Photographing framing

Create a Post
Framerguy

Framerguy

PFG, Picture Framing God
Joined
Apr 12, 2001
Posts
7,261
Loc
Destin, Florida
I am wondering what the best method is to photograph those knockout framing jobs??

I have had limited luck with both 35mm and digital indoors because of the limited available lighting. Once your flash goes off there is the inevitable flash reflection in the glass. And when I take pictures without the glass, slip everything into the frame minus the glass and shoot, it looks like there is no glass and I don't care for the "almost finished" look I get that way.

My best shots have been outdoors on an easel with the angle of shooting such that there is no reflection of me and there is no need for flash. But, many times, I get a "skewed" view of the frame package because of the angle of shooting. The frame looks like those that Marc built for his "fish tank" framing.

I was hoping that some of you professional photographers would shed some light on how to handle this problem inside without the use of flood lights and a studio setup.

Framerguy
 
There's a few ways around this one. You can go indoors with a tripod and a longer exposure time, shoot outdoors at an angle and then fix the picture with photoshop, or use floodlights placed at such an angle that they light the subject without reflecting off the glass. Barring that, there's always Anti-reflective glass (not non-glare)
 
There are a few things you need to know. What is the final use of that picture you are taking? Is it to be shown on the screen (sent by e-mail, posted in a web page)? Then go digital. If you mean to send hard/paper copies over the mail, you go either digital and have the image printed on your desktop printer, or with regular 35mm camera.
Frames are photographic items of very high reflectivity. That is to say that you need no flash at all. Moreover, even dim light is good enough to give you impressive results. The art is in the lighting. Too frontal (like a flash) light will bounce back to your camera and give you unwanted "hot spots" on the picture. Too lateral incident light is going to give you long and distracting shadows. You need more like a 45 degrees angled light. Not all light sources are alike. Some lights are harsh and crude others are soft and silky. The first category is referring to those sources that will give you strong, dark, clear contoured shadows (small, short range bulbs). You don't need them. Instead you need the second type of larger, diffuse light sources that will soften the shadows (vague contours and less consistent). You reach that result in two different ways: either screening a regular bulb's light with a large sheet of tracing paper, or using a bouncer (large sheet of thick paper, light wall, the ceiling etc., which role is to capture the light and redirect it back toward the object to be taken pictures of).
Take off the glass. Use a tripod and don't forget to shut off the flash. Use a small aperture as to give yourself as much depth of field as you can. The tripod will take care of the rest (longer exposure time).
One more trick to know; you need to focus on frame, not on the artwork.
Framerguy, take it from me, getting to learn even a simpler photo editing computer program is not difficult but is going to be both rewarding and fun to use. That program will most likely give you the chance to square up a picture of a frame that has the perspective effect on it and much more than that. Go digital. Film era is over. Digital photography can be edited and is considerably less expensive than classic photography. Buy a decent camera, say Olympus C2020 of 2.2 mega pixels. It's less than 500 bucks and it gives you all you need to learn take pictures like a pro.
To summarize it, no glass, dark environment, soft light, tripod, no flash at all, focus on frame, large aperture, long exposure time, 2 mega pixels or more digital camera.
Feel free to e-mail me if you need more directions from me, or keep it in the Grumbler if this matter looks interesting to other framers too.
 
Let me asure you 35 mm photography is NOT dead. Most professional Photographers that are using digital are using it in addition to their 35 or medium format systems.

I photograph tons of framed art and old photos all the time. You are all right that flash photography is NOT an option. You need to use an SLR system where you can control the apiture and shutter speed. I use photo flood bulbs to illuminate the frame (photo floods are bluish in colour and will eliminate the yellow colour that will come from a long exposure). Also, natural sun light is better then indoor regular lighting. Tripod both your frame and your camera. The easiest way to insure that you are working with a correct exposure is to use a camera that has an apiture priority mode on it. In this case you can set the desired depth of field by adjusting the apiture to around 3.5 to 5.6 and allow the camera to adjust to the correct shutter speed according to the amount of light on the subject. You can adjust the lights so that there is no glare on the glass. Remember, what you see in the view finder is what you will get. If you see glare, then glare it is. If you don't then your OK to take the shot. It is better to always be a little overexposed then under. A professional photo lab can always darken a photo for better results then lighten it.

