Photography of Historic Architecture: Blending Existing Light with Electronic Flash

The Taos Historic Museum is one of my favorite clients. It is operated by one of the nicest, most dedicated and professional staffs of any organization that I’ve known. The Museum owns several historic properties, including the Martinez Hacienda, a 200-plus year old historic building with adobe walls that are 8-10 feet thick.  The Hacienda contains period artifacts that impart an accurate sense of what life was like 200 years ago for residents living at the Hacienda.  I was privileged to have photographed the Hacienda and these artifacts to illustrate Dr. David J. Weber’s excellent book, “On the Edge of Empire, The Hacienda of los Martinez”, published by the Museum of New Mexico Press. 

The Martinez Hacienda is maintained just like it appeared 200 years ago.  Furniture, implements, tools, household goods are all authentic to the period. The adobe mud and straw bricks used to make the walls are covered with traditional mud “plaster.”  The interior walls of the bedroom pictured above have additional natural elements mixed into the plaster that lighten the walls to better reflect light.  The walls tend to sparkle somewhat due to tiny pieces of mica that are part of the plaster.  The floors are made as they were 200 years ago: soil is mixed with ox blood that has hardened, making sweeping easier.  White sheepskins are thrown about the floor to serve as rugs.  The cloth around the small table with the votive candles was woven using an old loom located at the Hacienda. There is a small window to the left of the scene that opens to one of two inner courtyards.  The window is recessed by several feet due to the thickness of the adobe walls.  In that this photo was made in the evening, the minimal light coming through the window had no effect on the scene itself.

The scene appears to be lit by the available light from the beeswax votive candles on the table and by the candles on the wooden candelabra.  This was intentional so that the dimly lit visual tone of the room could be maintained in this photograph.  However, the candles produced very harsh lighting that would not translate accurately photographically using either film or digital cameras.  In short, while normal human vision could easily see the scene as it appears in the above photograph, the light provided by the candles had too much contrast and thus the contrast range was beyond the ability of film and digital mediums.  The solution lay in adding additional light to reduce the contrast range enough so that the photograph could be made to look as if the room’s light came solely from the candles seen in the photograph.  Had additional lights not been used, much detail would be lost, especially in the floor area of the photograph. 

There are three primary considerations when adding additional light sources to achieve a “natural light look” to any interior architectural image: (1) location of the supplemental light(s), (2) type of light source [spot, umbrella, direct reflector, etc.], and (3) spectrum of the light used.  Each of these is interrelated in that if a poor decision is made in one area, the overall result is much less than what it can and should be. The decision as to what type of light must be used is directed by both the types of sources in the scene and the light spectrum that these light sources emit. 

In deciding the location of the supplemental light(s) one has to evaluate where the existing light is coming from and place the additional light source(s) where they will boost this light level without undue and seemingly inexplicable shadows.  In practice, this task is not as simple as it might first seem.  Normally, one or two additional light sources are all that are needed.  It should also be noted that adding more than one or two supplemental lights is difficult, and the chances of overpowering the existing light increases with the number of supplemental lights that are used. The lighting provided by the candles in the above scene is harsh.  The candles are not in reflectors.  This causes extreme fall off from their light.  The candles on the table are set farther back on its top and so their light tends be cut off by the top of the table’s edge.  Because of this, their light plays no significant role in lighting the floor and its two sheepskin rugs. The candles in the candelabra are high above the floor and also provide minimal illumination on the floor. Thus, the scene when lit only from the candles has very minimal light striking the dark earth floors. 

Two supplemental lights were used to make this photograph.  A 60-inch white-surfaced umbrella was used high on a light stand to the right of the scene.  This umbrella had a black fabric cover on its outside to keep uncontrolled light from bleeding through and bouncing around the room.  This light provided wide, soft somewhat directional fill light to boost the overall volume of light in the scene.  A second light was used, also to the right of the scene, but much lower and somewhat closer to the camera position.  It was fitted with a snoot and a 20-degree “honeycomb” grid spot attachment.  This light was used in order to provide soft-edged, limited area light that illuminated the corner of the bed and the floor space near it.  The immediate impression when viewing this photograph is that some additional light seemed to come from another candle group just to the right of the composition. In a more careful examination of the photograph one can see minimal, yet distinct  “unexplained” shadows beneath the bed and on the wall behind edge of the headboard of the bed.  These are caused by the lower light with its grid spot attachment and are unavoidable.  It was decided that the enhanced quality of the light from this grid spot on the floor and bed outweighed the minimal visual impact of the shadows produced by this light.  

When considering where to locate additional lighting one must also consider the type of light source that will best add to the scene appropriately.  The large umbrella for the main fill light offered the best solution to the challenge of increasing the overall volume of light in this composition so that a smaller aperture could be used in order to have a greater depth of field [focus] throughout the scene.  The snoot coupled with the grid spot attached to the lower light provided the increased area light needed to illuminate an otherwise very dark lower section of the scene.

This brings us to the third consideration: the spectrum of light to be used in the supplemental light sources.  As was indicated above, this decision is directed by the existing light sources in the scene, in this example, candles.  Whether using film or digital camera mediums, one must take into account the quality of the light produced by the light sources within the original scene. Light is measured in terms of its color temperature, which is expressed in degrees Kelvin. Candles produce light in the lower [red] spectrum of light, about 1,930 degrees Kelvin.   Daylight film is manufactured to produce optimum accurate color when exposed to light in the 5,500-6,000 degree Kelvin range. So-called Tungsten balanced film is manufactured to produce optimum accurate color when exposed to 3,100-3,200 degrees Kelvin light. Color correction [cc] filters and light balancing [LB] filters are used either on light sources or in the form of optical filters on the camera lens in order to balance lighting with film types used.  In the case of digital cameras, most of the advanced amateur DSLR and all of the professional grade digital cameras enable their users to set the light spectrum range according to the type of light source in the scene.  This is a tremendous help [think savings of hundreds of dollars or the equivalent in other currencies] because when using film cameras one must own a large number of assorted expensive filters, either for one’s camera or specialty gel filters for light sources, in order to accomplish proper balance between existing light sources in a scene and the type of film used.  Additionally for photographers using film cameras or digital cameras, it helps to own a specialty three-color light meter [such as a Minolta Color Meter V] that indicates the makeup of the light spectrum in a scene so that one will know what filtration to use.  These light meters cost about $1,200, US.  With digital cameras one can obtain excellent results by setting the color sensitivity on the camera before making the images.  Tables and charts for basic light sources such as incandescent bulbs [approximately 2,900 degrees Kelvin] can be found on the Internet or in books such as Michael Freeman’s excellent book, “The Manual of Indoor Photography”, Ziff Davis Publish Company, New York, [pages 10-11]. 

