How to photograph a print without reflections?

[snusmumriken]

This question borders on hybrid technique, but it is really about my obsession with darkroom printing and how to share the results.

Does anyone have a successful cheap method for photographing a FB Glossy silver gel print without reflections? For a couple of years now I have had no negative scanner, nor a quality digital camera. In fact I've never owned either, but I used to borrow the use of a scanner at work. For me the silver print has always been the ultimate goal, and if that's where it ends, so be it. Analogue is my priority, and my available resources are already invested in camera and darkroom. But it is nice to share images online too, so I've been experimenting with simple solutions.

For simplicity, I only print 16"x12" (less margins), which makes an image too big for my A4 flatbed scanner. So I have tried to photograph prints after dry mounting and spotting, using a tolerably good Lumix 14MP point-and-shoot. After all, the print is the best I can do - it's far better than a scanned negative, even after digital editing, and counter-intuitively the little Lumix then captures the tonality of the print surprisingly well. However, using the available natural or artificial lighting in our home I find it impossible to avoid specular reflections off the (FB Glossy) print surface. I don't want to buy a negative scanner or a DSLR, or make smaller prints of everything, just for the sake of putting images online.

I've tried surrounding print and camera with a white sheet as a simple diffuser, but it wasn't enough. I am now considering buying one of the studio tents advertised on eBay for table-top photography, made of white fabric with in-built LED strip lighting (like this). Can anyone confirm that this would do the job? Is there any other simple set-up that would definitely work?

 

[AgX]

The classic approach is to direct the reflections that way that they do not go into the lens, by aiming the light at the subject under an angle of 45° to the optical axis.

Of course this no longer works with lenses of a viewing angle above 90°...

 

[foc]

Hi, the studio tent on e-bay in your link, is suitable for photographing objects but I wouldn't recommend it for photographing flat prints or artwork.
I have shown below (not my diagram) the classic setup for photographing flat arkwork/prints.

You may notice the black card & cloth. These are to avoid reflections and light spills. If you use the studio tent, it has white sides etc and this will cause reflections as the light will bounce all around (you want to control the light and where it shines).

You could make the above set up easily. Two household led bulb lights ( make sure both are daylight) and set it up in a darkened room or room with curtains pulled. The black card could be from an art shop and even forget the black cloth and get another sheet of black card and cut a hole for the lens. Also wear dark cloths yourself.

Hope it helps.

 

[LawrenceA]

This question borders on hybrid technique, but it is really about my obsession with darkroom printing and how to share the results.

Does anyone have a successful cheap method for photographing a FB Glossy silver gel print without reflections? For a couple of years now I have had no negative scanner, nor a quality digital camera. In fact I've never owned either, but I used to borrow the use of a scanner at work. For me the silver print has always been the ultimate goal, and if that's where it ends, so be it. Analogue is my priority, and my available resources are already invested in camera and darkroom. But it is nice to share images online too, so I've been experimenting with simple solutions.

For simplicity, I only print 16"x12" (less margins), which makes an image too big for my A4 flatbed scanner. So I have tried to photograph prints after dry mounting and spotting, using a tolerably good Lumix 14MP point-and-shoot. After all, the print is the best I can do - it's far better than a scanned negative, even after digital editing, and counter-intuitively the little Lumix then captures the tonality of the print surprisingly well. However, using the available natural or artificial lighting in our home I find it impossible to avoid specular reflections off the (FB Glossy) print surface. I don't want to buy a negative scanner or a DSLR, or make smaller prints of everything, just for the sake of putting images online.

I've tried surrounding print and camera with a white sheet as a simple diffuser, but it wasn't enough. I am now considering buying one of the studio tents advertised on eBay for table-top photography, made of white fabric with in-built LED strip lighting (like this). Can anyone confirm that this would do the job? Is there any other simple set-up that would definitely work?

You need to shoot through a hole in a large black velvet cloth. You will lose all the reflections. Make sure the bezel of the lens is covered with black tape as well.

 

[Bill Burk]

The best tool to add is a set of polarizing gels over the lamps positioned in one orientation.Then a polarizing filter on the camera positioned to cancel out the reflections.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

The issues are the same for digital or analogue copy work, so it's process neutral, and isn't related to darkroom enlarging, so I've moved this to the lighting forum.

