The best solution is to shoot with polarizing filters over both lights and camera. The next best is to shoot with polarizing filter on the camera alone.
Fixing it in Photoshop isn’t going to be easy if there is much reflection – those will be specular highlights with no detail, so all you can do is clone from other areas, or paint in to match the original
Len,
Thanks for that. I am aware of the use of polarizing filters. But, the artist hates the deadening effect that these produce and I agree with him.
The specular highlighting from the varnish is not great, so I just want a way to remove it in CS3.
Is cloning the only way? If so, should the Opacity be reduced?
Thanks.
D.
Is it possible to re-shoot it in indirect daylight?
Or at a slight angle, (squaring it up in Photoshop afterwards)?
Use a diffuser over the flash next time.
Can you photograph from two different angles? (Actually, with the light source at two different angles … if the camera is at a different angle there will be perspective issues.) This should give two or three images with the glare in different places, and you should be able to marry the images together into one consistent one.
I quite like Don’s suggestion – that should produce reflections in different places to leave you with something to clone from
A diffuser will prevent most of the shine that is created by a direct flash which, I assume, was used when taking the photos. You do shouldn’t take the photo from two angles it is just a waste of time.
Len, Don your lack of photographic knowledge is apparent.
ID. I said taking from different camera angles would not work. I was suggesting different light source angles. Perhaps that will not work, but I suspect that it will give something better than a glared pix.
Don
Don: The idea is ‘no glare’ that you would get if you use a diffuser over the light source. That is the answer, not any of the other guff being given here, including Robert’s suggestion. Once the problem is apparent you cannot get back detail that does not exist.
It appears that neither you or Len know what a light diffuser is or both of you gaffers have forgotten.
I’m a little exasperated here, I studied photography for two years and spent six years in TV, the concept is still the same.
Trust me on this, the photos have to be taken again: PROPERLY.
That is true when its gone its gone. However, if there are small spots minimizing the glaring white to a lesser not nearly as obnoxious shade can go a long ways. If 1/4 of the painting is blown out then it is a trash image. However, if it is like lots of little spots those can be dealt with in a way that can work. It depends on the image.
The program I suggested does exactly that it minimizes the glare to a less obnoixious shade and maybe worth a look.
Robert
"Trust me on this, the photos have to be taken again: PROPERLY."
I merely grew up with a Dad who was a news cameraman & pro-hobbyist photographer (with shows and a couple small books in his résumé). I’m a bone-header duffer myself when it comes to taking good photos. I rely a lot on luck, though I’m trying to learn more.
But even I remember that the most important part of the work comes before you even click the shutter release. In this case, that means properly diffused light source(s).
With any luck, the frustration and puzzlement now being experienced by Dinarius will lead to further study, and then to assemble the proper lighting set-up and techniques so that the glare problem is mitigated in future projects.
How about no direct light, but a long exposure on a selftimer?
To remove the reflections totally – that’s totally – Len’s answer, part one, is the correct way to do it. It will not only remove all reflections, but will result in fully saturated colours.
If the artist has seen that exact look (that’s with a proper contra-polarized setup, filters on both lens and lights, with lights direct and placed at 45º to the subject and filters polarization oriented vertically with the lens polarizer rotated until reflections are eliminated), then diffusing an unpolarized light source with no lens polarizer will greatly reduce – but unlikely eliminate entirely – reflections, and will also desaturate colours slightly (through overall surface reflection).
The two methods behave differently in look and it will really be up to the artist to nominate his/her preference.
Third option, which I have not tried but seems logical, is to use the recover and fill sliders in ACR4.1 on a properly exposed file.
Oh, and before you waste your time typing an insult, ID, I do know what I’m talking about. Over 35 years specializing in photographic copy work after qualifying in photography at university gives me some insight into the subject.
….and shooting in diffused daylight is good (if you can get the picture out of the Louvre!)
but oil painting ,get free frame
Asking price $39 to $99
For promoting our site www.bigtimearts.com, now, if you buy an oil painting , you can get a frame free, and we have stretched
the oil painting on stretch bars, you can hang on the wall directly once you receive it. don’t miss the chance, just pls
email to for more information.
