Home › Forums › Explore Media › Acrylics › Painting is vibrant in sunlight, darker indoors. Promote which version online?
- This topic has 45 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 10 months ago by sjsjag.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 13, 2016 at 11:52 pm #994079
SEE THE ‘INDOOR’ AND ‘SUNLIGHT’ VERSIONS OF THE PAINTING HERE
An approximation of the difference between the twoI worked very hard today to get my photo image to look like the original/actual painting. I make use of my camera’s manual settings, yet it always captures very vibrant colors that appear over-saturated to my eye. And the blasted point-and-shoot “Intelligent Auto” setting is about as good as anything I can do manually! Ugh.
So after taking my best shot, I wear myself out in Photoshop finessing, caressing and massaging the image – toning it down to look the way the painting actually looks in ambient room light.
MAJOR REVELATION
After all that work, I happened to walk under a skylight with the painting in hand. Direct sunlight fell on the painting and I was SHOCKED to see how vibrant it is – how much the painting really does look like what my camera has been capturing under four crossing CFL 5500K bulbs. My camera and photo lighting are more accurate than I thought. Duh. This is the problem I described in my Artificial Daylight Lighting thread. Painting under direct sunlight or artificial daylight bulbs causes paintings to look dark in typical room lighting.THE QUESTION
I want to sell PRINTS online and I want to sell the ORIGINAL PAINTINGS, too. I think it’s fine to make the prints look vibrant, the way the painting appears in direct sunlight, but what about promoting the actual painting for sale?The painting looks considerably darker and has less contrast when viewed in normal ambient room light. How should I tailor my image to make a fair and accurate representation to the buyer of the original painting? Depict it as it’s likely to appear in the buyer’s ambient room lighting, or as it appears in direct sunlight?
I reiterate that I want to sell both the painting and prints of that painting.
May 14, 2016 at 4:33 am #1251450Honestly I would frown on photoshop manipulation to make the painting look like something that it’s not…however, using a photo that shows the painting in it’s “best light” is fine. Use the photo of the painting in the sunlight if that’s the one you prefer.
Thetech
May 14, 2016 at 6:43 am #1251486You should correct the photo so that one gets the same impression as in a good lighted room. If you improve the painting too much, people will refrain from buying paintings from you in the future. In online auctions, it is common practice to enhance the colours with Photoshop or Paintshop, but this is nefarious. However, if an oil painting has been stored in a dark cellar, then it has become unnaturally dark. However, it will improve with time, as it is being exposed to light. In such a case, it could be motivated to improve the painting with Paintshop, making it somewhat more colourful. /Mats
May 14, 2016 at 9:13 am #1251456Thank you, thetech and M Winther for your helpful replies. In light of your comments I want to emphasize the following:[INDENT]“I wear myself out in Photoshop finessing, caressing and massaging the image – toning it down
to look the way the painting actually looks in ambient room light.”“The painting looks considerably darker and has less contrast when viewed in normal ambient room light.
How should I tailor my image to make a fair and accurate representation to the buyer of the original painting?”
[/INDENT]I’m sure you already understand, but I want to emphasize for other readers: my efforts are not intended to improve or imbellish the painting beyond what it is. On the contrary, I’m trying to lessen it’s appearance to approximate the way it may look (darker and with less contrast) in typical ambient room light.REVISED QUESTION
I want to promote the sale of the original painting on my website.
Should that image represent the vibrant sun-lit version (per camera)
or the darker room-lit version[/U] (per Photoshop)?Thanks
[/SIZE]May 14, 2016 at 9:35 am #1251476Something online is never going to look the same as the real painting, no matter how you capture it. Monitors have all different sorts of settings, just for starters. This is why I scan my painting and do all the manipulations necessary to make a giclee printout match the original. Then I turn the printout tiff into a jpg and leave that alone in terms of displaying it online. This is as close as I can get to an absolutely honest capture of an image to display on a monitor. Thing is, remember that a real painting is always going to be more impressive than something on a monitor. Because a painting has presence. I would just be consistent in terms of whether you photograph it outside or inside with lights.
https://www.haroldroth.com/
https://www.instagram.com/haroldrothart
https://www.facebook.com/haroldrothartistMay 14, 2016 at 9:40 am #1251483Photography isn’t about making pictures, it’s about the light, so it might be best to make a photograph “right” when the shutter release is pushed. Saves time and produces much better images.
My vote will almost always be for an unenhanced image especially when it is used as a marketing tool. Not saying there’s anything wrong with digital enhancements, just that they almost always seem to be the least attractive when compared to a straight-forward, fresh from the camera image.
Another important factor is the file type – .jpg, .tif, raw, etc. We might be forced to display our work online using files that contain less information (.jpg, .gif, etc), but always shoot in the highest resolution file the camera can use. When available use the RAW. Here’s a link listing 10 reasons to use RAW.[/URL]
R/Mike
Practice religion freely and freedom religiously.
May 14, 2016 at 9:58 am #1251457Something online is never going to look the same as the real painting, no matter how you capture it. Monitors have all different sorts of settings, just for starters. [COLOR=Red]1) This is why I scan my painting and do all the manipulations necessary to make a giclee printout match the original.[/COLOR] Then I turn the printout tiff into a jpg and leave that alone in terms of displaying it online. This is as close as I can get to an absolutely honest capture of an image to display on a monitor. Thing is, remember [COLOR=Red]2) that a real painting is always going to be more impressive than something on a monitor. Because a painting has presence.[/COLOR] I would just be consistent in terms of whether you photograph it outside or inside with lights.
