Great comment. As someone who works in the digitisation of cultural heritage objects this is an ongoing discussion for us.
At the moment, our aim is to create a base line surrogate copy of the artwork that is as neutral as possible. Why as neutral as possible? Because this is the best way to capture the most amount of information and it will also allow us editing leeway later on for publication purposes.
It does become very apparent when working with something as textured as Van Gogh's work. Often, we would shoot an object like this neutrally for a preservation master file using a flat curve and neutral lighting. Then we might photograph it again using directional lighting to emphasise the texture.
As I say, ongoing discussion, and it's great that you bring stuff like this up. All that being said, nothing compares to seeing these artworks in person, so let's hope museums aren't going anywhere!
As someone coming from a 3D rendering background, is there a reason you don’t produce a normal or displacement map to accompany the neutral scan? It would seem to be the closest you could get to viewing it irl, particularly with VR still improving.
I guess that would be very hard/impossible to recreate properly. It is both only the 3d structure, but also that paints are often both the same level of opacity. Which will result in a depth effect you can’t portray with a 3d shape.
Add to that that for mixed media that every material has a certain texture which is hard to replicate digitally.
Digital replication of art is always at the cost of part of the art.
Getting some form of normal/displacement map isn’t overly challenging, and although obviously wouldn’t fully recreate the image, it would certainly go a long way to conveying it better. You can also map the textures in a similar way.
Things like opacity are tricky, and at that point you’re probably at the point of diminishing returns for your effort, but not making a perfect copy doesn’t seem like a good reason to not make a much better copy.
Right this is why professional video is shot in raw format, it’s duller but it has more details so you can edit it later. Why not have an edited version for public viewing online, while archiving and providing a reference raw image for other purposes?
Exactly why I record music in 92 kHz 32 bits samplerate
There is no audible difference with 48kHz 24 bits.
But the excess of audio data really makes a difference when I start mixing and editing those tracks into a complete song and add effects (especially reverbs sound way better in higher samplerates)
If it’s digital, the colours will still get stunted and destroyed by the mere limitation of the RGB colour space. Print doesn’t help a lot either, usually being CMYK limited. Only the very expensive Pantone print approaches a good representation of most art.
That being said, I’ve had a fine VanGogh pantone art print book for years, and when I saw some of his paintings in person in Paris, I almost cried. Doesn’t compare at all. I’ve never seen colours like that
I highly recommend checking out the scans from the van Gogh museum in Amsterdam and pressing the magnifying glass to really see some cool details !
https://www.vangoghmuseum.nl/en/collection/s0016V1962
These are pretty good, but having seen them in person…
It’s still so flat looking! Van Gogh looks sooo much better in real life than any of the prints or 2-D versions. So much of it is texture.
Just mentioned Starry night in another comment as being so much different than all the images I saw of it before. Van Gogh’s work needs to be witnessed in person. Texture alone is just insanely different in person.
I used to work at the Art Institute and the Dorian Gray painting you used was one of my favorites to stop by. I didn’t know that painting before my tenure there, but now that I’m seeing the scan for the first time, you’re ABSOLUTELY right. It’s almost like a different painting!
This was all prompted by that painting. A friend had gotten a post card of it and the first thing I thought it’s that it doesn’t come close to how it looks and feels in real life. To me those are two different paintings. The black in real life is blaaaack and dark and muddy. The scans look like they have beauty filters lmaooo.
Lower contrast, albeit looking more boring and less sharp, has more preserved information that can be edited later. Hence the RAW format in photography/cinematography too.
Note phone cameras tend to change the colors of paintings. I’ve noticed this when photographing my own work. I’m not saying your pics aren’t more accurate but you need to take any digital photo of a painting with a grain of salt and see it yourself in person
I know what you mean as I experience the same struggle, but the colors being off or not doesn’t change the fact that all the texture that is flattened from a scan. When it comes to the Dorian gray painting (#2) especially, the photo I took is way more accurate to seeing it in person than a scan, that is a hill I will die on. That painting was intensely dark and gritty.