Cross polarizing, I think, is the gold standard, but as long as you can see what's happening in the camera, you can adjust the angle of the copy lights to avoid reflections.

If you have a light meter with a flat diffuser, it can help to be sure the lighting is even at the corners and in the center, which can sometimes be hard to eyeball. If you just try to diffuse the lighting with a light tent, you can still get hotspots, even if they're not specular reflections.

 

[MattKing]

It would also be worth your while to post a question in the Scanning sections about how to use a small scanner to scan larger prints.

 

[Don_ih]

In case you don't want to set all that up, put your print on an easel outside in indirect light on a nice day and take a photo of it. It'll be the next best thing to a real copy setup.

 

[AgX]

To avoid misunderstandings:
The replies differ in reflections from the print itself and from the camera or tripod.

 

[snusmumriken]

Friends, thank you for all these excellent, additive or alternative, suggestions. I don't know why it didn't occur to me to use darkness rather than diffusion as a way of controlling the light. Likewise crossed polarisers.

Indirect outdoor light is definitely viable (best success to date), but some reflections still occurred so a polariser on the camera would probably help. In any case I really need a standardised, repeatable set-up that I can use whatever the weather outside.

One thing I will still need to figure out, which will determine the geometry of the whole set-up, is which end of the camera's optical zoom will give me the least distortion and best sharpness. My instinct suggests the telephoto end, but is that right?

Matt, forgive me, but I don't think I will pursue flat-bed scanners any further. I know I mentioned them first, but actually I hate putting my prints face-down on anything, however clean it looks!

 

[ic-racer]

This is the setup I have been using. Here is an example of how I image a 11x14" print. A longer focal length lens would be better, to minimize reflections off the camera face, but this iPhone works pretty well, I don't do this with a DSLR any more. Yes, the iPhone is just sitting on my filter holder.
The resulting image (see below) will satisfy most on-line image sharing duties.

 

[BobUK]

LawrenceA mentioned black velvet cloth.
I use my enlarger column with the camera attached and pointing down to the enlarger base with the copy work horizontal, so using a large piece of matt black cardboard with a hole cut in the centre for the camera lens is more manageable.
The large sheets of card sold by Daler Rowney in the UK for making into picture surrounds are ideal.

 

[Sirius Glass]

LawrenceA mentioned black velvet cloth.
I use my enlarger column with the camera attached and pointing down to the enlarger base with the copy work horizontal, so using a large piece of matt black cardboard with a hole cut in the centre for the camera lens is more manageable.
The large sheets of card sold by Daler Rowney in the UK for making into picture surrounds are ideal.

Also use a polarizing filter.

 

[DREW WILEY]

My present copy station is relatively deluxe. Like Ice Racer, I start with a big Durst L184 enlarger chassis. But the standard enlarger lens turret can be very quickly switched for sake of a custom disc accepting a Nikon film SLR, a digital SLR, or MF film SLR. provided they're all equipped with a right-angle viewing accessory, and have accessible controls. The big baseboard itself is equipped with Left and Right integral light arms holding mid-level quality LED rim lights (around $800 for the pair). For 35mm cameras I use a 55/2.8 micro Nikkor, which is quite sharp, excellently color-corrected, and devoid of any distortion.

I can handle full gloss prints like Cibachromes up to around 20X24 inches size without reflection issues if the rim lights are properly oriented, and if everything reflective adjacent is covered with black velour studio flocking, except the lens opening itself. "Glossy" fiber-based prints are easy compared to true gloss prints on mylar or polyester stock. But if I ever needed to, I could probably copy up to 30X40 inch size of gloss paper prints, whether common RC color prints or the FB definition of "glossy".

I ever do need cross-polarization, then I can quickly switch out to my previous Lowell Tota-light setup with its sheet filter holders, etc. Nice system. But those are called "hot lights" for a reason. Not so comfortable to work around during a long session! And when copying color prints, polarization can have some undesirable side effects. With black and white copying, that's not so big a problem, but you still will probably end up with some kind of obnoxious overall color cast you need to post-correct. And realize that only the very best polarizing filters and Pola-sheets are relatively close to truly color-neutral.

