Makin' me crazy!!!!

[Bartc]

Taking pix to post or use as an outdoor painter in varying light situations is making me crazy! It's not that I don't understand color temperature - I was a pro photographer in my early years. It's just that sometimes the variance can be quite significant between viewing and/or photographing nonprofessionally inside from what I saw and captured outside. And trying to post online with a quick snap (and often even with a decent but non-pro scanner) compounds the mess.

Here are two examples of the same pastel from yesterday snapped on the same cell camera. One was snapped indoors (top), the other outdoors in natural light (bottom). While the difference may be ho hum to you, to me as the artist knowing the effort I put into color and contrast, it's maddening. And Photoshop corrections never satisfy....

 

[CaliAnn]

Nice painting!
That is a big difference between the two. Trying to get the right photograph of my art used to drive me crazy too. Now, as long as it's not blurry, I settle for close enough.

 

[Artyczar]

I take photos of most of my images outdoors in the shade. I prefer the white/blue light of the outdoors rather than the yellower light from the indoors. Sometimes I can adjust the levels in Photoshop, but you're right, it doesn't quite capture the same outdoor brilliance.

 

[Triduana]

Cameras really need a 'just tell it like it is' setting.

Its been a long time since I photographed my art properly, but I used to set it up in my hallway, which had no windows, and use a long exposure, and I used to light up my work using the torch on my phone, which is the clearest light I've got. That way I could light it from different angles, which is really useful for getting rid of the shadow on rough paper. Since I moved house, all my rooms have windows, so I now photograph my stuff in the bathroom, which is south facing and everything is white.

 

[Bartc]

I do know how to properly photo artwork, as I used to be a pro photographer. Don't have the camera nor the setup now, nor the patience to be honest. But despite the tech marvels of umpteen megapixel cell phones and scanners for small office use, they don't do the trick. I find they have a blue bias AND since so many algorithms start with the basis of edge finding they over emphasize texture at the expense of the smoothing the eye sees. Plus the viewing distance of a monitor is absolutely not the normal art viewing distance, so it's like examining the pores on your face vs. seeing your face as a whole. Photoshop can do a lot, but without super advanced skills you cannot compensate for all that. Then there's the distortion evident in the online platforms for display. Overall, the experience leaves me frustrated. So it isn't just the color temperature difference between 5500K outdoor daylight (most times, not all) and 2600K indoor lighting. Grrrrr....

 

[Jo Castillo]

For pastels, I take the photos in direct sunlight. Very little correction needed. Other media I usually do in bright shade. I'm just using my iPhone which is old. The new ones have all sorts of "help".

 

[amo]

I have better/other equipment now, but I have gotten pretty good results with my Canon Lide 300 scanner. It was really inexpensive considering how good the color capture is. I actually have a printer/scanner combo on my desk too, but I never use that scanner because even though it was more expensive it's terrible. But for a long time I worked small so I wouldn't have the hassle of stitching scanned images together.

I use GIMP (free) for adjustments, and it has taken me years really to understand all the things it will do, but it's pretty good.

Edited to add: I don't remember what it was called, but when I was using my cell phone I did download a non-standard app that gave me more control. I use Android and it was from the Play store, but it wasn't the app that came with the phone. You might look around. I think I paid $3 to $5 for it.

 

[amo]

I just realized you're working in pastels. Never mind about the scanner

 

[ZenDruid]

Two questions, first does your camera have an Auto White Balance setting and is it turned on?
Second, why is anybody in a sweat about true-to-life colors? The paintings and paints used by artists are not true-to-life colors (no matter how hard they tried)... not now or anytime in history.
When I get a digital photo or scan of my painting, it goes into my pictures file on the computer. Then I take it to Adobe Photoshop to prep for upload to this forum, or others. As an artist, still in the creative process, I'm still deciding how I want the picture to look on the internet, which is likely the final destination for my art work. So I can use photoshop tools like Color Balance or Brightness/Contrast to get my best choice of how I want the digital photo of the painting to be presented.
I believe the better smart phones have photo editing options in the camera. There are at least six free good software programs for photo editing available online for download.
If somebody wants to see the true-to-life colors of my physical painting, , they will have to come to my house and look at it.

 

[Enyaw]

what does it matter? Pretty much every device will show it differently. It's not like you are going to get an offer you can't refuse from anyone viewing it on this site. Sometimes what you see when you are in the moment is all wrong anyway. It's the excitement that pushes it to your eyes. Take your best shot and move on. C'est la vie. It is not that important.

