Quote:
|
So my question still remains: is the camera showing some frequencies of liight that we painters cannot spot, so we always find our photographed works uglier than the original?
|
To tell you the truth - I don't really know.
There are a couple of truths that we won't be able to get around. One: we're stuck with our eyes. Two: we're stuck with the current iteration of camera technology, which by the way is truly remarkable.
When I take the final, final photo of my artwork I want it to be as dense with pixels as I can make it. This means that I want to fill the frame only with my painting to the extent that I can. I don't want to waste any pixels on the wall behind, or any other artifacts. This, so I don't have to crop some portion of the photo image away, thus leaving pixels on the table, so to speak. If, because the difference between the shape of my painting and the shape of my photo image is such that I have a portion that must be cropped out, then I want to fill that space with a matte black cloth. This method has given me my best color reproduction. Beyond that, if my camera is good and if my procedure is good then any variations from what is real and what is depicted should be small, difficult to measure, and probably insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
Threaded Mode