Now, returning to the decision as to the type of light source to use in this room where candles are the existing light sources, a decision was made to use electronic flash in the umbrella and in the soft-edged grid spot.  A 4x5” view camera with a bag bellows and a 47mm Super Angulon XL lens was used to expose daylight balanced film. [This particular lens is the rough equivalent to the angle of view that a 16 mm lens would have on a full frame 35 mm format camera.  Use of the view camera enabled me to use its standard movements so that I could avoid introducing unwanted distortion.] Two very slight warming gel filters were placed in front of the flash heads.  One reasonably may ask why, since the approximate color temperature of the candles is less than 2,000 degrees Kelvin, did I decide to use electronic flash which is 5,500 degrees Kelvin and then lower color temperature of the flash heads slightly with warming gel filters?  One might think that use of a tungsten-balanced film would have been a better choice because its color temperature (3,100-3,200 degrees Kelvin) more closely matches the spectrum of light produced by the candles.  My reasoning was a follows: (a) producing an authentic looking scene was the goal, (b) while tungsten balanced film does more closely match the color temperature of the candle light, the exposure time for a proper exposure using a small aperture would have been several seconds and the candles’ flames would have moved and created unnatural looking flames, (c) use of electronic flash enabled me to use a much shorter exposure (1 second) so that I could let the candles burn and create a natural appearance in their flames and in the warmly rendered light that resulted from using a blue sensitive film with reddish-yellow light, and (d) by using a slight warming filter in front of the flash heads I could use the very brief flash to help “freeze” the candles’ flames while lowering the projected light from them to better match the mood of the scene.  I used one additional technique to further warm the supplemental lighting: during the exposure I kept the 250-watt quartz halogen modeling lights turned on that are in the flash heads.  The color temperature of these is approximately 3,200 degrees Kelvin.  

By adopting this type of modified supplemental lighting mixture I was better able to obtain a subtle balance of color temperature controlled light whose qualities mimicked those produced by the candles, without overpowering the existing lights from the candles in any obvious manner.  The result is a pleasing and largely believable photographic image of this scene.  The time to set up the equipment, adjust the lights and make the exposure was approximately 45 minutes.  A unaltered, straight scan was made of the original 4x5” transparency and is included above. Film was used to better represent the soft, yet directional light of the scene.  Use of a 4x5” scanning back was not feasible due to the long exposure time required by such devices. Had such a back been used the slight movement of the candle flames  would have rendered the scene unnatural. 

This article was originally published in 2004.

Photography Technique: How this Ornate Antique Polished Silver Religious Art was Photographed

As happens from time to time, I was unable to see a group of silver religious art objects prior to shooting them on location at the Millicent Rogers Museum in Taos, New Mexico. Upon arrival I was asked to photograph them against a stark black background for publication use.  Each of the pieces photographed has highly polished surfaces that accurately reflect anything and everything around them ---including black velvet background cloth.  An additional photographic challenge with this piece is that its center box is deeply recessed and has a glass pane covering its front to protect an old reproduction of a painting of a saint that someone long ago placed within the box.  The box itself was designed to be somewhat portable with its four polished silver panels hinged so that the entire device can be folded up and carried. A small silver metal loop was soldered on its back so that the box can be hung on a wall.  The box is approximately 13 x 19 inches (33 x 48 cm).

To summarize, the overall challenge photographically included (1) to “float” the object against a background of black without having the rounded edges reflect black and thus become very indistinct, (2) to insure that the complex, multi-paneled, highly polished silver surfaces look like silver by using large frontal diffused light, and (3) to light the interior of the deeply recessed box evenly and without causing reflections in the glass pane which would obscure the reproduction painting mounted within.  All three of these normally conflicting goals had to be met simultaneously in one exposure.  I say “normally conflicting” goals because usually if one places large diffused light sources in front of polished metal to make the metal look realistic, such lighting will also cause a massive reflection on any glass surface that is in close proximity to the polished surfaces. 

 The technical solution was surprisingly simple.  First, the box had to be securely suspended in front of a black background. Using “A” clamps, I clipped a large rectangular section of black velvet between two weighted light stands.  Behind the center of this cloth I placed a spring-loaded Bogen “auto pole” with a rigid metal arm adapter that held a sturdy metal rod at a 90-degree angle to the vertical auto pole.  A small hole was cut in the fabric to allow the horizontal metal rod to protrude about 24 inches (61 cm) through the fabric.  At the open end of this metal rod I attached a wooden plate with a clamp. The wooden plate was cut so as to be somewhat smaller than the dimensions of the recessed box.  To the wooden plate I screwed in a metal screw.  Upon that screw I hung the silver box using its silver metal loop. The head of the screw was covered in two layers of masking tape to protect the rear surface of the silver box.  As a precaution, I threaded a piece of braided stainless steel wire through this silver loop and attached it to the metal support rod.

Although the box was safely secured in this manner, and was hung only about three feet (91 cm) above the floor, I placed several cushions underneath the box as extra precaution.  Nothing bad happened, but it is important to take precautionary extra steps in case someone enters the room and trips over one of the many power cables, flash head cables, flash sync cords, light stands, tripods, camera cases, grip equipment cases, etc., and falls toward the art being photographed.  As per my normal practice, I asked that pedestrian traffic be kept at a minimum in the shooting room.  Otherwise, people tend to stray in to “watch the show” that I’m putting on as I assemble equipment, adjust lighting, and actually make the exposures of the art.

