[diego_moita]

> Pictures in a book or on web pages do not do justice to how vibrant the pictures are in real life

This is true and big.

The paintings are nice on books and screens but are stunning in real life. There is a lot of nuance in the colours that pictures don't replicate.

Same happens to Vermeer landscapes. His "View of Delft" is just nice on screen but almost magical when seen in real.

[toyg]

I've just visited the Detroit Institute of Arts (which is excellent, by the way; a revelation to this cynical and displaced Italian). They have a fairly unknown (at least to me) 1873 painting titled Syria by the Sea, by Frederic Edwin Church. It's a capriccio, an imaginary landscape mixing ruins of various civilization, at sunset. On a screen or a page, it's just another bucolic landscape; but its size and colors are such that, in real life, it's simply a glorious experience.

[HankB99]

> but its size ...

Interesting that you mention that. Our grandkids all got Van Gogh reproductions for their rooms(). I found it difficult to find the size of the originals and even harder to find reproductions at the same size (looking for cheap stuff on Amazon.) Worse yet, some of the repros were not the same aspect ratio indicating they had been cropped.

I'm not even close to any kind of art expert but it seems to me that the size of the original or what the artist does with an available size canvas are intentional.

() At 3 years old, our eldest grandson looked at a picture on our wall and correctly identified it as a Starry Night. We have no idea where he learned that but were impressed regardless.

[boppo1]

Did you get to see Cotopaxi? It's in the same room, in the center. I have the good fortune of living near the DIA.

[toyg]

Absolutely, but I had some knowledge about that, so I was less surprised by it than by Syria. It's also a more angry, sinister painting, with darker tones.

You guys should cherish the DIA, it's a gem.

[boppo1]

Indeed it is. We try to.

[themerone]

We are extremely lucky that the bankruptcy court did not let Detroit's creditors raid the collection.

[jacquesm]

Van Ostade as well. And Ruisdael too. Those sky paintings are just incredible and seeing them reproduced isn't even close to the real thing.

[golemotron]

HN might be the best place to ask. What lights do galleries use? They make the paintings pop.

[briandear]

My house is essentially an art gallery — I had a museum lighting expert do all of the lighting installs and the key thing is going to be the width of the light (correctly focusing the light so it doesn’t spill outside of the painting much,) then color temperature.

The focus of the light is key — by lighting the painting and not lighting the walls around it, that makes it pop a lot more than typically area lighting common in residential applications. Color temperature is also very important. Finally, in my case; my walls are painted a dark, lead-pipe grey so it makes the paintings really jump.

The brand of my lights is Wac Lighting controlled by Lutron dimmers in case you are interested. Color balanced LED. LED used to be inferior for galleries, but the tech has gotten very good (added benefit of running a lot cooler than the old halogen.)

[KANahas]

Another huge aspect is the CRI/CQS of your light sources. CRI (Color Rendering Index) and CQS (Color Quality Scale) try to quantify how faithfully colors are represented when a subject is lit.

Generally a higher CRI equals a higher quality light source. A halogen/incandescent lamp has a perfect score, 100. High end LED sources are usually in the range of 95-98, but that number can be gamed, which has lead to the creation of CQS.

https://blog.1000bulbs.com/home/is-color-quality-scale-bette...

[briandear]

CQS is super important. That was a key tool for selecting the LED that we did. Thanks for bringing that up!

[RamRodification]

Any recommendations on how to find the correct color temperature? Should it maybe be matched with the actual painting (how?) or dialed in to fit the rest of the room (how)?

[briandear]

Typically 3600-3800K. My lights are 3600K. A light meter for photography can give you color temperature, but it will always be printed on the box for your bulbs.

I wouldn’t overthink it.. just as long as you stay out of the 4500K+ range (approaching daylight,) things will look great. The warmth of the 3600K range is great — anything less than that and the warmth of the light starts to affect color rendition, anything more and the light gets bluer and harsher.

Your eyes can be the guide. But having correctly focused light at the correct intensity (not too bright for instance) is key. There are use cases for daylight balance — if you are in a mixed light situation such as a windowed or skylight with abondant sunlight, you might consider going a little cooler on the color temperature — but again, use your eyes.

It can be really fun messing with lighting and art! Good luck.

[RamRodification]

Thanks for taking the time!

[Misdicorl]

Surely the lighting matters but I think it is only secondary. The thing that's missing in reproductions is the physical texture of the paintings.

[bookofjoe]

I'm thinking super high-end 3D printers in 10 years will solve this problem.

[Fraterkes]

Detail-wise 3d printed reproductions have been decent enough for a while I think. The trickier part is mimicking the texture of complexly layered and blended oil-paint with filaments.

[rrrrrrrrrrrryan]

I'm not so certain. Up close, paintings are complex 3D sculptures made from a palette of materials, (not colors), each with varying levels of translucence, different reflective properties, different textures, etc. and they can be combined and moved around in infinitely complex ways.

Might be possible in a few decades, though.

[kdkirsch]

They’re doing this! Read about the restoration of Rembrandt’s The Night Watch (https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/whats-on/exhibitions/operation...). Amazing tech.