Another note is that you can pruchase a 35 mm SLR system that can do this for about $400.00. The same system in a digital camera can cost well over $1000.00 and a digital SLR (with any quality) can be over $5000.00.

Hope this helps.

Ted
 
(Ellen, the more you post, the more I want to meet you!)

Now to photography...
I am not by any streeeetch of the imagination a photograper, but I do shoot my own before and afters for the shop. (And sometimes wish I had a 12ga. for the befores).
I use a Nikon Nikkormat. I know this because I just copied it off the camera. One thing I do know is when you photograph in a room with fluorescents, everythings gonna look green. So I got a filter for the lens and that helps tremendously. I don't use a flash, because, well, I don't have one. But the shop is so well lit, that I don't usually need one.

I am sending Framerguy a couple of my photos to post for me. I just get the photos developed, scan them into my computer and use. For my newsletter I usually change them to black and white, but I'll send these in color. (I'm sending them to Framerguy so as not to use up Ron's posts before the magic 2000!)

Betty
 
Well I <U>am</U> a photographer, though if I was really any good at it, I never would have gotten into framing. ;)

There are a few advantages to digital cameras when photographing shop art:
</font>
  • Most of them work in much lower light levels than film cameras even with fast film </font>
  • Many are good at adjusting for the color balance of your lighting (i.e., no green under flourescents.) Any additional color correction can be done with simple software, like Adobe PhotoDeluxe.) </font>
  • You don't have to wait until you finish the roll of film to get you pictures back </font>
  • You won't need a scanner to post your pictures to The Grumble </font>
That being said, I use the following setup to photograph finished projects: </font>
  • 35 mm camera with a modest zoom so I don't have to move the camera around for different sized frames </font>
  • Tripod </font>
  • Tungsten-balanced slide film - I use slides so the lab can't mess up the color </font>
  • A polarizing filter over the lens </font>
  • A pair of photoflood bulbs in reflectors with polarizing screens rotated perpendicular to the filter to minimize reflections </font>
If I want lab prints, they have a slide to use for a color guide. Otherwise, I use a transparency scanner and make my own prints on the computer.
It helps to have a camera and a space somewhere dedicated to this process. Otherwise it's enough trouble than you just won't do it.

Photographing outside in open shade with daylight film is a very reasonable alternative to all this.

Ron
 
Originally posted by Marc Lizer:
[QB]with flash without flashQB]
Click to expand...
Nice background, Marc
 
I don't think we can add much to this, you guys all beat us to it! The advise on lighting is right on. But don't tell Gary about using a digital camera to do this, he'll want to try it out with his new $8000 kodak 760 and I won't have any pictures left on the walls! :eek:
 
Most framers could use good photos of their framing for advertising, newsletters, press releases and for a book of unusual jobs to show customnr so you can sell even more unusual jobs. The best book I found on the subject is Photographing your Art by Russell Hart
North Light books, Cincinnati, Ohio. I found it in an art supply store. Covers everything very well.

I also cover the subject in my book, "How to Present Your Art, After the Paint is Dry, Then What?" It's availble on my website.

Nona Powers, CPF, GCF
www.nonapowwrs.com
 
I really appreciate the loads of valuable information and tips ranging from Frame Harbor who, I think, has the impression that I have never seen a camera before, thanks for the basic lessons, FH, to Ellen who I emulate lately in my own photography!

I have a Fuji digital camera and a Nikon N2020 35mm and a Bogen 3021 Professional tripod and I should have explained this at the outset of this thread.

I have no problems with photography indoors or outdoors. I was just curious if anybody had any tricks for minimizing the "hot spot" on the glass when using flash. I have concluded that the use of floodlights, indirect lighting, may be the answer to my problem.

I use Photoshop 5.5, PaintShop Pro 7, Photo Impact 6.0, and a number of other image programs for image manipulation. I just haven't learned how to remove "hot spots" from glass yet in any of these programs.

Gosh, when Decor magazine came out to my gallery a few years ago to do an article on my collector plate frames, I had to set up the camera and take most of the pictures for the gal who interviewed me.

