiration, no muse. I hate ruts- HATE ‘em
Unfortunately they are a fact of life as an artist, so the only question that remains is what do we do about them? A lot of the solutions essential come down to “creativity exercises” – artistic tasks that try and force you to stretch the bounds of creativity and work outside your comfort zone. I gave the example I once had of an assignment that was basically “shut yourself in the bathroom (or other small space) and take 50 pictures without “duplicates”". the point was to force you to run out of “easy” or obvious shots, so that you would be forced to think about and look at thing differently to photograph.
Seems that some folks like the idea of this kind of “creative exercise”, while some think it is not worth as much, since it is not really applicable to “actual” art or shooting (eg, who goes to shoot 2 rolls of film in a bathroom)
honestly I can see both sides of the argument, especially since everyone’s mind is different, especially when it comes to creative things, so what works for one might be useless for another. that said, I just put down some random thoughts on why I like “creativity exercises” and in my opinion, how the *are* relevant to actual artwork.
1. “Creativity” is kind of a nebulous concept, I think maybe what we are talking about here is more “artistic vision”
Art – at least to me (without getting into the whole “what is art” debate) is the projection of the artist’s subjective experience of reality
(how’s that for psychobabble!)
in other words: we all experience our own existence and the reality around us through the “lens” (heh) of both our senses/perceptions (modalities) *and* our cognitions (frames). Everyone has a tendency toward particular modalities and frames, unique to them -hence phrases like “oh he is a very *visual* person – referring to a primary visual modality. Personally I am a primarily Kinesthetic, secondarily visual (maybe somewhat unusual for a visual artist?) but whatever… Now I believe that these frames & modes are partly innate, but are also largely formed over time by our experiences, personalities, and sense of identity. This unique “vision” is what shapes an artist’s work. Give 10 artists a subject to reproduce, and you will get 10 totally different works of art, even if they are all working in the same medium/style – why? because each artists subjective experience of the subject is different (bear with me there is a point to all of this!)
Anyway – the point is, these “frames” can *definitely* be learned/practiced/refined. A common technique in many cognitive therapies is “reframing” the subjects perceptions – making them “see thing differently” as it were, and there are certainly established techniques for this. So too, in art, one can “reframe” one’s artistic vision. Of course, this has a “ripple effect” – reframing in one aspect affects perception in other ways. this, I believe is the point of the so called “irrelevant exercises” – to provide some “reframing” to the artists vision, that will ripple through into their primary frames, expanding and changing them in the process.
2. the exercise analogy is a good one.
there is a great deal of evidence that the mind can be exercised, just like a muscle and responds similarly by growing and adapting. (note: this is not talking about intelligence per-se, but about cognition and though processes) – a further “exercise” analogy – when I was in college, I cycled for the schools mountain bike racing team. we did a lot of cross training, including weight lifting and running, why? because cycling had a particualar set of muscles/motions that were used primarily. running actually uses the muscles and body kinesthtics very differently. the end result was that running strengthened the muscles and kinesthetics that were somewhat overlooked in cycling, and in the end improved the cycling, “shoring up it’s weaknesses” so to speak. So too with the mind, it can be argued that “cross training” by using different cognitive frames will carry over into improvement in the primaries.
3. I think the criticism of this kind of exercise (bathroom photography, bus portraiture) is that these things are “not relevant” to the “actual” work – however I think this misses the point. Of course the *technique* is not relevant – no one actually takes portraits on a bus (well maybe someone, but…) the point is that these things are ways of breaking and reframing ones artistic perceptions, which will hopefully affect ones vision when one *does* return to the actual work.
4. I think the point also has to be made that we need to differentiate between a “technical” exerecie and a “creative” exercise. For a exercise to refine technique, I believe the best subject is something intimately familiar that the artist it totally comfortable with – why? so he can concentrate on the technical aspects, wihout having to think about creativity or subject matter. in a creativity exercise, the exact opposite is true. one *should* be uncomfortable, as it means that one is “pushing the envelope” of vision – working outside one’s frame, and that will translate to an expanded vision even within one’s “comfort zone” (and in the end will hopefully provide a greater comfort zone overall!).
Recent Comments