Second, I needed to create a single lighting set-up that would achieve all three of the objectives.  Therefore, I made a large, long paper cone by taping part of a roll of white seamless paper that is nine feet (2.75 meters) wide. I made the diameter of the cone’s larger end 1.5 times larger than the dimensions of the box with its panels extended. I viewed the box with a 150 mm lens on my Hasselblad 2.25-inch square (6x6 cm) medium format roll film SLR to determine the proper distance to place the camera for the composition.  By doing this I also determined the length of the cone that I needed to use as a horizontal “light tent”.  This was approximately five feet (1.52 meters) so the cone’s length was cut to this size.  The 150mm focal length lens for this medium format provides approximately a two-power magnification.  This slightly telephoto lens was chosen to narrow the angle of view. Had a normal or wide-angle lens been used I would have had to fashion a larger end for the cone and the length of the cone would have been shorter. This would tend to make it more difficult to provide a large enough inner reflective surface for the silver panels to reflect as silver and would have caused reflection problems on the glass pane.  

Four light stands were set along the sides of the cone (two on each side) that had been placed in front of the silver box.  The paper cone extended back toward the tripod and camera. The cone was then held in place while long gaffer tape bands were attached to the two opposing light stand pairs on both sides, and then the tape straps were attached to the paper cone itself.  After the cone was suspended the light stands were raised so that the large open end of the paper cone light tent extended over and slightly behind the suspended silver box. This placed the entire silver box with its panels extended within the mouth of the paper cone. The camera and tripod were then positioned at the small end of the paper cone and focused and composed symmetrically on the silver box with its four hinged panels in the open position.

Finally, I needed to light the translucent white paper cone light tent.  The paper itself is quite dense so I used a large studio flash power pack and set its power setting at 2,400 watt-seconds.  I set up two more light stands on either side of cone and set two wide angle flash heads on these which were pointed at the sides of the paper cone and away from the box itself.  The “stage was set” so that the white paper would be extremely bright when the flashes went off.  This would cause the walls of the cone surrounding the polished silver surfaces to reflect as silver.  The glass panel was essentially at a right angle to the primary curved surface of the paper cone light tent and so did not receive light at an angle that would cause reflections in the glass. Indirect, soft, even, shadow-less illumination was thus projected to the entire interior of the box and its rear wall-mounted reproduction of a painting.  The semi-open opposite end of the paper light tent cone where the camera was located was 5 feet away and so, with the inverse square law “working” in my favor, the transparency of the glass from the camera perspective was preserved.

If one looks closely at the four polished silver, hinged panels, it will be noted that each of them are closed very slightly at a natural slight angle inward.  An assistant set this angle manually while I looked at the art through the viewfinder of the camera. They were adjusted to reflect the blindingly bright inner walls of the paper light tent cone when the electronic flash was tripped.  The flash heads have quartz modeling lights that allowed critical angle adjustments of the panels.

Several light meter readings were taken using a spot meter aimed at the polished silver surfaces. These were placed on Zone VII so that they would show some textural detail, but still look realistic. [This refers to the “zone system” of exposure control that was developed by the late Ansel Adams and upon which all modern light meters are calibrated.  Zone V is represented by an average 18% reflectance.  All light meters are calibrated to indicate this exposure.  Zone VII is two f-stops brighter.  The interior meter readings of the box were approximately halfway between Zone IV and Zone V. Therefore by placing the exposure of the polished surfaces at Zone VII (opening the lens two f-stops from the indicated reflected spot meter settings of these surfaces), the interior of the box was only ½ stop under-exposed. This is well within the range of film to capture.

After firing the power pack at its full power I realized that I did not have sufficient power to obtain the small aperture that was necessary to maintain sharpness throughout the depth of the box with its panels. A single flash “pop” resulted in only enough light to give a correct exposure at f 8.0. This was not sufficient to achieve sharpness throughout the piece.  In order to adjust for this I focused at the hyper-focal length focusing distance (usually this point is approximately 1/3 of the way into the desired depth of focus of the object being photographed).  I also set the camera’s shutter speed on “B”  [for “bulb”] so that I could fire the flash four times to build up a sufficient volume of light for the smaller aperture that I wanted to use, f-16.  An assistant turned off the room lights and modeling lights in the flash heads, I opened the camera’s shutter using a flexible cable release and then manually fired the flash four times before closing the shutter. This firing of the flash four times gave me a large enough total quantity of light to use f-16.0 instead of f 8.0.  Therefore, depth of focus was achieved throughout the depth of the art object. By placing the edge of the lighted cone beyond the back of the silver box, the box was literally surrounded and set within the paper light tent cone.  This insured that the curved edges of the four panels would reflect white and appear naturally as the polished surfaces that they are.  

Although this description of how this art was photographed may sound complicated, it really isn’t. The box was suspended securely in front of a black background and a long horizontal translucent light cone tent was used to illuminate each component of the intricate silver box and its recessed interior.  The entire set up and shooting time was about two hours.  This was a reasonable time investment given the quality of the artwork and the high profile use of this image by one of the truly great small museums of the world, the Millicent Rodgers Museum.

This article was originally published in 2012.

Photography of Translucent Miniature Art: An Example of Combined Rear and Frontal Lighting

There are times when art must be photographed both with frontal and subtle rear illumination in order to best convey its construction.  This miniature art (5.25 x 4 inches / 13.3 x 10.2 cm) by renowned artist Maria Moya is exceptionally delicate, being made of assorted small wires, threads, beads, shells, tiny buttons, fur, pins, and hand-made papers.  It has a small thread loop on its back that allows it to be hung on a wall.  The artist wanted the photograph to show the translucence of the paper in addition to the intricate elements on the front of the art, therefore, for this photograph the art was hung on a small foam core panel that was attached to the end of a metal rod.  The horizontal rod was attached to a Bogan “auto pole”.  The auto pole was placed behind a large piece of black velvet that was suspended between two weighted light stands.   The velvet was held in place using small “A” clamps.  A small hole was made in this cloth to allow the metal pole to be stuck through it.  The end of the metal pole was approximately 20 inches (50.8 cm) from the front surface of the cloth.  This distanced allowed the placement of lights behind the art to reveal the delicate nature of the hand-made paper. 

