Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Birdsong

Dan, I Could Use Some Help

10 posts in this topic

I remember you posted some of your watercolor work a while ago. I need to send a high-res digital photo of a wildlife oil to the man who took the photo. It shouldn't be that hard! I am not getting enough shutter speed but trying to avoid direct sunlight, getting a little glare, and washing out some detail. I only have the flash that is with the camera--no fancy beamers, bouncers or what-have-yous. Did you use an easel, hang on a wall so it is flat? I have tried inside and out. Any suggestions? Also, did you trim your photos (digitally) to the border of the art work, or leave some background? If so, do you try to do a narrow depth of field? Guess I can do a search to find your posts for the answer to that one. Thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I'm not Dan, but I photographed some paintings not long ago. I tried doing it in a dark area and using studio lights and all that jazz. I finally ended up taping it up on a wall in indirect sunlight. You want to get your camera square and level and use an aperture around f8 or f11 to make sure that even if you're not perfectly level you'll get everything in focus. Use a tripod if you have one. This way, you can use a low ISO to prevent noise and a slow shutter if necessary. I shot plenty loose so I could crop it to the edge of the print. I didn't leave any border on mine.

I used this process and had good luck with. Good luck to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sarah,

Oil paintings can be a bit tricky because of the shiny surface. I would recommend shooting this outdoors on a bright sunny day. Try and set up your painting so it is not in direct sunlight but use the northern blue sky so it is directly behind you and shining back toward the painting. Since you will be outside if you have an easel that would be good but most anything to hold the painting will work, it will not be showing in your finished photo at any rate. You can also use a white foam core board to help reflect some additional light back on the painting but be careful you don't introduce any glare.You will get a more accurate color rendition shooting outdoors as well.

I prefer to trim the shot so that only the border of the artwork is left. Shooting from a tripod is a good idea in order to keep the camera as perpendicular to the painting as you can. You could also shoot at a slight angle to eliminate any glare and just correct that in your post processing. Just shoot wide enough to allow for the cropping if you do that. F8 is plenty of aperture, DOF should not be a big issue. Outside ISO 100 or 200 should maintain a good shutter speed and since you are on a tripod shake should not be a problem.

Hope that helps, I'm sure you will get a good shot of your painting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, both of you. I will give it another try tomorrow. I do have a borrowed tripod which is pretty featherweight, but should work in backyard conditions. I don't have a remote as yet. I will see if I can get one at our local photo shop. This gives me a better idea on how to go about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sarah, I've shot artwork to be reproduced in books the same way Dan does it, essentially. I generally do it indoors with indirect window light, but otherwise it is the same.

If you don't have a remote shutter release, simply use the camera's self timer.

Good luck! smilesmile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, never thought of the timer. Especially since this is one bird that won't be flying away. Excellent. Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here I am being a pest again--is there any rule of thumb for sharpening in pp?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is kind of a loaded question. It really depends on the many factors, sharpening out of the camera, file size, subject matter, etc. One thing you can do is be sure you do your sharpening on a duplicate layer. Then just adjust the opacity of that layer until you get the look you are after.

I use the following settings which are right from Scott Kelby's excellent books on Photoshop. I created a word document that I keep handy to use as a reference if I need.

Sharpening Settings

Soft subject – 150/1/10

Portraits – 75/2/3

Moderate – 120/1/3

Maximum – 65/4/3

Most used – 85/1/4

Web – 200/.3/0

Luminosity Sharpen

Apply normal sharpening

Edit>Fade Unsharp Mask

Adjust the opacity to suit

Change the Fade dialog to Luminosity

Sharpen with mask

Sharpen

Ctrl-J on this layer run the unsharp mask again.

Layers panel press and hold Alt and add Layer Mask.