1) Ah, but which lighting situation did you attempt to match? Sunlight or room light?
2) Exactly! I find that I just cannot photograph the subtlety of my glazes or the “depth” that appears in the actual paint surface.
And thanks for your comment on being consistent. That’s why I’m trying to pin this question down now.
May 14, 2016 at 10:11 am #1251481You always want to present your art in the best possible lighting scenario. Natural light is pretty much always the best, as it will replicate gallery lighting. Indoor lighting pretty much always varies, so you can’t really judge your work based on the shadows cast upon your work from your regular lights.
As a suggestion for your indoor photos though, you may want to buy bulbs that lean a little bit warmer to match more natural light.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium]Paintings, Drawings, and Resources for Artists on my site" http://www.cinderblockstudios.com
Painting Tutorials, and other creative content to inspire you, every week on my Youtube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/c/Cinderblockstudios
May 14, 2016 at 10:18 am #1251458You always want to present your art in the best possible lighting scenario. [COLOR=Red]Natural light[/COLOR] is pretty much always the best, as it will replicate gallery lighting.
Please define “natural light”, and please be as specific as possible. Thanks.
May 14, 2016 at 12:09 pm #1251475Natural light for an artist, regarding representation of work is best described as a soft northern light on a sunlit day (for those living in the northern hemisphere). This is the type of light that architects often try to replicate in museums and galleries. It is even lighting with no glare or haze.
May 14, 2016 at 12:32 pm #1251487[…]
[SIZE=3][B]REVISED QUESTION[/B]
I want to promote the [U]sale of the original painting[/U] on my website.
Should that image represent the [U]vibrant sun-lit version[/U] (per camera)
or the [U]darker [/U][/SIZE][SIZE=3][U][SIZE=3][U]room-lit [/U][/SIZE]version[/U] (per Photoshop)?That’s what I’m saying, you should correct the photo, i.e. Photoshop it, so that one gets the same impression as in a good lighted room.
In fact, one can today make wonders with Photoshop and Paintshop, especially if one has recourse to the many plugins, such as Topaz Labs.
Mats
May 14, 2016 at 1:05 pm #1251449Of the two, I prefer what the camera sees! IMHO
Bertoni
May 15, 2016 at 11:02 am #1251459That’s what I’m saying, you should correct the photo, i.e. Photoshop it, so that one gets the same impression as in a good lighted room.
Thank you, Mats. I understood your point when you made it in your first post, but I failed to make that clear. Sorry. See my further remarks below.
Natural light for an artist, regarding representation of work is best described as a soft northern light on a sunlit day (for those living in the northern hemisphere). This is the type of light that architects often try to replicate in museums and galleries. It is even lighting with no glare or haze.
Thanks Michael, for such a useful definition. In response to your comments and those of M Winther above, I did the following.
It’s 9:30am on a brisk sunny morning. I took the painting outdoors and looked at it in two very different light settings:
1) I stood in the shade on the north side of the house, with the painting facing north. The image appeared dark, with reduced contrast.
2) I stood in sunlight on the west side of the house, with the painting facing direct sunlight from the east. The image appeared vibrant with good contrast. This is how the painting looked while I painted it under two 27watt 5500K CFL bulbs.
If I understand correctly, you’re both suggesting I darken and mute the colors in my photograph to approximate the dark, reduced-contrast effect observed on the north side of the house this morning. I’m not arguing, but it seems a shame to reduce the “visual excitement” to such an extent.
Did I perhaps fail to view the painting in proper northern light? If my understanding of northern light is correct, I think the best recourse is to adjust my painting environment so it will encourage me to paint less darkly.
Assuming I did use northern light correctly this morning, I really must find a way to diminish/reduce the light I use when painting. If my painting light is too bright I think it fools my eye into darkening all my hues. If that’s true, then reducing the intensity of my painting light will more accurately approximate natural northern light – and that reduced light intensity should cause me to see and mix lighter, brighter hues to compensate for the darker environment.
Your further thoughts and comments would be much appreciated.
May 16, 2016 at 6:37 am #1251451I have to chime in here again…I have no real choice but to paint in reduced light. But…every time I walk away from the easel, I pick up the painting and carry it out the door and set it down in the sunlight and view it from 8- 15 feet away. This allows me to really see what I’ve painted, and tells me what I need to do next. I’ve never had a painting (in acrylics at least) come out “darker” than I intended, in fact, my paintings are likely to be more vivid than I intended…
See both of these, both of which are painted in my dark studio, lit with a single 100 watt equivalent daylight CFL. Neither are too dark…
https://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1384001
https://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1386010
Thetech
May 16, 2016 at 12:47 pm #1251477Ah, but [U]which lighting situation[/U] did you attempt to match? Sunlight or room light?
I use normal room lighting–not direct sun, not at night with the way too yellow lamplight, not with the bright daylight cfl I paint under. Just what’s there in that room in the morning or afternoon. That’s as close as I’m going to come to how someone will see the print or the original.
2) Exactly! I find that I just cannot photograph the subtlety of my glazes or the “depth” that appears in the actual paint surface.
I have noticed that white (and that means zinc, not even titanium) in an upper glaze layer tends to block out the lower glaze layers in a scan. I’m more careful now about using it in an upper layer because of that. It also seems to depend on how much white I am adding to a glaze layer.
https://www.haroldroth.com/
https://www.instagram.com/haroldrothart
https://www.facebook.com/haroldrothartist -
AuthorPosts
- The topic ‘Painting is vibrant in sunlight, darker indoors. Promote which version online?’ is closed to new replies.
Register For This Site
A password will be e-mailed to you.
Search