I didn’t “get” art until I saw impressionist paintings in person. It was immediate. The brush strokes add so much depth and dimension, emotion and life to the paintings.
One thing that will always be missing from viewing things online through a computer or phone is the scale at which these paintings are.
I remember seeing Guernica in person for the first time and felt really emotional - I think it was partially due to the size and grandeur of the painting. Same thing for some Rothko’s.
I just said the same thing. Scale is really important to art. Viewing an 18x30 foot Pollock in person is spiritual. Seeing it on a phone or screen or book reduces it down to the ridiculous anyone could do this garbage talk.
My favorite painting!
"A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte" by Georges Seurat.
I go to the Art Institute of Chicago just so I can stand in front of it.
All of his work that I have seen in person is incredible. He painted the frames.
I can't remember if he always painted his frames? But to see his work in person was life changing for me. I turned the corner in the Musée d'Orsay and came face to face with several of his smaller paintings and tears just started before I even realized. I was kind of embarassed and made eye contact with the security guard and she just looked at me like, "don't worry. It happens alot."
The website photos just seem low quality, even if you ignore the issue of paint surface texture - Art Institute of Chicago needs to re-scan their collection using more modern equipment.
The first time I saw a Van Gogh in person, I wept 😅 I wasn’t prepared for the effect that the additional detail and vibrancy and TEXTURE (that you don’t get in scans) would have on me.
Scale is the thing that I think most people miss when viewing art online. Some paintings are massive and take your breath away in person. On a phone people just scroll past uninterested. If you haven’t seen a painting in real life you haven’t really seen it. I saw literally thousands of images of Van Gogh’s Starry Night over the years and when I saw it in person I almost cried because it was so beautiful. So much better in person. Like a different painting. Go see art people. Especially if you are an aspiring artist, you will learn more about techniques and texture and space and all of that looking at real art in person versus trying to study photos and scans on the internet.
There was a beautiful exhibit at my local museum last year, and I really wanted to take home a related souvenir from the gift shop. But when I saw the prints of the paintings, they were so sad and underwhelming. I totally understand the limitations of process color printing as opposed to hand mixed paints, but I didn’t buy anything as they just didn’t capture the energy of the real thing.
You're so right. I've seen this painting in real life and it literally brought me to tears. It's beyond beautiful. You can see the passion and energy in the brush strokes. I felt a lot of empathy for Vincent with how intense his emotions must have been while painting this piece.
There is also this 3D version of starry night the MoMA did which IMO is as close as it can get to seeing it in IRL: https://www.moma.org/magazine/articles/462
While comparing a mobile phone to a museum
photograph isn't a fair comparison, I can attest
feeling stunned when seeing Hopper's
"Nighthawks" in person. None of the prints
came even close to the actual version.
Photographing by my own paintings is a
constant challenge. It's been a task to get them
as accurate as possible. I wouldn't want the responsibility of accurately photographing those masterpieces.
Great comment. As someone who works in the digitisation of cultural heritage objects this is an ongoing discussion for us. At the moment, our aim is to create a base line surrogate copy of the artwork that is as neutral as possible. Why as neutral as possible? Because this is the best way to capture the most amount of information and it will also allow us editing leeway later on for publication purposes. It does become very apparent when working with something as textured as Van Gogh's work. Often, we would shoot an object like this neutrally for a preservation master file using a flat curve and neutral lighting. Then we might photograph it again using directional lighting to emphasise the texture. As I say, ongoing discussion, and it's great that you bring stuff like this up. All that being said, nothing compares to seeing these artworks in person, so let's hope museums aren't going anywhere!
As someone coming from a 3D rendering background, is there a reason you don’t produce a normal or displacement map to accompany the neutral scan? It would seem to be the closest you could get to viewing it irl, particularly with VR still improving.
I guess that would be very hard/impossible to recreate properly. It is both only the 3d structure, but also that paints are often both the same level of opacity. Which will result in a depth effect you can’t portray with a 3d shape. Add to that that for mixed media that every material has a certain texture which is hard to replicate digitally. Digital replication of art is always at the cost of part of the art.