But one precaution with LED panels. You get what you pay for. But I wouldn't trust any of them to do what they say unless a light meter and color temp meter is on hand to truly balance them. Don't assume that any two of them, even from the same manufacturer, are going to actually match, unless you're willing to spend for actual Hollywood quality. And some will project a grid-like pattern onto your work due to less than ideal diffusers. What "rim" lights do is to bound a perimeter pattern of LED's onto a reflective rim first, and diffuse that off onto the main surface diffuser next, eliminating the risk of secondary grid artifacts. But you still need to check and adjust for overall evenness at the baseboard position, over at least as large a surface as the print size you wish to copy itself.

 

[MattKing]

Diffused light from a north facing window above and behind the photo can work.
This is a three dimensional subject, and there is fill from a ceiling light behind me, but you get the idea:

Plus-X Heritage - MSA February 2022

• MattKing
• Feb 23, 2022
• 4

After using my last roll of 120 Plus-X, it was time to remove all the Plus-X box ends from my...

 

[gone]

I'd try what Don and Matt said, and my experience is that if you're patient, you can find the one, and I mean the ONE spot where you can get a shot w/o reflections.......until the light shifts. An overcast day w/ the easel and tripod, it would work. But if the op is in or near a relatively large city, the suggestion to take it to be scanned is far the easiest route. Or, buy an inexpensive old flatbed scanner and stitch it together in PS.

 

[M Carter]

My first "real" gig in my 20's was graphic arts repro shop work. Tons of copy work.

These days some of my photo clients are fine artists needing shots of their work for web and archives and commercial printing. Every months I shoot several paintings in the 6' range; just yesterday I shot a lot of glossy-resin abstract works, glass-like surface, 60" neighborhood down to maybe 40" pieces. I shoot stuff framed and under glass or bare.

I mount the prints to a wall, and hang diffusion on each side, 90° from the art and flush to the wall (as flush as light stands will allow). Diffusion is just hanging cloth, and it will extend 3-4 feet from the wall, or up to 8' from the wall for large works. I light the diffusion from behind with Speedo heads. I use one pack with all outlets combined, so all heads get the same power. For large work I might have 2 or 3 heads on each side, smaller stuff, one will do. I shoot with an 80mm lens at f11-16 (this is always digital work). This gets me far enough away that reflections aren't an issue. I also lay out a white sheet on the floor if there's any color to the ground.

I shoot the empty wall and dial in light positions for a flat, even field lighting-wise. That takes a half hour from load-in and setup to exposure ready, then I shoot a Passport card, and then I'll blow through however many paintings they have.

I have never, ever had to mess with polarizers and have never had reflections on the work. The strobes being close to the work and the camera somewhat distant just overpowers any reflections.

The raw files are rarely 100% perfectly square, but when cropping in post, it's easy to square them up. I've realized I can use my Parallel (laser enlarger aligner) to get the camera perfectly parallel, though I may need something like a macro rail to fine tune the camera position. But squaring up in post is really quite fast.

I know not everyone has piles of packs and heads, but for prints up to 20x24 or even larger, two speedlights would work just as well.

 

[foc]

I have never, ever had to mess with polarizers

+1

If the lighting and camera are correctly set up, there is no need for polarising filters.
(I photographed print from print, onto 35mm interneg, professionally for 20 years, using a simple copy stand with 2 lights)

 

[miha]

Use as long a lens as possible to minimize the reflections.

 

[M Carter]

Use as long a lens as possible to minimize the reflections.

I'm generally 70-85mm for larger works, any off-angle you have will be minimized by teles - bigger success for me is overpowering any reflections by lighting the work with strobes. I do this as a paying gig several times a month, but the smallest stuff I do is probably 36"-40".

 

[snusmumriken]

All this is really helpful, thanks to everyone.

I began to wonder whether I can construct a foldable structure that will repeatably give me even diffuse side lighting and a central, parallel camera position, and not take up too much storage space. I suppose it's called a copy stand, though ...

 

[DWThomas]

I used to photograph the winning art at shows put on by an art club I belong to (the club has since thankfully gotten away from that). I made a stand with two adjustable clamping bars and some foam cushions to hold the paintings. It partially disassembled for transport. I even created measuring scales by varnishing down laser printed strips for use in positioning the clamps. I used two softboxes on each side aimed at about 45º off the artwork and placed the camera behind a dark cloth with a buttonhole slit in the center, hung on a background stand. On my good days, I mounted a framed 11x14 mirror in the rig and positioned the camera to center the lens iris in the ground glass. I got lots of pats on the back, but got pretty tired of dragging a wagon load of "stuff" around and killing a major chunk of a day to do it.

