Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: DSLR for Fineart reproduction. Advice please....  (Read 14735 times)
Humblenubie
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #20 on: November 20, 2008, 10:25:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: framah
Right now, up on eBay is an older Betterlight scanback that fits into a 4x5 camera. It gives you the best image you can get in one shot.  The image can be corrected in the preview feature before the final scan. Right now it is at $400 but in the end it will probably go for under 2,000 +/-.  This package includes a Zig align system for making sure the painting and the film plane are parallel.

With that and a 4x5 camera which I'm sure you can find on eBay also you will have money left over for lights.

Check out the betterlight website to learn more about this system.

If you are going to print these to the same size as the originals, you really need the larger file that the betterlight provides.

Hi, Friends,
Please advice me on this "Better Light 4000E W/C-109 Digital Back Betterlight 4x5" that is on ebay as suggested by framah.
1. Is it enough for my purpose ?
2. Shall I buy safely from overseas ?
3. Which 4x5 camera and lense is best suitable?
Logged
Humblenubie
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #21 on: November 20, 2008, 10:31:33 AM »
ReplyReply

QUOTE (framah @ Nov 19 2008, 01:40 AM)
Right now, up on eBay is an older Betterlight scanback that fits into a 4x5 camera. It gives you the best image you can get in one shot. The image can be corrected in the preview feature before the final scan. Right now it is at $400 but in the end it will probably go for under 2,000 +/-. This package includes a Zig align system for making sure the painting and the film plane are parallel.

With that and a 4x5 camera which I'm sure you can find on eBay also you will have money left over for lights.

Check out the betterlight website to learn more about this system.

If you are going to print these to the same size as the originals, you really need the larger file that the betterlight provides.


Hi, Friends,
Please advice me on this "Better Light 4000E W/C-109 Digital Back Betterlight 4x5" that is on ebay as suggested by framah.
1. Is it enough for my purpose ?
2. Shall I buy safely from overseas ?
3. Which 4x5 camera and lense is best suitable?
Logged
ddk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 274


WWW
« Reply #22 on: November 20, 2008, 10:54:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Humblenubie
QUOTE (framah @ Nov 19 2008, 01:40 AM)
Right now, up on eBay is an older Betterlight scanback that fits into a 4x5 camera. It gives you the best image you can get in one shot. The image can be corrected in the preview feature before the final scan. Right now it is at $400 but in the end it will probably go for under 2,000 +/-. This package includes a Zig align system for making sure the painting and the film plane are parallel.

With that and a 4x5 camera which I'm sure you can find on eBay also you will have money left over for lights.

Check out the betterlight website to learn more about this system.

If you are going to print these to the same size as the originals, you really need the larger file that the betterlight provides.


Hi, Friends,
Please advice me on this "Better Light 4000E W/C-109 Digital Back Betterlight 4x5" that is on ebay as suggested by framah.
1. Is it enough for my purpose ?
2. Shall I buy safely from overseas ?
3. Which 4x5 camera and lense is best suitable?

This isn't a plug and play system, using a 4x5 and a scanning back in this setup without any previous experience is going to have a steep learning curve and getting everything right needs a certain amount of technical knowhow as well. You don't seem to be equipped for this right now, do you really need to open a whole new can of worms at this time?
david
Logged

david
-----------------------
www.pbase.com/ddk
joergen geerds
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 46


WWW
« Reply #23 on: December 12, 2008, 04:34:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: juicy
This is a budget setup. However, I would avoid this lens (50mm f1,4) because of massive barrel distorsion. Canon's 100mm macro, 50mm macro and especially 90mm t-SE are much better lenses for flat copy work.