One might assume that a light-valued piece such as this would be better shown against a light background of a similar color and reflectance to compliment the piece.  However, this was rejected out of hand because the piece would in effect be visually  “competing” with such a background. If such a background paper were to be used the texture of the paper itself would also compete with the art.  This piece’s distinctive shape is immediately apparent with the dark background. The key to showing this piece after the decision to use a dark background was made lay in the deft use of front and rear light sources.

The primary light source used was a 3x4 foot (91 x 122 cm) soft box with opaque sides and a Dynalight flash head set inside.  This was suspended above and slightly in front of the art and was tilted toward the camera so that only the softer edges of the light struck the front elevation of the art.  Below the piece and just out of the composition I placed a 2x3 foot (61 x 91 cm) piece of white foam core angled to reflect light from the soft box back up at the art.  This served to balance the soft directional light from the soft box and fill in what would have been significant shadows under each of the elements that protrude from the front elevation.

Rear light was supplied by two additional Dynalight flash heads placed above, behind, and to the sides of the piece.  Each of these was fitted with short metal snoots.  At the end of these snoots I attached 10-degree “honeycomb” grid spot attachments.  The combination of snoots and 10-degree grid spots was used to be able to better control the rear light sources. These lights were carefully aimed so that only the extreme edges of their light beams struck the rear of the piece.  The power settings on the front and rear flash heads were balanced so that a reflected spot meter reading of the paper when the rear lights were used was only 1/5 of a stop brighter than with the frontal flash used by itself.  This small increase from the rear flash heads affected only the translucent paper elements, allowing the soft light that fell on the opaque elements to remain unchanged. 

To render the art without distortion I used a short telephoto lens (150mm focal length) on a medium format camera. Extension tubes were employed that enabled me to focus closely.  A working aperture of f-22 insured sharp focus for the entire depth of the piece. A detail of the center of the piece was also made using the same camera and lens.  However, in order to focus even closer a bellows device was placed between the camera and the lens. (This detail photograph is reproduced above.)   Often with miniature art such detail photographs are advisable in order to better reveal the design and components of the art.  Finally, it must be noted that electronic flash was used rather than constant quartz lighting for safety reasons: paper ignites at approximately 454 degrees Fahrenheit. The surface temperature of quartz halogen bulbs is about 900 degrees Fahrenheit. Quartz lighting was never considered as an option.

This article was originally published in 2007.

Photography of Miniature Art: How This Glass-Fronted, Ca. 1900 Silver Relicario was Photographed

“Bolivian relicario of the Coronation of Our Lady of Copacabana, painted in oils on an oyster shell that has been surrounded in chased silver with a chased and engraved finial. A thin border of reverse painting on glass frames the shell. 10.6 x 5.5 x 3 cm.” Right: three-quarter view. The frontal image was used with my permission as the cover photograph in author Martha J. Egan’s excellent book, Relicarios --- Devotional Miniatures from the Americas.

One of the true joys of including photography of art in my commercial assignment photography is the privilege of seeing magnificent art, accepting the challenge of understanding its conception and design, then employing a combination of various techniques to capture these faithfully in the photographic medium.  The 100 year-old miniature relicario of “Our Lady of Copacabana” pictured above is an example that is discussed in this article so that readers will understand the challenges and systematic considerations that are made in order to make these photographs.  First, however, general background information must be covered.  Other types of miniature art such as translucent or transparent glass, fabric and/or paper assemblages require different treatment. These will be discussed in detail in other blog articles.

This article primarily addresses photography of two-dimensional or nearly two-dimensional opaque miniature art and art objects. Photography of relicarios is discussed primarily because they offer several photographic challenges that are often faced when photographing miniature art.  Close-up photography of industrial and/or scientific subjects often requires different techniques and very different considerations, many of which are not common to photography of small art objects. The illustrations and examples in this article are discussed in order to review several types of technical challenges that are often faced in photographing these types of miniature art: (1) miniature paintings, (2) miniature paintings under glass that cannot be removed, (3) miniature paintings under glass with imperfections, (4) miniature paintings under glass with highly polished and ornate jewelry-type cases, and (5) miniature paintings under irregular (curved or faceted) glass. 

General Technical Challenges…

The goal of photography of miniature art is to produce accurate representation of the physical object, its colors, design, textures, and form. It is not to produce “artful” photographs of art. Also, the safety of the art must always be considered when photographing it.  This goes far beyond careful handling of the art and must include careful employment of techniques which do not place the art at risk.  One must never lose sight of both of these concepts when photographing art.  

The primary challenges are technical in nature: (1) the ability to compose and focus on small objects, (2) the ability to properly light small objects, (3) isolating the art objects from surrounding backgrounds, colors, textures, etc. that detract from appreciation of the overall photographic reproduction of the art itself,  (4) determining the proper exposure, (5) avoiding image degrading camera and/or subject movement during exposures, and (6) maintaining depth of focus so that all parts of the art are sharp.  Most of these challenges --- and their solutions --- are interrelated.

Lens Choices and Camera Types…

Many of the technical challenges of photographing large art are shared with photography of miniature art.  However, the challenges inherent in photographing miniature art are made more difficult due to the short distances between the camera lens and the art itself.  These distances are usually so close that proper lighting of the subject is made difficult. It is not unusual for the camera to “get in the way” of the lights and/or light modifying tools. For example, the equipment set-ups that I used when photographing these relicarios obscured seeing the relicarios from every perspective except the viewfinder of the camera – which was awkward to see through due to the necessary placement of the lighting equipment! 