I will pick Zippy's brain (what's left of it) ;) when he gets here. Alot of my problem stems from the entrance of light from outside and the limited inside lighting that I have.

Framerguy
 
Ted,
You are somewhat correct here. Classic cameras are still better in some respects than their digital counterparts but only if you want a certain result and only that result. Let's tell Framerguy the whole truth then.

Framerguy,
a 35mm camera is not what you need for taking pictures of your frames because of the small size of its film frame (need for enlargement), poor details, and perspective distortions. A pro would do it with a view camera. That camera is a bellow type of huge dimensions. The camera is so heavy that it roles back and forth on rails in order to focus on the object and cannot be used but in studio.
When created, 35 mm cameras were looked upon as "toys" of low image quality but tremendous maneuverability and portability and those types of attributes made taking photographs an easier task and took away the art and the mystery of it. Most everybody could learn a few tricks and go out take shots. It was no longer a matter of learning deep stuff, making intelligent and refined observations and decisions in order to only then paint with light when best circumstances were being met. Amateur camera holders are seeing and taking shots at things and people around them mindlessly in hope that their pictures will come out right. Occasionally, by hazard, they do come out terrific.
What makes roll film cameras obsolete? The advent of the computers and their becoming a common tool is the answer. Digital camera is a natural extension of a computer and means nothing without it. But once arriving there makes a classic camera look like an elephant in a store fool of China.
All major film camera manufacturers are competing like **** in digital camera market for good reason.
Me saying that roll film camera’s days are over is like saying black and white film’s days are over once the color film came in existence. Did B&W film disappear from the market? Not quite; for a premium price one still can find it around. And it has its unbeatable features. Yet, finding and processing that film is a challenge because the market had given its verdict.
Man, while writing those lines I couldn’t chase away the haunting analogy that can be traced between the art of photography and that of frame-making. The frame industry is in PHD (thanks Ellen J) age big time now. But there must be a pile of good reasons for which tings look like they do.
As of me, I collect and love mechanic cameras and antique tools. In the meantime, making frames by hand can only prove some sort of insanity, right?
 
Originally posted by Framerguy:
[QB]I really appreciate the loads of valuable information and tips ranging from Frame Harbor who, I think, has the impression that I have never seen a camera before, thanks for the basic lessons, FH, to Ellen who I emulate lately in my own photography!

Sorry, F. I ment to be exact. I didn't know how much this field is familiar to you and wanted to make it easy on others who, at this very moment, are less accustomed with it.
Click to expand...
 
OK Guy’s let’s keep this on track.

When I read this post the thought did cross my mind that Frame Harbor post is very good for the likes of me who knows very little about cameras.

Framerguy spot on for bring up this topic, I have often thought about improving the very miserable photo’s I take of my work, I never thought of posting on the Grumble, seeeeeeeeeee I’m one of those guy’s you need to take by the hand.

Let’s keep it simple and calm.
 
I would like to note here a problem with some of the current digital cameras on the market. The vast majority of the Sony digitals and two of the Olympus models (C-2020, C-700) that will create problems when photographing items such as frames (due to straight lines, ie matboard bevels). The onboard software will sharpen the image and on fine lines it is very likely they leave an additional colour (Sony=white, Olympus=a faint purple) where contrast is strong. I am yet to hear the results on other brands, the best way to detect this yourself is to photograph a tree without leaves when it is backlit.

One thing we all have floating around our workshops that is handy for reflecting light is sheets of matboard, golds and silvers can help create a nice feel even when you're as bad as me at taking pics.
 
I am still, after a year or so, learning on my Nikon 880 with 3.5 megapixels. It does everythng but, that said, you need toknow everything too.

So far, I now I have aperture priority, shutter priority, can shoot color or B&W and can put on filters, lenses, etc etc. plus programs for nighttime, fireworks, beaches, protraits, etc etc or override the whole thing and go totally automoatic plus adjust for white balance, various color balances, etcetcetc ad nauseum.

All that said, tho, Ifind it quite simple to shoot my stuff by putting it on the floor or up against the wall, using a polarizing filter and a tripod,, shoot 10 or so pictures and then select the ones Ilike the best.

