museum photography....what camera setup?

[Brian]

Could someone advise me on what lens and camera setting would suit museum
photography.
I like to photography objects behind glass with text describing the objects
then later I can zoom in on the objects and read about them.

I have a Canon 70D SLR camera with 18 to 135mm lens.
I've tried in the past to photograph in a museum but often the lighting is
low so there are problems such as low shutter speed or high iso that
results in a grainy photo and flash is not possible as most objects are
behind the glass. The other problem is a small depth of field if a wide
aperture is used.

[dadiOH]

Post by Brian
Could someone advise me on what lens and camera setting would suit museum
photography.
I like to photography objects behind glass with text describing the
objects then later I can zoom in on the objects and read about them.
I have a Canon 70D SLR camera with 18 to 135mm lens.
I've tried in the past to photograph in a museum but often the lighting is
low so there are problems such as low shutter speed or high iso that
results in a grainy photo and flash is not possible as most objects are
behind the glass. The other problem is a small depth of field if a wide
aperture is used.

Use a tripod if permitted; if not, you are SOL.

[Whiskers]

Post by dadiOH

Post by Brian
Could someone advise me on what lens and camera setting would suit
museum photography. I like to photography objects behind glass with
text describing the objects then later I can zoom in on the objects
and read about them.
I have a Canon 70D SLR camera with 18 to 135mm lens. I've tried in
the past to photograph in a museum but often the lighting is low so
there are problems such as low shutter speed or high iso that results
in a grainy photo and flash is not possible as most objects are
behind the glass. The other problem is a small depth of field if a
wide aperture is used.

Use a tripod if permitted; if not, you are SOL.

A mobile phone might be the best choice - least likely to get too much
attention from the museum staff, and easy to manoeuvre in confined
spaces too. The default wide-angle setting of the digital 'zoom' is
usually adequate. I have successfully laid the phone on the glass top
of display cases, or held it up against the glass side, to get
shake-free shots at slow shutter speeds with a delayed release - few
'real' cameras have the flat front and low weight required for that to
work.

The tiny sensor and lens in a mobile phone give great depth of field,
whether you want it or not.

Gentle discreet application of a duster (to the glass case only - not to
any exhibit!) can help.

You probably won't get 'professional post-card quality' results, but
perfectly adequate for recording labels and as a reminder of what you've
seen for yourself.

[Mort]

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

[Brian]

Post by Mort

Post by dadiOH

Post by Brian
Could someone advise me on what lens and camera setting would suit museum
photography.
I like to photography objects behind glass with text describing the
objects then later I can zoom in on the objects and read about them.
I have a Canon 70D SLR camera with 18 to 135mm lens.
I've tried in the past to photograph in a museum but often the lighting is
low so there are problems such as low shutter speed or high iso that
results in a grainy photo and flash is not possible as most objects are
behind the glass. The other problem is a small depth of field if a wide
aperture is used.

Use a tripod if permitted; if not, you are SOL.

I use an obvious trick taught to me years ago by an older photographer.
It helped me to get splendid color slides in the almost-dark Kariye Djami in Istanbul.
After setting the camera appropriately, I set the self timer, which gives
me 10 seconds to hold the camera steadily against my forehead, take a
deep breath then hold my breath, and hold as still as I can. This was 40
years ago, long before image stabilizers came along. It works.
Another possibility, where appropriate, is a bean bag support against a fixed object.
Good photo shooting.
Mort Linder

Thanks people for your suggestions. There are some worth considering.

I think holding the camera to my forehead stops me from framing the photo
unless I'm using wide angle lens. For some displays I need to carefully
frame the photo so I get everything in the photo.

The museum is not keen on using tripods as they get in the way of other
visitors and it starts to look too professional as they only allow
snapshots in the museum. I might be able to use a monopod.

Using an external flash is still a problem as in many cases you only have
the front of the glass and can't aim the flash to the side of the display.
I have seen visitors use a flash on their camera when photographing
something behind glass, it looks like most people don't check the result
afterwards else they would soon learn not to do this.

Using a polarized filter could help with refections.

I made a mistake recently of reducing the aperture down to about f8 to get
a greater depth of field, this lowered the shutter speed to a very slow
speed which caused camera shape. I was using another camera (Sony HX200)
there was no warning of slow shutter speed but after a few shots I checked
the result and was able to change the cameras settings.