The focal length of the lens used in photographing miniature art greatly impacts related technical challenges in this type of photography.  In most instances use of a short telephoto lens is recommended to increase the working camera to subject distance.  Something on the order of 2-2.5 power magnification is adequate.  For 35mm film cameras this would require a 100-135mm lens. For most digital “35mm” cameras (which have a smaller sensor area) the equivalent is a 70-85mm focal length lens. In all cases of photography of miniature art, whatever focal length lens that is used, it must have the capability of close focusing. Cameras with interchangeable lens capability are the most useful.  They allow the use of extension tubes.  These extend the lens from the film or digital capture plane. This shifts the lens’ focusing range so that the camera can focus much closer.  Macro lenses have longer built-in helical focusing coils which enable them to focus from very close to infinity.  Many of these macro lenses also can be used with extension tubes to achieve extremely close focus on very small objects.  Macro lenses produce superior images of flat art at close ranges because they are designed to do so.  However, most modern lenses when used with extension tubes produce very high quality images of miniature art when smaller apertures are used. This is true because when smaller apertures are used only the flattest (center) portion of the lens is used. This is the portion of the lens that is easiest to polish to close tolerances during its manufacture.

A few words are necessary here regarding types of cameras.  Most people using 35mm film cameras will use single lens reflex (SLR) cameras.  These allow the camera operator to see essentially what the lens is “seeing”. Most modern digital cameras operate more or less the same way in that what is shown on the viewing screen is the image that the cameras will capture. Medium to higher priced digital SLRs facilitate close up photography and usually offer more useful features than less expensive non-DSLRs.  Some photographers may want to use non-SLR camera types such as medium format, twin lens reflex film cameras.  Parallax problems exist with this type of camera because the viewing lens is not the same as the lens which captures the image.  While this is not an issue when such cameras are focused at distant scenes, it is a very significant problem in close up photography. Therefore twin lens reflex cameras are not recommended for photography of miniature art.

The Need for a Sturdy Camera Support…

Another technical challenge exists when photographing miniature art: the risk of obtaining un-sharp images due to camera movement.  As images are magnified either by close focusing a camera lens or by using telephoto lenses, the risk of making the photographs un-sharp due to camera movement increases.  This risk is inevitable because as one increases image magnification, one also increases any image blurring movement that may occur during an exposure. Consequently, a sturdy camera support is essential.  This support has an additional benefit—a good camera support aids critical composition.  As one focuses on small objects, even minimal camera movement has a significant effect on composition.  The most convenient and safest method of photographing miniature two-dimensional art is to have a camera mount based upon the camera looking down at a static subject stage or platform.  This eliminates the need to mount often delicate miniature art objects on vertical surfaces.  While vertical mounting of miniature art can be done in a number of ways, the risk of damage to the object in this manner always increases. This emphasizes an extremely important point in photographing any art: every effort must be made to protect the art being photographed—there are no exceptions.  No shortcuts in technique or in planning should be taken which might raise the risk of damaging the art.   

Vertical mounting of miniatures for photography also presents another problem: how can one best get a sturdy camera mount close to the subject?  A traditional tripod’s legs must be extended. This requires that the tripod’s camera mount be some distance from the vertical surface where the miniature is mounted.  This in turn determines how close one can focus and or compose any given camera/lens combination. Therefore, vertical mounting of a miniature for photo documentation may at first seem simpler, whereas it actually creates more technical challenges that must be solved.  A simple diagram of a typical vertical copy stand is shown below.  Commercially available copy stands can be purchased new or used.  Very good stands can also be designed and made from quality lumber with a little ingenuity.  An Internet search can produce plans for such home made copy stands that can be made by people with limited woodworking experience and limited access to woodworking power equipment. 

Lenses and Depth of Focus…

Another factor that affects image sharpness when photographing miniature art is decreased depth of field (depth of focus).  This decrease is exacerbated with the recommended use of short telephoto lenses.  Such lenses are recommended as necessary to increase working distances between lenses and camera subjects in order to facilitate lighting of the miniature art as well as to render the art without distortion.  This decrease in depth of focus can be overcome to an acceptable level by using smaller lens apertures.  At any given distance between subject and camera, and when using any given focal length lens, smaller apertures result in greater depth of field (focus).  

Greater useful depth of focus can be obtained by employing a technique of focusing not on the front surface of an object, but by focusing approximately on a point that is 1/3 in toward the depth or thickness of the art.  This is called focusing on the hyper focal length distance.  This is especially advantageous due to the limited depth of focus in miniature art photography.  This technique is useful because the depth of focus at any given aperture with any given focal length lens, and at any given focusing distance is not equally divided between the front and rear of the focusing point.  Rather, at any given focusing point the depth of focus produced by a lens’ aperture setting falls approximately 1/3 in front and 2/3 behind the focusing point. 

It should be noted that image quality can be degraded by use of extremely small apertures.  Such image degradation usually only occurs when one uses a large format view camera and with lenses which have extremely tiny apertures such as f 45 or f 64.  In such instances overall depth of focus is deemed more important than critical sharpness.  For most photographers who use small format 35mm film cameras or most digital cameras, this is not a matter of concern.

Minimizing Camera Movement During Exposures…

When using constant light as a source for subject illumination smaller lens apertures require exposure compensation through longer exposure times.  This fact alone emphasizes the critical need for a sturdy camera mount and a stationary subject.  Use of an inexpensive cable release which screws into the shutter releases of most cameras is highly recommended to minimize the chance of unwanted, induced camera movement at the time of the exposure.  Some cameras, whether film or digital, may require an electronic cable release which triggers the shutter.  This functions in the same manner and serves to isolate potential unwanted induced camera movement.  Still other cameras have infrared remote triggering devices that enable the photographer to make exposures without touching the camera.