One interesting thing I've learned. When I took shots of a big S2 Vintage poster we did with fabric liner and fillet, I took a shot of the overall piece,then, because the liner was chocolate and the fillet black, I took a shot of just the corner shwoing moulding/liner/fillet combination.

That shot in our scrapbook has sold the package at least three times.

So I'd sayalso photograph detail items of your work as well as the work itself.
 
A couple of my tips.

A good(pro) 35mm is fine BUT get the film to a pro processing lab not your drug store.

A flat focus macro is best if you have one.

Buy a cheap set of photo reflectors and stands

Use photoflood bulbs(BLUE GLASS) 250w would be nice.

Place the camera on a tripod dead center of the object being framed. The frame and camera should be level and perpendicular to each other, this is not as easy as it sounds.

Adjust the light so no reflection show in the glass. Tricky part, you also need to pay attention to the reflections off the frame. You want to see the right amount and type surface reflection to give the frame dimension.

Exposure meter reading if taken from your camera may be wrong. If you use that reading take three shot of each set up +1 fstop, correct reading, -1 fstop. Best if you have access to a good handheld light meter that you can take an Incident Measurement. That is a type that has a white plastic thing-a-bob that goes over the light sensor on your meter. Place the meter in front of the frame pointing back at the camera. This give you a better starting point in this conditions.

I good picture require a lot of attention to details. Just like framing.

I tried to keep it simple but I apologize for those that don't understand these rambling.

Also for true pro results you really do need a medium format or larger but that a book, hire a pro he worth every penny.

new-1.jpg


An example of reflection off the surface. This can also be controlled with small pieces of white matboard place to reflect the light at different angles.

framer
 
What Lance described here looks to me like "noise" and Sony Mavica FD-91 that I bought over two years now is notoriously noisy but in low light conditions only. Olympus C-2020 had enjoyed such terrific users' reports that I had to buy it a few days after I purchased the Sony. I never noticed any noise trace with it and, for what it is, 2.2 megapixels camera, my overall rating of it is also very good. It holds details in print up to 5 x 7 inch. Taking pictures of small frames like mine was a blessing with The Olympus C-2020.
But it remains always true that a better camera can handle larger objects or tougher jobs easier.
Taking pictures of larger frames is more of a demanding job from this point of view. In order to get details, we position the camera as close to the frame as possible, hence using the worst part of any photo lens, it's margins. The final image looks a bit rounded over and I don’t know if the computer can correct it. If one takes a picture of a flat surface with a grille on it and then takes a look at that picture he will notice that outer lines are slightly bent. Leaving "room" around the object to be pictured is a good idea and, a large size negative film or plaque (not a 35 mm), respectively larger megapixel count for digital cameras, will give larger count of grains or pixels to register that image on, therefore more details and enlarging possibilities. The larger the object to be pictured and the more details you want, the more you need a larger than 35 mm negative film format. The finest 35 mm SRL camera still uses same small, 35 mm film, and that is the amount of "memory" you record your image on. That image will hold incomparable fewer details and be less apt to enlarging than same picture taken with grandma's bellow camera using a large negative plaque.
Speaking of digital cameras, a 5 megapixel camera (ranging today around 1 thousand plus dollars) is more potent of a tool than a 2.2 megs.

PS: I forgot to mention blue inexpensive filter lenses that compensate for the “yellowish” light from indoors. Digital cameras can filter the light by using their software filters and it takes just a push of a button to do it.
Polarizing filters and diffusers are a must if hot spots can not be avoided.
 
The following two pictures had been taken with 2.2 megapixels Olympus camera. The point that I want to make is that even in low light conditions (one source,light is coming from behind and is deflected on a corner sample)a gilded frame is usually so bright that it can be pictured without a flash and yet be showing all its details and volumes . No flash was used in taking those pics and no extra light but what light surfaces around deflected onto the subject (walls, ceiling, my T-shirt etc). The detailed picture bellow was taken from 2-3 ft distance. A bit of a more savant approache with difuse reflections carried around would have brought this picture to life in most spectacular way possible(stll no extra light), but this was beyond my purpose in this case.

framer.jpg


PS: I don't know why it doesn't show up here. If curious, go to http://hometown.aol.com/americanchoice/myhomepage/photo.html
and be patient for about 30 seconds or so. Pictures' size a bit too large for quick downloading.
If Framer can fix the problem, I'd appreciate his contribution.
 