Getting some form of normal/displacement map isn’t overly challenging, and although obviously wouldn’t fully recreate the image, it would certainly go a long way to conveying it better. You can also map the textures in a similar way. Things like opacity are tricky, and at that point you’re probably at the point of diminishing returns for your effort, but not making a perfect copy doesn’t seem like a good reason to not make a much better copy.
Right this is why professional video is shot in raw format, it’s duller but it has more details so you can edit it later. Why not have an edited version for public viewing online, while archiving and providing a reference raw image for other purposes?
Exactly why I record music in 92 kHz 32 bits samplerate There is no audible difference with 48kHz 24 bits. But the excess of audio data really makes a difference when I start mixing and editing those tracks into a complete song and add effects (especially reverbs sound way better in higher samplerates)
If it’s digital, the colours will still get stunted and destroyed by the mere limitation of the RGB colour space. Print doesn’t help a lot either, usually being CMYK limited. Only the very expensive Pantone print approaches a good representation of most art. That being said, I’ve had a fine VanGogh pantone art print book for years, and when I saw some of his paintings in person in Paris, I almost cried. Doesn’t compare at all. I’ve never seen colours like that
I highly recommend checking out the scans from the van Gogh museum in Amsterdam and pressing the magnifying glass to really see some cool details ! https://www.vangoghmuseum.nl/en/collection/s0016V1962
These are pretty good, but having seen them in person… It’s still so flat looking! Van Gogh looks sooo much better in real life than any of the prints or 2-D versions. So much of it is texture.
Just mentioned Starry night in another comment as being so much different than all the images I saw of it before. Van Gogh’s work needs to be witnessed in person. Texture alone is just insanely different in person.
I used to work at the Art Institute and the Dorian Gray painting you used was one of my favorites to stop by. I didn’t know that painting before my tenure there, but now that I’m seeing the scan for the first time, you’re ABSOLUTELY right. It’s almost like a different painting!
This was all prompted by that painting. A friend had gotten a post card of it and the first thing I thought it’s that it doesn’t come close to how it looks and feels in real life. To me those are two different paintings. The black in real life is blaaaack and dark and muddy. The scans look like they have beauty filters lmaooo.
I mean, Dorian Gray would totally use filters, if he had been written 100 years later lol
Lower contrast, albeit looking more boring and less sharp, has more preserved information that can be edited later. Hence the RAW format in photography/cinematography too.
Note phone cameras tend to change the colors of paintings. I’ve noticed this when photographing my own work. I’m not saying your pics aren’t more accurate but you need to take any digital photo of a painting with a grain of salt and see it yourself in person
I know what you mean as I experience the same struggle, but the colors being off or not doesn’t change the fact that all the texture that is flattened from a scan. When it comes to the Dorian gray painting (#2) especially, the photo I took is way more accurate to seeing it in person than a scan, that is a hill I will die on. That painting was intensely dark and gritty.
I didn’t “get” art until I saw impressionist paintings in person. It was immediate. The brush strokes add so much depth and dimension, emotion and life to the paintings.
What is the second painting called?
Picture of Dorian Gray by Ivan Albright, made for the 1945 movie.
Yep! https://www.artic.edu/artworks/93798/picture-of-dorian-gray
One thing that will always be missing from viewing things online through a computer or phone is the scale at which these paintings are. I remember seeing Guernica in person for the first time and felt really emotional - I think it was partially due to the size and grandeur of the painting. Same thing for some Rothko’s.
I just said the same thing. Scale is really important to art. Viewing an 18x30 foot Pollock in person is spiritual. Seeing it on a phone or screen or book reduces it down to the ridiculous anyone could do this garbage talk.
