I am prone to making dark paintings (figuratively and literally). Most are not hard to photograph, but every once in a while, one comes along that is the right combination of texture and value, providing a challenge for even the most experienced photographer. Crying Man IV is painted with oil glazes on a black gessoed ground, so the background is very matte, and the figure is sort of a satin finish. It is proving impossible to photograph..... even with diffusers, even outside on an overcast day. It is a rich, deep valued painting,
but the dark, satin surface always seems to pick up glare when photographed (on the bottom third here).
"Fate of A Technicolor Romantic" was similar: even after 10 stabs at it myself, and attempts by two professional art photographers, there was always glare somewhere on the 6 x 8 foot inky canvas. In the old days of SLRs, there was always a polarizing filter option to try. I have a high-resolution digital camera now, and this evening will be spent online looking for a filter set for it.
Artwork does not really exist in the world until there is a great high res jpeg of it that can be sent out. Representations are so frustrating to me: If you do a 6 x 8 foot painting, and most of the surface was detailed with a size 00000 brush, none of that is going to register on the reproduced image. Given the option, I will always ask if photos for articles can be detail images rather than the whole painting, because I know the work "reads" better that way. I have frequently had people contact me because they saw a detail of a painting, and they "had to have" the detail image, while they passed over the image of the whole painting.
Oh, oh..... and over at Ed's (I refer readers to his blog so often I should be able to call him Ed), new reasons to talk about Damien.