B for brush tool soft edge foreground set to white to paint in more detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a wonderful reply! I should have made myself a little clearer. I am wondering about sharpening for a painting. I won't waste the time you put in, I'll print and file in my photog file. The photographer who consented to my using his photo wants a "high resolution" picture. I finally have a picture to send him. Every time I tried before, I would find something I needed to back and work on with the oils. Drove myself crazy! Now I need to be done before I absolutely hate the thing. But I notice sharpening effects the evident brush strokes. I have the Kelsey. Next time I should remember to look at it before I bug you! Thanks so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sarah,

I am guessing a lot of fine detail in the photo of the painting so the luminosity method of sharpening and sharpening on a layer so you can adjust the exact amount you want to apply should work. It could be you do not need to apply any sharpening at all. I would really start with just a small amount and go from there. And no need to worry about asking, that is what these forums are made for!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    • Dave, if this many folks are not understanding the question, than maybe the question is unclear.  So rather then rant about it perhaps try rephrasing it.
    •     I believe you said it was "libertarian" drivel, actually, so you dismissed it out of hand...          
    •   You posted about neither.     But if you would read the article, my commentary and TJ's commentary you would know that's not really what the article is about.     You have to be kidding, right? Just about everyone who has an opinion on politics at all is this sort of person. Do you look at social media at all?
    •     Ok, now getting back to whether Trump will win the War on Drugs, do you think he will take any steps at all to decriminalize drugs, such as reclassifying marijuana, and recognizing state laws and programs designed to move towards the decriminalization of drugs?   Or do you think he will take steps to protect vested interests, such as prisons and the pharmaceutical. industry?   Just going off his rhetoric and his choice for a drug czar, I'm guessing he much prefers the latter, and will end up spending a bunch of taxpayer's money, and actually lose ground by continuing on with the brute force/criminalization approach.        
    • Because at the time, I don't have anything better to do.   I posted about the article, and you wanted to talk about the topic.  I posted about the topic and you want to discuss the article.    Which is it?     I support a particular candidate because their positions, taken as a whole, are preferable to me as compared to the other candidate(s).   In a few years I get to do it over.     I don't think there are really that many ardent "rah rah for my party" type folks out there, in spite of what we see on TV, or the occasional people we meet.     So the article is basically drivel, as I said before, based on a false premise.   
    • Borch I just signed up Ryan, Morgan, and me but I only see my name listed in the summary. Do my kids not show up because they don't have hso usernames?  Or did I not enter it right?     Please let me know how to fix it and I'll do so.  Thanks!
    •   Because I think self reflection is good for all of us from time to time.   If you don't wan't to discuss this article, why do you persist in posting here?           No one is disputing that at all. The premise of the author's article is in regards to the hypocrisy of then justifying everything your chosen candidate or party does blindly while vilifying the other candidates or party. It's the "all in" sports like mentality that is being discussed here.  
    • There is a really excellent book called "The Righteous Mind" that approaches this tribalist mindset from an evolutionary psychology standpoint. The author, Jonathan Haidt, does a remarkable job of unpacking why people persist in truly irrational defense of the indefensible - when it's their team doing the stupid stuff. I highly highly highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in lessening the hyperpartisan idiocy we have today.

      The trouble is that the closed-off mindset that lends itself to reflexive support for Obama/Hillary/Trump/whomever also tends to preclude any serious engagement in self-examination that the book is designed to provoke. Really good read, though.
    •   I get what your saying here but I think what Dave is talking about is the willingness of some to blindly follow, without question, their party or candidate. I saw this first hand during the primary with some of my own relatives, for example. I had a SIL who was a huge Bernie backer. The things she said about Hillary were worse than anything said here. As far as she was concerned, Hillary should be tarred and feathered and ran out on a rail. Then Bernie loses the nomination. She then became Hillary's biggest defender. Everything she said about her during the primary was instantly washed away. Even her own husband called her out. She wasn't simply voting for her because she found Trump worse. That's understandable. She defended or at least tried to deflect the issues with Hillary when just a few months prior, she said things that would make even Cooter or Bill say, "man you're harsh on her."   I don't think this is a new phenomenon. I also don't think it's widespread. Like everything else, access to more and diverse information just makes it possible to hear more about it than before. I think human nature causes people to internalize candidates and/.or elected officials. It's a "if you're critical of my candidate, you're critical of me," kind of thinking.   I don't fault anyone for voting for a candidate that one feels best represents their line of thinking. Or even defending their candidate from detractors. I don't think that is what Dave is talking about here. It's also the flipping of political opinions just because the candidate you voted for or support is supporting certain positions. For example, many conservatives opposed BHO's stimulus, including myself. It didn't work  as promised and we just added more on to the debt. So on the campaign trail, Trump also spoke of a stimulus plan that was even more expensive than BHO's and  those same people not only supported it but are justifying it. In summary, one can vote for a candidate without defending everything that person does        
  • Our Sponsors