Light Sources: Pros and Cons of Constant vs. Electronic Light Illumination…

Another means of illumination, electronic flash, provides a better source for illuminating miniature art for its photography, and, at the same time, solves several problems that exist when using constant light sources.  Advantages of electronic flash equipment include the following: 

1. The duration of the electronic flash is much more brief than most conventional shutters.  The brief flash duration effectively serves as the working shutter speed and thus “freezes” the image, so to speak, rendering extremely sharp subjects without fear of motion induced image blur. 
2. Electronic flash enables placement of the flash heads farther from the subject so that the light striking the art can be better controlled and modified to suit the needs of any particular subject.  Once the quality of illumination has been achieved by careful positioning of the electronic flash heads, if a greater volume of light is required in order to be able to use a smaller aperture so that more depth of focus can be achieved, one need only add more power to the flash heads in order to gain the additional volume of light required.  With constant light sources, one must move the physical position of each light used closer to the subject to increase the volume of light reaching the subject.   In many instances this is difficult, if not impossible or undesirable. One example would be moving 500 watt quartz light sources from 4 feet away to 2 feet away from a subject in order to gain just one more f-stop of light volume (for more depth of focus).  At a distance of 4 feet the 900 degree Fahrenheit surface temperature of the bulbs of these lights produce a great deal of heat and thus pose significant risk to the photographer and to the art being photographed.  Moving these constant light sources as close as 2 feet away from a subject may be possible, but it is certainly never advisable.  In this example, if electronic flash is used as a light source, the flash heads would remain at 4 feet and the photographer would simply dial in an increase of power to the flash heads of 100% to achieve the additional volume of light needed to gain one smaller f-stop for greater depth of field.  Moving constant light sources in closer to a subject in order to achieve a great volume of light on the subject also presents another problem: it changes the quality of the light striking the subject.
3. By being able to place the electronic flash light sources farther from the art, photographic lighting is made easier and the art itself is handled in a far safer manner.  This additional working distance between the lights and the subject being photographed allows the use of multiple types of light modifiers. These modifiers more often than not are scrims (surfaces which diffuse directed light through them), gobos  (surfaces which block light), cookies (surfaces which break up direct light), snoots (tubes which are attached to the front of light sources in order to restrict the width of the light beams,  “honeycomb” grid spots (as their name implies, these are constructed as honeycombs with various densities of holes, the greater the density of holes the more restricted the light is as these are placed in holders in front of light sources), focusing spots (these are light sources which employ optical focusing mechanisms to concentrate light beams), polarizing gel filters (large, heat resistant gel filters which polarize light passing through them so that glare [specular highlights] can be eliminated from flat and some curved surfaces when cross polarizing techniques are used—this technique is described in detail in my article “Demystifying Photography of Two Dimensional Art”), or reflectors (surfaces which reflect light directed upon them).  There are many types of reflectors. Some may be highly polished such as acrylic or glass mirrors, some dull gray or white or even gold colored.  In some instances crumpled aluminum foil placed over a rigid surface such as foam core may modify the light properly for photography of some miniature art.  Depending upon the nature of the miniature art being photographed one or more of these light modifiers may be required. 
4. Although one would think that using bright quartz lights close to delicate miniature art would provide ample light to enable fast shutter speeds and small apertures, often this is not the case.  Even small studio electronic flash can produce far more illumination, albeit very briefly, than that produced by high wattage quartz lights.   

Unfortunately, the type of studio electronic flash equipment needed and its ancillary light modifier attachments are rather expensive. Nevertheless, photography of miniature art often requires use of this type of equipment in order to achieve excellent photographic representation of the art.  Built-in, on camera electronic flash are useless in most types of photography. This is especially true in the photography of both 2-D and 3-D art.  Such flashes produce harsh, flat, frontal directional light from near the lens axis. This results in hot spots (specular highlights) and the worst possible misrepresentation of the art. Think about it: these small flash units produce the type of unnatural light that one associates with, say, a prison spotlight! 

Light Modifiers: Types and Why We Need Them…

If the miniature 2-D art to be photographed is a painting, (oil, pastel, pen and ink, etc.)  on a non polished, opaque background, without a glass cover,  without use of metal tinted colors, and without an integral frame, then one can  use cross polarized light sources and an optically ground polarizing filter in front of the camera lens as is described in my article “Demystifying Photography of Two Dimensional Art”. One need only to carefully compensate for the “bellows extension” when determining the proper exposure. This is described in detail in the above mentioned article.

However, in photographing the relicario miniature art included in this article other techniques were necessary.  This is because of the glass coverings, the ornate polished metal case, and the slightly 3-dimensional design of the religious art sample “Our Lady of Copacabana” relicario pictured at the beginning of this article. Use of collimated light sources in a traditional flat art lighting setup with these relicario art objects would result in harsh specular highlights in both the art and in the polished metal cases and probably specular highlights on the glass coverings.  In other words, terrible photographic misrepresentations of the art would have been the result of use of these techniques.  

An entirely different technique was required.  Whenever polished metal surfaces are photographed one must have very large, neutral reflective surfaces and a very large diffused, main light source.  The “Copacabana” relicario is only 10.6 cm high (4.17 inches). The diffused “soft box” light source (with a studio flash head inside it with opaque side panels and a front surface diffusing material) that was used as the main light to make these images is 91.5 x 122 cm (3 x 4 feet) and was placed at a critical angle a few inches to the side and below and above the relicario.  Set opposite it and around it were “facet-type” reflector panels of pieces of near white foam core.  These served to bounce light back along the edges of the relicario in order to separate it from the black velvet background that was approximately 15 cm (6 inches) below and behind the relicario.  Had these panels not been placed the polished silver edges of the relicario would have done what all polished metal surfaces do when placed near black – they would have reflected black velvet and thus would have “disappeared” against the black velvet background.  In effect, the reflective panels and large diffused light source illuminated the front and defined the edges of the relicario.

The support of this particular delicate relicario had to be modified.  Normally a rigid support such as an acrylic block by itself would be used. However, this relicario has an eggshell-thin, curved back silver case with an even thinner interior piece of oyster pearl with its painted surface.   One does not press anything against its delicate case. Therefore I used synthetic based modeling clay on the top of the rigid support acrylic cube.  Rather than press the delicate relicario into the clay to create a form-fitted cradle, I used an inexpensive ceramic egg from a hobby shop to make an approximate indentation for the relicario’s cradle.   This procedure enabled me to have a form-fitted cradle without putting any pressure on this delicate relicario.  This ceramic egg “stand-in” was used twice to make separate customized indentations in the synthetic modeling clay, one for the frontal view and a second shaped indentation to better support the relicario in the three-quarter view that was made.  Synthetic clay was used so as not to leave any residue on the silver case.