Well, FH,

I don't think Ron checked his links before he left. You have both your images linked as one file of about 114 kilobytes. I took the image and ran it through an image optimizer and I got an image that is about 46 kilobytes and loads both images almost 3 times faster. I cut down the image size slightly to reach this size but they are still a good size to look at.

frameharbor1.jpg


If I took the time, I could clean up the flare in the full image and probably lighten it just a bit to bring out the gold frame sample more.

Now, I can do all this but I still have problems with eliminating the "hot spots" in my own photography, go figure.

I am going to try some floods and bounce lighting when I get some time to play around with it and see if that helps. I think it will improve things alot.

Framerguy
 
OFF-TOPIC ALARM!

Cornel's site is a feast for the eyes! You could link to it thru his profile at one time. It's worth a look!

Sorry. Back to the subject at hand.
 
Frame Harbor, if you had taken us to your web site with those wonderful photographs of those incredible frames, then we would have known what you meant by a frame design contest!!! Doh! I feel so inadequate.....
 
Framar,
Isn’t it nice of me to surprise Grumblers now and then? ;)
In fact older Grumblers know of my site and I cannot seduce but the new ones. Why I don’t take my web site in the open then? Because I have a deal with “Framer”. He told me “Cornel, you are a piece of work and too much of a risk for The Grumbler’s quiet existence; you must choose only one of the two: your web site be visible and your postings nice and short, on one hand, or keep on rolling your big, bad mouth and have a bad temper on the other one”. So, I asked for 24 hours to consider the offer at the end of which I noticed that most Grumblers have something beautiful to show on the Web and every single one has something nice to say. The Grumbler was conspicuously missing its devil. Besides, devil’s part is better paid too…J
 
Originally posted by Framar:
Frame Harbor, if you had taken us to your web site with those wonderful photographs of those incredible frames, then we would have known what you meant by a frame design contest!!! Doh! I feel so inadequate.....
Click to expand...
This was the whole purpose of my post to FH's "Framing Contest" thread about the background most of us have in REAL frame building. I went to his website (you simply go to anybody's profile and, if they have a website listed, click on it) and saw what this guy can do.

I mentioned that I would rather take a workshop from him than compete against him and I said that for a good reason. I wasn't being sarcastic. (for a change).

Again, I think that a frame contest on the level that Frame Harbor wants to have would attract rather sparse entries, just because there are few of us that can build REAL frames anymore. It is becoming an art like blacksmithing, caning, wood carving, and many others that were prevelant way back when craftsmanship really meant something to the individual but are slowly dropping by the wayside in favor of "high technology".

H e l l there are getting to be few "Individuals" left in this world of glitz and plastic and throw-away "stuff". Read one of the threads on the "Beemer Boy" who complained about the cost of framing if you want to see some of the examples of what many in this beautiful country are becoming!

As for me, I will continue to live by my own principles and my own work ethics and, as long as I can be curious enough to still look forward to the next day in my life, and humble enough to thank God for the day that I just enjoyed, I will feel that I am still functioning on a fairly even keel.

Keep the Faith and humor, Bro!

Framerguy
 
I found the following setting to be the most satisfying for taking pictures after my frames without giving me hot spots.

http://hometown.aol.com/americanchoice/myhomepage/
personal.html

Again I don't have a clue as why it does not show up. The link that I'm trying to make is not working either. Anyway, the link that I provided last time brings you to my drawing

Framerguy, if you use any other convenient to you lighting and still have a few hot spots to deal with, you always can use gobos to "shadow" those very spots. Gobos, for those who don't know it as yet, are pieces of cardboard that are cut (not a must) to fit a certain shape and are sustained at a convenient distance between the offending light source and its corresponding hot spot, yet off camera's view.

Off the main topic now, with respect to the frame design contest so dear to me, I did emphasize in previous postings of mine that I am not going to be a competitor, nor a judge or an organizer. I reiterate that you, guys, underestimate your designing talents and give up too early on give it a try. If this can boost your confidence, I tell you that I studied Economy at the university, not frame design. It's just a matter of true love. If you love what you do, you get easy going and competent before you know it.
 
Create a Post
Back
Top