I also liked the suggestion of using different lens as wide angle lens with
a wider aperture still should give me a good depth of field.

I also might try a delayed shutter timer of 2 seconds to prevent camera
shake.

I'd in interested in knowing what camera lens people use for museum
photography.

[nospam]

In article

Post by Brian
Using an external flash is still a problem as in many cases you only have
the front of the glass and can't aim the flash to the side of the display.
I have seen visitors use a flash on their camera when photographing
something behind glass, it looks like most people don't check the result
afterwards else they would soon learn not to do this.

those are the people who have no idea what they're doing.

you can see them taking flash photos at ball games or worse, out the
window of a plane, somehow expecting that the light will reach 30,000
feet below.

Post by Brian
Using a polarized filter could help with refections.

it does, but for the best results, you also should polarize the flash
too.

Post by Brian
I made a mistake recently of reducing the aperture down to about f8 to get
a greater depth of field, this lowered the shutter speed to a very slow
speed which caused camera shape. I was using another camera (Sony HX200)
there was no warning of slow shutter speed but after a few shots I checked
the result and was able to change the cameras settings.

get a stabilized lens and/or bump up the iso.

ideally, use auto iso with a minimum shutter speed.

you probably don't need to go as far as f/8 anyway.

[Brian]

Post by Mark Storkamp
In article

Post by Brian
Using an external flash is still a problem as in many cases you only have
the front of the glass and can't aim the flash to the side of the display.
I have seen visitors use a flash on their camera when photographing
something behind glass, it looks like most people don't check the result
afterwards else they would soon learn not to do this.

those are the people who have no idea what they're doing.
you can see them taking flash photos at ball games or worse, out the
window of a plane, somehow expecting that the light will reach 30,000
feet below.

Post by Brian
Using a polarized filter could help with refections.

it does, but for the best results, you also should polarize the flash
too.

I've never heard of a polarize flash; is that a polarized filter put in
front of the flash? How does it help?

Post by Mark Storkamp

Post by Brian
I made a mistake recently of reducing the aperture down to about f8 to get
a greater depth of field, this lowered the shutter speed to a very slow
speed which caused camera shape. I was using another camera (Sony HX200)
there was no warning of slow shutter speed but after a few shots I checked
the result and was able to change the cameras settings.

get a stabilized lens and/or bump up the iso.
ideally, use auto iso with a minimum shutter speed.
you probably don't need to go as far as f/8 anyway.

I've found depth of field a problem as the object might be in focus but the
text not far behind it is not clearly in focus. That was why I was thinking
of using a smaller aperture to increase the depth of field, but then its a
trade off of having to increase the iso and there by increasing the digital
noise which results in a less sharp image.

The lens on the camera has a stabilizer option which I have turned on for
the museum. Low light and high iso setting seem to cause problems in
getting a clear image. There is a setting on the camera that rapidly takes
several pictures and add them together to give a brighter picture.
Holding the camera against the glass does not always work like someone
suggested as I need to move back from the glass to capture everything
behind the glass. I might try using a monopod for museum photography.

One other possibility is to use my smartphone which allow a panorama photo,
this would allow me to capture more objects in the photo. I don't need to
do a complete panorama scan to just capture enough of what I want but it
would depend on how bright the display is.

I get a feeling that I might have to save some money to buy another lens.

Thanks for your support.

[dadiOH]

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

[Brian]

Post by dadiOH

Post by Brian

Post by nospam

Post by Brian
Using a polarized filter could help with refections.

it does, but for the best results, you also should polarize the flash
too.

I've never heard of a polarize flash; is that a polarized filter put in
front of the flash? How does it help?

1. At the zenith of the sky
2. At a specific angle (30 degrees?) to the camera
A polarizing filter over the light helps because the light from the flash
is now polarized regardless of the angle which means that a polarized
filter on the camera can be used to control reflections from the flash.
If the flash - or other supplentary light(s) - is properly placed there
is no advantage to putting a polarizing filter on them UNLESS the
variation in shape/texture of the subject is such that one gets
reflections regardless of the lights being properly placed.

Post by Brian
I get a feeling that I might have to save some money to buy another > lens.

