I do a LOT of big paintings (I work for a museum which includes a national gallery)
I have found the worst kind of light for shooting paintings is diffuse light. I get the best results with straight forward reflectors through polarizers. Diffuse light is soft but very un-even over the spread.
OK. These pieces are in the range of 3 feet by 3 feet or smaller. They consist of felted wool in bright colors made into a large sheet. Set into the wool are up to 15 shiny steel or aluminum rings up to 4" in diameter and 1/2" thick in a deliberate pattern, such that the curved edges of the rings project toward the viewer. These edges are cut and the scoring marks are visible and all at different angles to each other. The pieces are mounted in steel frames about 1/2 " thick with a curved surface visible but the felted sheet is recessed in the frame which is about 3" deep, so the depth of the steel frame is visible to the viewer.
Among my concerns are:
That the felt will suck up the light while the steel rings will bounce it back to the film and burn hot spots in the images, especially the cut edges of the rings.
That polarizing the lights will eliminate the reflections off the rings to such an extent that they won't look shiny like they are.
That there is no slide film which can mediate between the highlights from the steel rings and the relative dullness of the felt.
That there is no slide film that will reproduce the colors of the felt accurately without some distortion.
Of course, photoshop is not an option here, since the artist needs slides to submit to juries and she's not aware of what the real cost could be of shooting these and photoshopping them and sending the files out for duping to slides.
Thanks for any advice.
--
Emily L. Ferguson
mailto:elf@cape.com 508-563-6822
New England landscapes, wooden boats and races, press photography http://www.vsu.cape.com/~elf