Determining Exposure…

The images were made on professional transparency film with a medium format (6x6cm) Hasselblad camera using a 150mm lens and extension tubes to enable close focusing.  The 150 mm focal length lens achieves about a 2X magnification on this format.  Due to the lighter values of the reflective polished silver compared to the delicate colors of painted figure within the relicario’s interior, the exposure had to be exact.  In order to insure that the chosen exposure showed the silver as looking like it does in real life, the exposure was determined by “placing” the polished silver slightly above Zone VII. (The exposure “Zones” mentioned here refer to the exposure system that was developed by the late Ansel Adams and championed by other photographers such as the late Minor White.  Zone V is neutral gray with a reflectance value of 18%. This is the average exposure value that all light meters are calibrated to achieve.  Reflective values above Zone V represent progressively lighter values, those below represent progressively darker values. Zone VII is characterized as being very light, but with some texture.  Zone IV is characterized as being somewhat dark, but with definite detail revealed.)   A reflective one-degree spot meter was aimed at the polished surface of the relicario and the flash was tripped.  Had the exposure that was indicated by the meter (Zone V) been used, the silver would have looked not like polished silver, but more like medium dark gray.  Instead the indicated aperture was opened by just over two f-stops to obtain an exposure (Zone VII+) in order to render the polished silver as polished silver. The flash power packs had been set at a low power so the calculated test exposure after Zone adjustment indicated an exposure of f 8.0 at a shutter speed of 1/250th of a second.  Consequently, I increased the power setting on the flash power packs so that the Zone VII exposure was f 32.7.  

I then had to calculate the bellows extension factor to adjust for the addition of the 16mm extension tube that enabled me to focus the lens closer to the miniature art relicario.   Bellows extension factor refers to the fact that when focusing any lens very close, the marked apertures on the lens barrel no longer indicate the actual light transmission.  The closer one focuses on any object the less accurate these aperture markings become.   In reality the aperture markings are truly only accurate when a lens is focused on infinity. As a practical matter, this phenomenon is only significant when one focus at an object that is 8 times or less the focal length of the lens being used.   Often one must change camera positions several times to determine the best perspective from which to photograph miniature three-dimensional art.  Even small changes in the distance between the camera and one’s subject can result in significant bellows factor variations. One can calculate the proper bellows factor extension and thus apply it to the exposures for each of these variations using a formula. This becomes quite tedious. 

There is a much quicker and easier method that is available to SLR film camera users whose camera view finders can be removed to allow direct access to the focusing screen. Calumet Photographic offers an inexpensive device they call simply “Exposure Calculator”.  It is a small, two-part device.  To calculate the bellows factor one places a 2x2”  (5x5 cm) plastic card at the principle front plane of the art to be photographed. The card must be directed flat on to the camera lens.  After removing the camera’s viewfinder to gain direct access to the focusing screen, one measures the projected image of the card on the screen and compares that measurement to the second part of Calumet’s exposure calculator.  This second part is a short plastic “ruler” with logarithmically derived scales. One scale indicates the bellows factor in f-stops, the other scale indicates the proportion (percentage or magnification) of the image being made on the capture medium (film).  Unfortunately, removable focusing screens are extremely rare on digital cameras, thus requiring use of the formula.  On the “bright side” though, if one has a good meter and reads the unadjusted meter reading (without bellows compensation), one can estimate the bellows extension factor and make a test digital capture photograph and from there make any additional compensation adjustments to the lens aperture.  Warning: there is the temptation to shoot a digital image that is not properly exposed and then to rely on Photoshop or some other software to correct the exposure.  This can be done. However, as is the case with film, making a proper exposure in the first place always results in a better photograph.

Back to our example and applying the bellows extension factor to our indicated, unadjusted exposure of f 32.7 @ 1/250th of a second:  The bellows factor as indicated by the Calumet device was 1.7 f stops.  Therefore I opened the aperture on the 150 mm lens with its attached 16 mm extension tube to f 22.  This aperture gave sufficient depth of field (focus) from the leading edge to the rear edge of the miniature relicario.  Note: When using electronic flash as in this case one must make sure that the camera’s shutter speed will sync with the flash being used.  There is a very brief delay when one trips the shutter before the flash fires. This is so that the shutter can open.  With cameras who have leaf type shutters the shutters sync at all shutter speeds. With focal plane shutters the flash sync speed may be as slow as 1/60th to as fast as 1/250th of a second normally.  Check your owner’s manual. Also. Whatever shutter speed one uses with flash exposures, the duration of the flash itself serves as the effective shutter speed. In this example above the flash duration was approximately 1/4000th of a second.  This insured that no camera movement affected the final image.  

The Aesthetic Choices and Decisions… 

Up to this point we have reviewed purely technical aspects of miniature photography as general background information and more specifically in describing how the above photographs were made.  Equally important is the thought that went into determining how best to capture this miniature art object photographically so as to “explain it”, that is, in order to reveal what it looks like and how it is made.  It is a “delicate” piece with intricate painting and a complex finial surrounding a simple three-dimensional geometric shape.  This is a very sterile description of this extraordinarily beautiful miniature art object.  The photographic “description” of this particular miniature art is far more complete by viewing the two side-by-side photographs.

A quick examination of the object ruled out any single photograph as being able to adequately reveal the nature and design of this relicario.  Two images were necessary to accomplish this. The frontal image alone does not convey the three dimensional shape or the beaten rear silver case.  Therefore, both the frontal view and a ¾ side view were made.  A black background was used in order to isolate the relicario so as to better reveal its shape and so as not to introduce what I refer to as “visual noise”, such as texture or even a gradation type background.   In making the choice of a black background small reflective foam core panels were carefully place below and to the sides of the miniature art. These, in addition to the main light, a 3x4 foot (91x122cm) soft box, served to define the surface and edges of the art.  A few black strips of paper were taped to the white foam core reflector panels on the ¾ view so that the delicately beaten facets of the rear silver case would be immediately, but “softly” apparent.  The result of these aesthetic decisions are a pair of mutually supporting photographs of an extraordinarily beautiful and rare miniature art relicario whose inherent value as a piece of art does not require any ancillary photographic backgrounds. As an art object, “The Coronation of Our Lady of Copacabana” stands on its on merit. My goal as its photographer was to let the viewer see this.