The third row in this gallery page will show one setup circa 2012.

My only attempt at using polarizers ended up warping and ruining some $$$ sheet plastic types on halogen lights in a matter of not very many minutes (in spite of having made holders to space them a ways out from the actual lights). In my experience, the hardest pieces to photograph were oil paintings with a lot of palette knife texturing and glossy varnish. Polarizers might help there. Most other stuff, even behind glass, was not a problem without polarizers, as long as you angled the lights out to the sides and by eyeballing the setup made sure the lights weren't reflecting into the view.

The horizontal approach was pretty much necessary for what I was doing as it was used on site and some of the paintings were 40 to 50 inches wide or high. Other than the first couple of years, I electrocuted bits, as the ultimate destination was on the web anyway. (And it cost way less, as this was a volunteer thing!)

 

[snusmumriken]

I used to photograph the winning art at shows put on by an art club I belong to (the club has since thankfully gotten away from that). I made a stand with two adjustable clamping bars and some foam cushions to hold the paintings. It partially disassembled for transport. I even created measuring scales by varnishing down laser printed strips for use in positioning the clamps. I used two softboxes on each side aimed at about 45º off the artwork and placed the camera behind a dark cloth with a buttonhole slit in the center, hung on a background stand. On my good days, I mounted a framed 11x14 mirror in the rig and positioned the camera to center the lens iris in the ground glass. I got lots of pats on the back, but got pretty tired of dragging a wagon load of "stuff" around and killing a major chunk of a day to do it.

The third row in this gallery page will show one setup circa 2012.

My only attempt at using polarizers ended up warping and ruining some $$$ sheet plastic types on halogen lights in a matter of not very many minutes (in spite of having made holders to space them a ways out from the actual lights). In my experience, the hardest pieces to photograph were oil paintings with a lot of palette knife texturing and glossy varnish. Polarizers might help there. Most other stuff, even behind glass, was not a problem without polarizers, as long as you angled the lights out to the sides and by eyeballing the setup made sure the lights weren't reflecting into the view.

The horizontal approach was pretty much necessary for what I was doing as it was used on site and some of the paintings were 40 to 50 inches wide or high. Other than the first couple of years, I electrocuted bits, as the ultimate destination was on the web anyway. (And it cost way less, as this was a volunteer thing!)

Thanks for sharing this, Dave. Your set-up looks perfect, but I can understand why you got fed up with the task. I'm probably naively optimistic, but when I started this thread I was hoping I would need to acquire far less extra kit than that. I'm still hoping that because the print size is a constant and not too huge (16x12"), I may be able to devise something simpler. But if the only way requires a DSLR, lights and stands, I will probably not bother. It would make more sense for me to take the job to some professional who already has the kit, though of course that means I lose the ability to share images at the drop of a hat.

 

[DWThomas]

I'm still hoping that because the print size is a constant and not too huge (16x12"), I may be able to devise something simpler.

Yes that's true that a smaller, more consistent size of artwork could reduce the amount of 'stuff' required. The lighting in those shots was with "compact fluorescent" bulbs, the larger ones in the softboxes were about a foot long nest of u-tubes -- not all that compact. Were I starting from scratch today I might lean toward some sort of LED linear fluorescent bulb replacements, or maybe LED panels. Although as the size of the artwork increases, the larger LED panels are not a trivial purchase. And getting even lighting generally requires two sources at a minimum. In addition to what's seen in those photos I linked, I also carted another light stand with a telescoping boom and an 8" reflector to use for keylighting on sculpture, as well as some large foamcore in gray, white, and dark blue to use as sculpture backgrounds. You may have noted in one of those shots that I had a chunk of foamcore with a gray scale and some color patches (both homemade but fairly effective) that I could include along the side of the shots to provide some reference for tweaking.

It was fun -- for a while!

 

[Shaps]

The best tool to add is a set of polarizing gels over the lamps positioned in one orientation.Then a polarizing filter on the camera positioned to cancel out the reflections.

Yes this is an excellant way of doing it. After you have the polarizers set on the lights, put a quarter on the subject, rotate the polarizer on the lens until it kicks in. Very easy and foolproof. Only problem is finding polarizing filters large enough to cover your lights. Years ago that was easy, not these days.