What would you expect it to do? The only differences among lenses -
other than the quality - is aperture range and focal length (in zooms,
focal length range). Your problem has to do with lack of light and
physics (depth of field and relationship of shutter speed and
sensitivity). Photography is locked into the laws of physics.

I was thinking about a lens that has a wide angle and a larger aperture. As
the lens is wide angle then with a larger aperture I could get more light
and still maintain a good depth of field.,
I came across a 10 to 17mm zoom lens but it might cause a fish eye type
photo.

[sid]

Post by Brian

Post by dadiOH

Post by Brian
I get a feeling that I might have to save some money to buy another > lens.

What would you expect it to do? The only differences among lenses -
other than the quality - is aperture range and focal length (in zooms,
focal length range). Your problem has to do with lack of light and
physics (depth of field and relationship of shutter speed and
sensitivity). Photography is locked into the laws of physics.

I was thinking about a lens that has a wide angle and a larger aperture.
As the lens is wide angle then with a larger aperture I could get more
light and still maintain a good depth of field.,
I came across a 10 to 17mm zoom lens but it might cause a fish eye type
photo.

Any one of the popular brand super wide zooms will suffice for your needs.
Your camera will produce perfectly good images at remarkably high ISO.

[dadiOH]

Post by Brian

Post by dadiOH

Post by Brian
I get a feeling that I might have to save some money to buy another
lens.

What would you expect it to do? The only differences among lenses -
other than the quality - is aperture range and focal length (in zooms,
focal length range). Your problem has to do with lack of light and
physics (depth of field and relationship of shutter speed and
sensitivity). Photography is locked into the laws of physics.

I was thinking about a lens that has a wide angle and a larger aperture.
As the lens is wide angle then with a larger aperture I could get more
light and still maintain a good depth of field.,

The problem with a wider lens is that your image size will be smaller at a
given distance. If you move the camera closer to the subject to increase
size, you will lose depth of field. If you photograph something with both
20mm and 200mm lenses so that the subject size in the image is the same,
the depth of field will be identical in both.

A larger aperture would indeed provide more light but at the expense of
depth of field.

Photography is locked into the laws of physics

[nospam]

In article

Post by Brian
I was thinking about a lens that has a wide angle and a larger aperture. As
the lens is wide angle then with a larger aperture I could get more light
and still maintain a good depth of field.,
I came across a 10 to 17mm zoom lens but it might cause a fish eye type
photo.

you can defish in software.

also keep in mind that a wider angle lens means you will need to be
closer to the subject to get the same size subject which will affect
perspective (and depth of field).

[nospam]

In article

Post by Brian

Post by nospam

Post by Brian
Using a polarized filter could help with refections.

it does, but for the best results, you also should polarize the flash
too.

I've never heard of a polarize flash; is that a polarized filter put in
front of the flash? How does it help?

put a polarizer filter on the flash and another polarizer on the
camera, which blocks glare from the flash.

Post by Brian
I've found depth of field a problem as the object might be in focus but the
text not far behind it is not clearly in focus. That was why I was thinking
of using a smaller aperture to increase the depth of field, but then its a
trade off of having to increase the iso and there by increasing the digital
noise which results in a less sharp image.

take two photos, one of the item and then one of the text.

Post by Brian
The lens on the camera has a stabilizer option which I have turned on for
the museum. Low light and high iso setting seem to cause problems in
getting a clear image.

don't go too high but you should easily be able to do 1600 without
issue and 3200 should be quite good.

Post by Brian
There is a setting on the camera that rapidly takes
several pictures and add them together to give a brighter picture.
Holding the camera against the glass does not always work like someone
suggested as I need to move back from the glass to capture everything
behind the glass. I might try using a monopod for museum photography.

a monopod might work but not all museums will allow that.

Post by Brian
One other possibility is to use my smartphone which allow a panorama photo,
this would allow me to capture more objects in the photo. I don't need to
do a complete panorama scan to just capture enough of what I want but it
would depend on how bright the display is.

smartphone quality is lower. it might be good enough though.

Post by Brian
I get a feeling that I might have to save some money to buy another lens.

that's an option.