 

[Bartc]

what does it matter? Pretty much every device will show it differently. It's not like you are going to get an offer you can't refuse from anyone viewing it on this site. Sometimes what you see when you are in the moment is all wrong anyway. It's the excitement that pushes it to your eyes. Take your best shot and move on. C'est la vie. It is not that important.

Wish I felt that cavalier about it.
Zen, I'm not after true to life as in realism, I'm after true to the colors and contrast I worked hard to capture in the painting.

 

[Artyczar]

what does it matter? Pretty much every device will show it differently. It's not like you are going to get an offer you can't refuse from anyone viewing it on this site. Sometimes what you see when you are in the moment is all wrong anyway. It's the excitement that pushes it to your eyes. Take your best shot and move on. C'est la vie. It is not that important.

Maybe not from this site, but it's important to get your images right for other reasons. Many other reasons.

I use a Canon EOS M50 and shoot outside in full, even shade, like I said. I usually need no adjustments in Photoshop if it's a bright day, sun at about 11am or 1pm, depending on which side of the house I'm using. If I do use PS, I adjust levels only, never color balance or contrast. I will do hue saturation only very rarely if the color didn't pick up properly on certain pieces. On super large larges, I have to use a different lense to get the painting flush. Otherwise, I hire a pro art photographer who takes shots inside with a Tungsten and all the rest of their equipment.

 

[Enyaw]

I simply meant that right is not always right. I picture my art relatively easy because it is matte and then hand hold the painting as I make color adjustments, saturation, etc. I get it real close and post it on my pc. Then later in the day I open my iPad and blaw. Not the same. Not relatively close. Darker and less color penetration. That's why if you are not trying to enhance a collector I would not lose sleep over it. Don't beat yourself up over matters not in your control. And to repeat Ayin, You can only do what you can and if it needs to be better then you have to pay for help.

I would like to add that there was no intention to slight this sight. It is the best art site I know.
The whole thing reminded me of bunch of ageing musicians with me being one of them entertaining and the local fire halls. One of them told me in all earnest that I should introduce myself before each song as you never know who is out in the audience taking in the show. As if there would be a reason for anyone being there other than the locals looking a a little entertainment and a near free dinner.

 

[ZenDruid]

If I have an especially nice photo, I'll make an additional Copy and that is what I will work on in photoshop. The original remains untouched. Tweaking the copy in any way I want is easy and if I don't like the result, I can Undo it and start over.

 

[Hermes2020]

If I may give my two pennies worth, I will give my procedure. I always include a pure white paper rectangle next to the painting. This acts as a reference when adjusting the white balance. Secondly, I never shoot in JPG format, since it has limited dynamic range and its quality decreases every time an adjustment is made and saved. I always shoot in RAW format (NEF in in the Nikon domain), because of the wide dynamic range and the ability to do non-destructive adjustments to maintain the original quality. The original is never altered. An important step is to adjust the tone curves in the image. In my opinion, this is the best workflow to get faithful depictions of the subtleties in a painting like yours.

 

[Artyczar]

Like Zen, I always save the RAW file as is in a separate folder. In fact, I save a number of versions. The RAW tif, a 300 DPI .jpg for printing, two smaller 72 DPI versions (details) for the web, then two others for my website: an even smaller version for quick viewing and a thumbnail.

 

[amo]

Bartc is using a cell phone. Most apps don't shoot RAW, although I used to have an app that did. Wish I could remember the name.

 

[amo]

Like Zen, I always save the RAW file as is in a separate folder. In fact, I save a number of versions. The RAW tif, a 300 DPI .jpg for printing, two smaller 72 DPI versions (details) for the web, then two others for my website: an even smaller version for quick viewing and a thumbnail.

All of my folders on my hard drive have subfolders called "Outta My Way" for all of that, but I'm nowhere near as organized, just resize as needed.

 

[Hermes2020]

I would be interested to know what software you guys are using to process your RAW or NEF files. I used to use Lightroom, but hated that it has no file explorer and one has to import files into its database before they can be developed. A year ago I dumped Lightroom for the equally powerful ACDSee Photo Studio 2022, which has a folder tree file explorer and all the features of Lightroom. It does not require one to import photos into a database first.

 

[amo]

I would be interested to know what software you guys are using to process your RAW or NEF files. I used to use Lightroom, but hated that it has no file explorer and one has to import files into its database before they can be developed. A year ago I dumped Lightroom for the equally powerful ACDSee Photo Studio 2022, which has a folder tree file explorer and all the features of Lightroom. It does not require one to import photos into a database first.

It came with my camera, and I don't know if it's available separately, but I use Digital Photo Professional from Canon. I'm pretty happy with but a quick glance at ACDSee makes me want to take a closer look. I rarely need a video editor, but I haven't found one in my price range that I'm happy with.