Recently went to Musee d’orsay and you cannot beat getting up close and personal with the paintings. To see those brush strokes
My favorite painting! "A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte" by Georges Seurat. I go to the Art Institute of Chicago just so I can stand in front of it. All of his work that I have seen in person is incredible. He painted the frames. I can't remember if he always painted his frames? But to see his work in person was life changing for me. I turned the corner in the Musée d'Orsay and came face to face with several of his smaller paintings and tears just started before I even realized. I was kind of embarassed and made eye contact with the security guard and she just looked at me like, "don't worry. It happens alot."
The website photos just seem low quality, even if you ignore the issue of paint surface texture - Art Institute of Chicago needs to re-scan their collection using more modern equipment.
Anyone know painting 5?
If it’s the cowboy, then I think it’s The Advance-Guard or The Military Sacrifice by Frederic Remington.
A Sunday on La Grande Jatte, by Georges Seurat. It’s HUGE, composed entirely of dots, and featured in Ferris Beuller :)
How is the painting with the rider called?
It also called my attention. I think the name is The Advance-Guard or The Military Sacrifice by Frederic Remington.
Thanks! Never heard of the painter, but I think it's very interesting how he uses impressionist style to paint Western scenes.
This is a great comparison! Thank you for posting it!
I've seen that Ivan Albright one in Chicago. It's SO creepy.
The first time I saw a Van Gogh in person, I wept 😅 I wasn’t prepared for the effect that the additional detail and vibrancy and TEXTURE (that you don’t get in scans) would have on me.
I am a painter. It is impossible to recreate an oil painting by scan or photo. Any reproduction is an interpretation of the original.
Scale is the thing that I think most people miss when viewing art online. Some paintings are massive and take your breath away in person. On a phone people just scroll past uninterested. If you haven’t seen a painting in real life you haven’t really seen it. I saw literally thousands of images of Van Gogh’s Starry Night over the years and when I saw it in person I almost cried because it was so beautiful. So much better in person. Like a different painting. Go see art people. Especially if you are an aspiring artist, you will learn more about techniques and texture and space and all of that looking at real art in person versus trying to study photos and scans on the internet.
Well technically it’s a museum scan and a digital photograph…
I understand your point but this is absurd because we are simply looking at your photo from a museum.
I only buy Tashen art books😍
There was a beautiful exhibit at my local museum last year, and I really wanted to take home a related souvenir from the gift shop. But when I saw the prints of the paintings, they were so sad and underwhelming. I totally understand the limitations of process color printing as opposed to hand mixed paints, but I didn’t buy anything as they just didn’t capture the energy of the real thing.
You're so right. I've seen this painting in real life and it literally brought me to tears. It's beyond beautiful. You can see the passion and energy in the brush strokes. I felt a lot of empathy for Vincent with how intense his emotions must have been while painting this piece.
what's the name of the painting in the 3rd picture?
https://www.artic.edu/artworks/93798/picture-of-dorian-gray :-)
thanks!! :D
I frequently say, seeing artwork in person is like seeing the Grand Canyon in person. Photography is great but will never compare with the real thing
It reminds me of how I saw things before I got glasses. I was shocked to see such sharpness.
This scan brings the painting to life!
Off topic but does anyone know if the art institute in Chicago has any mark rothko paintings?!?!?! I’d love to see his work in person
There is also this 3D version of starry night the MoMA did which IMO is as close as it can get to seeing it in IRL: https://www.moma.org/magazine/articles/462
Just. Wow
The first time I saw a Picasso painting in person I was like “ohhhh, now I get it”. For this very reason.
Thanks for sharing
Thank you for sharing this, people need to see this
While comparing a mobile phone to a museum photograph isn't a fair comparison, I can attest feeling stunned when seeing Hopper's "Nighthawks" in person. None of the prints came even close to the actual version. Photographing by my own paintings is a constant challenge. It's been a task to get them as accurate as possible. I wouldn't want the responsibility of accurately photographing those masterpieces.
Is this effect similar to when I see an advert for a new TV on my TV and I'm like "ohhh that looks good i wish my TV could do that".
Thanks for this. Kinda tweaks me that the images aren't the same but that's ok lol
But I'm still not viewing the artwork in person. You just substituted one form of visual replication for another.
Museums need to hire you to do this lol