[Brian]

Post by Mark Storkamp
In article

Post by Brian

Post by nospam

Post by Brian
Using a polarized filter could help with refections.

it does, but for the best results, you also should polarize the flash
too.

I've never heard of a polarize flash; is that a polarized filter put in
front of the flash? How does it help?

put a polarizer filter on the flash and another polarizer on the
camera, which blocks glare from the flash.

Post by Brian
I've found depth of field a problem as the object might be in focus but the
text not far behind it is not clearly in focus. That was why I was thinking
of using a smaller aperture to increase the depth of field, but then its a
trade off of having to increase the iso and there by increasing the digital
noise which results in a less sharp image.

take two photos, one of the item and then one of the text.

Post by Brian
The lens on the camera has a stabilizer option which I have turned on for
the museum. Low light and high iso setting seem to cause problems in
getting a clear image.

don't go too high but you should easily be able to do 1600 without
issue and 3200 should be quite good.

Post by Brian
There is a setting on the camera that rapidly takes
several pictures and add them together to give a brighter picture.
Holding the camera against the glass does not always work like someone
suggested as I need to move back from the glass to capture everything
behind the glass. I might try using a monopod for museum photography.

a monopod might work but not all museums will allow that.

Post by Brian
One other possibility is to use my smartphone which allow a panorama photo,
this would allow me to capture more objects in the photo. I don't need to
do a complete panorama scan to just capture enough of what I want but it
would depend on how bright the display is.

smartphone quality is lower. it might be good enough though.

Post by Brian
I get a feeling that I might have to save some money to buy another lens.

that's an option.

Thanks people for your support.

I still would be interested in setups such as type of lens used when other
people have taken photos in a museum.

[Whiskers]

Post by Brian

Post by Mark Storkamp
In article

[...]

Post by Brian
Thanks people for your support.
I still would be interested in setups such as type of lens used when
other people have taken photos in a museum.

Leica M3, Elmar 50mm lens and Elmar 90mm lens. Because that's what I
had. Ilford FP4 or HP5 or Fuji colour print film.

At other times, Yashica TLR or Rollie 35 compact or various compact
digicams and mobile phones. Depending on what I had with me. Even a
Minox sub-miniature.

Only you can tell which limitations of your existing kit are getting in
your way.

[Mark Storkamp]

In article

Post by Brian
Could someone advise me on what lens and camera setting would suit museum
photography.
I like to photography objects behind glass with text describing the objects
then later I can zoom in on the objects and read about them.
I have a Canon 70D SLR camera with 18 to 135mm lens.
I've tried in the past to photograph in a museum but often the lighting is
low so there are problems such as low shutter speed or high iso that
results in a grainy photo and flash is not possible as most objects are
behind the glass. The other problem is a small depth of field if a wide
aperture is used.

I've at times used a bench and my camera bag to prop up the camera, then
used the self-timer to trip the shutter for a long exposure shot in
museums (works particularly well for ceilings at the Vatican). I've
never brought a tripod, but I have been to some museums that do allow
them.

[nospam]

In article

Post by Brian
Could someone advise me on what lens and camera setting would suit museum
photography.
I like to photography objects behind glass with text describing the objects
then later I can zoom in on the objects and read about them.

museums generally prohibit flash, which would reflect off the glass
anyway unless you had an external flash.

however, if they do allow flash, get an external flash and an extension
cord so you can use it off camera. you can also bounce it rather than
direct head-on to reduce reflections. if you want to get really fancy,
you can use multiple polarizers.

if you don't use flash (which is likely the case), a lens with
stabilization would be *very* useful to reduce camera shake, especially
if you use a smaller aperture for depth of field.

the canon 17-55mm f/2.8 would be a good choice but it's not all that
cheap and there are third party equivalents that are probably just as
good for this situation.

Post by Brian
I have a Canon 70D SLR camera with 18 to 135mm lens.
I've tried in the past to photograph in a museum but often the lighting is
low so there are problems such as low shutter speed or high iso that
results in a grainy photo and flash is not possible as most objects are
behind the glass. The other problem is a small depth of field if a wide
aperture is used.

the 18-135 is too slow for indoor available light, although you can
bump the iso to 1600 at least without too much problem and it might
still be usable.

it really depends on the museum. some are not that dark, while others
are, plus policies vary wildly on what types of photography is allowed.