by displaying work online
It is sometimes a frustrating and disappointing exercise to display my artworks online because the original does not reproduce well. My prints have a lot of texture and subtle details that are often lost. The sense of the size of the piece is lacking. Colours in particular are difficult to reproduce accurately and change from monitor to monitor. In catalogues, too, I see problems with accurate colour reproduction. I do notice though that if my work is a digital print, then that reproduces reasonably well if I use the original digital file. But, if the image comes from a slide taken of the work then scanned, I often have problems. So, the more steps away from the original, then more the problems.
Today’s electric skin has an article about this issue: Challenges of Digital Reproduction by Olga Chemokhud Doty.
In the present day environments of virtual galleries, digital imaging, and communication via e-mail a whole new set of challenges arise for the artists working in traditional two-dimensional mediums of painting or drawing. “Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be,” Walter Benjamin wrote in his essay, “The work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”. Though the statement was written more then seventy years ago, the rise in volume in visual communications is making its more of an issue then ever.
Read more…, then she finishes: I am sure that there are no means to reproduce an original without losing some of its indented qualities, but there are some ways to think about the best possible way to reference the work without warping its meaning. (I wonder what those ways might be besides using installation shots?)
The author talks about digital reproduction, but even older methods of reproduction in books, catalogues and even slides can be misleading. Yet we know they were often the only way we got to see a lot of art works. I recall the many hours spent in Art History classes looking at slides. Years later I would see some of these masterpieces in European museums and be quite amazed and enthralled at the difference. The internet has opened the world even more, but in all of this, seeing the original is still the only true experience of the work.
June 19, 2004 in Being an Artist by Marja-Leena
What one shows online is not (well, normally) the artwork, but a view of it. One view. You can’t make that be the work; it’s not even a good stand-in most of the time, especially if the piece is at all three-dimensional.
How could the exercise be anything other than frustrating? 🙂
So I think if it is to be less so, it might be worth treating the pictures as pictures, and compose them with that in mind, rather than what I think of as “portfolio shots”. That is, if the work has texture, and form, then light it to show that up. Rather than attempt to minimize environmental influences (such as the colour of the wall behind, or the shape of the stand, or the window just to the left), use these within the composition.
IOW, since you have to take a picture to show online, you might as well go whole hog and treat the process as you would if the photo was an important thing in its own right.
It may not work out well, but if you’re not happy with the effects you’re getting now…
Certainly won’t help with the colour shifts; have you tried working with tiffs or png?
(I think the print pics are great, if they’re but pale echos of the prints themselves, then consider me speechless in awe.)
Yes, I know that the photo is only a shadow of the real thing. I guess as artists we want always to show our work in the best light (pun unintended). Your suggestion of trying to shoot to bring up textures is very valid, and I have tried, but really brings up the need for expensive photography studio lights and so on, or hiring a professional. ( I’m only a poor artist! )
Colour is still the biggest challenge – I know even professional photographers spend a great deal of time getting the colour separations right for print publications. The low resolutions on the web and colour shifts from monitor to monitor are the biggest problem, though that has improved over the years.
I have been thinking of putting up one or two gallery installation shots to give some sense of scale, so look out for these!
I use PhotoShop files, then convert to jpg for web…tiffs are too big aren’t they? I send tiffs as email attachments to galleries, clients, reviewers etc. I am not familiar with png… not being so techie.
Thanks for the input and for saying the work looks great – you have made me feel better!
The problems with flat art reproduction, as you mention, are not unique to the digital world. But it is only through reproductions that we know about the art of the world. It is a special treat, though, to see the original. I had that most fortunate experience recently at the Guggenheim in NYC. I came across one of my favorite paintings — Duchamp’s Nude Descending a Staircase No.2. I was not prepared. I fell in love with that painting through reporductions. Seeing the actual painting brought tears to my eyes.
However, it is digital reproduction that seems to be giving the best results. The Boston Museum of Fine Arts is selling inkjet prints of some of it’s collection. Scroll down on this newsletter — http://www.inkjetart.com/news/archive/IJN_02-18-04.html
The key seems to be lighting. They use a single source light in order to pick up the texture. It seems work very well, according to the article.
Here is another article on using single source lights for copying flat art — http://www.phototechmag.com/previous-articles/sept99-kerr/kerr1.htm
Displaying the art on a monitor has it’s limitations. Resolution is a big one. You can get around that, partially, by showing large versions of the image. We don’t view art by just standing back and looking at the complete piece. We also move closer and look at details. It’s also important, for color correctness, to be color calibrating your monitor. You have no control of other’s monitors, but so it goes. At least it leaves your computor done right.
I’ve been doing some copy work with my grandfather’s paintings and it’s been most interesting. I’m generally happy with the way it has been going but it is a lot of work to get it as right as you can. I’m using a single source Tota light, by Lowel, (they are reasonably inexpensive) and 120 tungsten roll film. I really should be using 4×5 but the 120 works pretty well. I recently upgraded my scanner software (for scanning the film) and will be getting back to that after my move.
Thank you for all the suggestions, Gordon. I have sent you a rather long email continuing this discussion, but have put in some of it below for other readers:
I’m using 35 mm and slide film though. Slides have long been, and still is the preferred way the art world wants to view artist’s work, though a few are starting to look at digital. The slide scanning is problematic because of the colour shifts occurring, especially with one end of the image’s border ( usually white or cream paper) often getting a darker pinkish cast. Hell of a lot of work correcting in PhotoShop!!
In all of this, I guess I vaguely resent all the work of documenting my art work when I’d rather be making it. If I was a rich and successful artist, I could hire someone to do it for me! 🙂
Good luck with documenting your grandfather’s paintings – that is a wonderful project.
Both PNGs and Tiffs are bigger than jpegs, but if you set the dpi to 72, you can get them down to a manageble size.
PNG is a loss-less compression format that, while creating files larger than jpeg, might be better suited to your purpose.
Has your scanner been calibrated?
The higher end scanner that I use at the studio has been calibrated to that system, but the scans aren’t always right, needing correction in levels and colour. My system at home isn’t the same and I haven’t yet figured out how to make them match.
My older technology home scanners were calibrated as best as I could when new, but I’m struggling with all the different aged stuff they are hooked into now on the home network! I originally scanned my older slides on my slide scanner some years ago, and am now redoing them on the studio one with slightly better results, but still needing lots of PhotoShop work!!
I think that the scan is the problem actually, not the jpg so much, but will will check out the PNG option. Thanks for the suggestions!
I think you are right; it’s the scanning part of the process that gives trouble. I’ve never worked with a scanner, but Nola says that when she has to have precise scans for a job, she sends the stuff to be scanned to a pro shop. That could get expensive fast, at around $25 a piece. But maybe for that one photo or slide that has to be right, it might be worth it.
Or we could try with my digital camera and cut the scanner out of the process entirely.