mh2000 wrote:
A very cheap no-name video tripod would probably be enough in this case for you to drop your iso down to 400 and use a smaller aperture... if you can carry both a tripod and the camera where you are going... though you make it all sound so mysterious... I somehow imagine you are being smuggled across a boarder under the hay in an ox cart to obtain priceless images of secret art pieces...
Haha, you guys crack me up.
It is all a bit mysterious, but it's also because it's some pretty rare artwork that nobody else has. And no, it's not da Vinci.
$2600 camera and no tripod. This makes no sense. You can get a cheap tripod anywhere and take it with you. You could even get a $15 table tripod or one of those gorillapods. http://www.joby.com/products/gorillapod/slrzoom/
You've replied a couple of times and continue to be real sparse with details. If you want good advise provide details.
1) How is this art laid out in a way you can photograph it, but it cannot not even be moved outside or even next to a window (temporarily)?
2) How could you possibly not be able to get a tripod? Serious here. I can't think of one reason. People do travel with them and even a cheap, small one is better than nothing.
3) What size artwork are you dealing with?
You will get better results with a point and shoot that has an on board flash using a tripod than your 5D II using ambient light and ISO of 1600+. Put a piece of plastic milk carton in front of the flash as a diffuser and you can spend less than $250 on a setup.
One thing that I've not seen mentioned is dealing with the paintings behind glass. When you shoot them you will get a reflection of the camera and photographer in the image. If you can, get a large enough piece of black mat board or cloth, cut a hole in for the lens, and then shoot from behind the board/cloth.
rbphelan wrote:
One thing that I've not seen mentioned is dealing with the paintings behind glass. When you shoot them you will get a reflection of the camera and photographer in the image. If you can, get a large enough piece of black mat board or cloth, cut a hole in for the lens, and then shoot from behind the board/cloth.
Well, there may or may not be a reflection, depending on the type of glass, the light/angle etc... Once again the book "Light: Science and Magic" will tell you everything you need to know, and then some.
if you are wearing light colored clothes etc. there will be a refection off the glass, a polarizer will probably be enough though. A polarizer for your 50 is plenty cheap.
Once, one of my clients hired a photographer to shoot my work being displayed in a store window and they brought in 20' black screens and blocked off Rodeo Dr... worked well... when I shot my own stuff on Madison Ave, I couldn't put up screens so I just used a polarizer and the photos came out ok.
rbphelan wrote:
One thing that I've not seen mentioned is dealing with the paintings behind glass. When you shoot them you will get a reflection of the camera and photographer in the image. If you can, get a large enough piece of black mat board or cloth, cut a hole in for the lens, and then shoot from behind the board/cloth.
I would sure hope the artwork has non-glaring glass.......it's expensive, but good lord, why would you NOT put it on artwork That would make no sense...
My parents are quassi-art collectors (probably 40 pieces of work hanging throughout the house) and they ALWAYS use glare-resistant glass. It shouldn't be a problem.
That would make no sense...