This article was originally published in 1994.

Photography of Miniature Art: African Silver Cross

This elegant antique miniature silver cross was made in Africa from cast coin silver.  The crude casting method that was employed, as well as the quality of the silver used, resulted in a micro pitted surface that is characteristic of this genre of art. Decades of use caused a rounding of the outer edges that originally had been more distinct. Measuring only .7 inches high x .5 inches wide (1.75 cm x 1.25 cm), the cross is hung from a modern tiny silver chain. A better feel for the actual size of this cross can be realized when one considers that its chain is so small that the tip of a fine sewing needle cannot pass through one of its links.

If this piece been photographed using a telephoto macro lens and lit with a large diffused light source in conjunction with reflective boards for fill light, its essential design and characteristics would not have been revealed. Such a traditional approach would have resulted in very “flat” lighting, “masking” the intricacies of its surface pitting and the deep lines of each of the triangular shapes on the four extremities of the cross. In effect, they would have been “hidden” in plane view by such a soft, conservative lighting technique.

An entirely different approach was taken, one that emphasizes the overall form as well as the surface artifacts of this miniature cross.  Deft use of diffused cross lighting addresses the challenge of how to best represent this piece photographically.  However, the diffusion was not accomplished with a diffused “strip light” source and opposing reflector boards. This method was rejected out of hand due to the difficulty that would have arisen in attempting to control and balance the light intensity and quality at the nearest edge of the piece from the light source with the other three sides of the piece.  The light on the front surface also had to be considered. It had to be crisp, yet subdued.  

The answer to these problems lay in the decision as to which focal length of lens to be used, in conjunction with an indirect lighting arrangement. The cross was suspended with its tiny silver necklace chain from a horizontal bar that was placed approximately 24 inches (61cm) in front of a large piece of black velvet.  This somewhat wide distance between the subject and the background was necessary in order to facilitate placement of the lighting components. A 50 mm macro lens was used on a 35mm SLR camera.  This required that the cross be positioned extremely close to the front of the lens in order to fill the frame in this tight composition.  A bone-white, two-ply archival mat board measuring 18x18 inches (46x46 cm) was used as a reflective light source.  A circular hole was cut in its center.  The hole in this reflective board fit snuggly around the outside diameter of the macro lens.  The camera (with the reflective board attached to the macro lens) was anchored on a sturdy tripod and moved to a position directly in front of the suspended cross. The cross itself was approximately ½ inch (1.25 cm) away from the front of the lens and its attached reflective board.

The above set-up was now ready to be lit.  Two Dyna-Light studio flash heads were placed behind the cross and on two sides at extremely acute angles to the reflective board. These flash heads, like most electronic studio flash heads, project a wide beam of light.  They were placed very close to the reflective board and aimed almost directly at the board, thus allowing only light to “escape” from the small openings between the rim of their reflectors and the reflective board itself. This distance was approximately ¼ inch (.63 cm).  Additional  narrow strips of reflective mat board were placed at slight angles inward on the top and below the cross in order to “capture” and reflect light from the two electronic flash heads. One edge of each of these strips was attached directly to the main reflective board using white gaffer’s tape.  The use of electronic flash was mandated by the extremely close distances between the various components of this photography set-up as well as by the need to work safely and with minimum risk to the art.  

Constant quartz lights with their extremely hot bulb surface temperatures (900 degrees Fahrenheit) can never be used to achieve this type of lighting with small art objects. The lighting was determined by suspending the reflective board by itself without the camera, lens and tripod and by then taking spot meter readings of sections of the cross through the hole in the reflective board at various power settings for the flash, as well as by making slight adjustments of the flash heads themselves.  The highlighted edges of the cross were metered and “placed” at Zone VII.  The lights were adjusted so that the frontal surface of the cross “fell” into a Zone IV exposure. (The exposure “Zones” mentioned here refer to the exposure system that was developed by the late Ansel Adams and championed by other photographers such as the late Minor White.  Zone V is neutral gray with a reflectance value of 18%. This is the average exposure value that all light meters are calibrated to achieve.  

Reflective values above Zone V represent progressively lighter values, those below represent progressively darker values. Zone VII is characterized as being very light, but with some texture.  Zone IV is characterized as being somewhat dark, but with definite detail revealed.)  Due to the close proximity of all of the components of this photography set up, traditional through the lens meter readings or use of a hand-held incident light meter was not possible.  The use a short 50mm macro lens enabled the deeply recessed front lens element, with its placement so close to the cross, to serve as a non-reflective “surface”. Use of this lens with its deeply recessed front lens element also provided protection from image degrading lens “flare”. (“Flare” refers to ghost-like shapes that are caused by non-image forming light striking unprotected lens elements and reflecting between them in a compound lens.)  The 50mm macro lens, in conjunction with suppressed and carefully adjusted reflected perimeter lighting, enabled me to accurately define the form and primary characteristics of this unique cross as I perceived them to be.  

As in all cases involving documentation photography of three-dimensional art, accurate photographic representation requires that the essential elements of the work be determined beforehand and that appropriate measures be employed to achieve “proper” photographic representation of the art.  This necessitates some interpretation of the art by the photographer. Whenever possible, discussion of the art with its creator is highly desirable. In this case, the original artist was long deceased and unknown.  The above formal description of the method that I adopted to photograph this art sounds rather clinical.  However, the inspiration for choosing to photograph this cross as I did is found in my deep appreciation and respect for the spiritual values represented by the piece itself and, indirectly, by its maker.  With this in mind, I believe that the unknown artist who conceived and created this art might be pleased by the efforts taken to represent it photographically. 

This article was originally published in 2007.