Cheers,
J

almost any dslr will do, and i venture that even a kit lens at F8 will do a decent job when you consider stitching... dividing a painting into 4-8 tiles gives you a large file, even with a budget camera, as long as you light it evenly, and shoot on a tripod with iso 100. you don't even need a pano head for this job. and ptgui will remove any lens distortion that the lens might have, as long as the painting has enough structure to create decent control points... if not, I would do a single shot with a MF or 4x5, because stitching would be a nightmare. if you shoot for stitching, shoot everything with 25-33% overlap, but do one pair with 66% overlap for lens calibration in ptgui or whatever you are using.

i have replicated a 10x5ft painting at 450 ppi, with a canon xti, and an ancient 85-250mm f5 olympus OM zoom, lighting it with 10 20W CFLs... turned out perfect, although I had overshot the resolution a bit...

replicating a painting has more to do with your craft than with the technology you are using...

my $0.02
Logged

joedecker
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 142


WWW
« Reply #24 on: January 04, 2009, 08:59:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi!

There are a number of good suggestions here.  In terms of whether to use film or digital, and what formats and cameras, I'd start by making sure I understood your project well enough to give you good advice--am I right in understanding that you'd like to reproduce the artworks at their original size (e.g., 4'x6'?), not smaller reproductions of larger works?

If you do end up using a DSLR, I would suggest using a longer lens in general.  Although your works are larger, I find that longer working distances (if you have the space) make it easier for me to line up the camera with the center of the artwork, and typically I end up with less geometric distortion, in the artwork photography I do, I end up using 100mm lengths quite a bit.  But... only if you've got room.

If you end up photographing instead flatbed scanning, lighting is critical.   The lights need create an even illumination over the entire artwork, which is harder with bigger pieces.  Test your light setup, perhaps on a blank canvas.

There's a good pointer to some lighting tools in marcmccalmont's post, but there's one thing I'd do a lot differently than he suggests:

In addition to diffusers, I'd use a polarizing gel/filter in front of each light  (e.g.  http://www.adorama.com/LTP12.html ) and a circular polarizer at the camera.  The polarizing gels can be juryrigged in front of the light or you can get filter stands.  

Once you've got this working, turn the polarizing filter on the camera and watch the reflections appear and disappear off the painting depending on how far the filter is turned.

This lighting technique (in an otherwise dark studio, on flat art) can reduce pretty much every trace of stray reflections off of even the glossiest paintings, and that has a dramatic effect on colorful paintings in particular.  Even on matte materials (say, pastel drawings on paper) the effect on the color can be huge.  (Note: This technique, and many other techniques, do have troubles with metallic paints.)

One more thing: The lights need to be at about a 45 degree angle (maybe a bit less) to the surface of the painting.

Best of luck!

--Joe






Logged

Joe Decker
Rock Slide Photography
http://www.rockslidephoto.com/
Humblenubie
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #25 on: January 09, 2009, 07:21:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Specs: 6 x 7: 56.9 x 70.0mm/8,964 x 11,016 pixels. 100MP.

Hi Plekto,
How did you arrive the above equation?
I mean how to equate size of an image of a particualr camera?

Thanks.






Quote from: Plekto
Note - the main reason that I suggested film was because a good desktop slide scanner is potentially an option AND the A900 or something close to it plus lens and the rest of the lighting and so on would likely be in the 4-5K range.(over budget).  But there's another issue...

Your printer is roughly 3.5 ft wide and probably 5-6ft long for the largest prints?  That's way beyond the limits of most digital cameras or budget scanners to deal with, because things start to look blotchy and grainy when they are that large.   The A900 might work, but that's close to 90dpi after being blown up that large.   It'll look okay from a distance, but not up close.  But even 6*7 film at 2400dpi would net you a bit over 6K pixels high. (the Sony is about 4MP in height).  Roughly 175DPI.  Acceptable.  6X7 and 2400DPI would look good enough to likely sell.  

That leads me to change my recommendation, then, due to the sheer size of the printing that you are doing.

- Shoot 6x7 film and get it scanned with your own home unit.

The Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED seems to be the best for a limited budget.  Used, you could probably find one for not a lot more than $1200.
Specs: 6 x 7: 56.9 x 70.0mm/8,964 x 11,016 pixels.  100MP. Though realistically only about half that MP is usable before you're really starting to get into grain.  IME, 2400-3000DPI is where this starts to happen.  Figure 6K X 7K is a more reasonable scanning result. (still 40-50MP)

- Shoot large format and scan it at home on a good flatbed scanner.

Large format is so much larger than anything else that you're talking about essentially 12K X 15K @3000dpi.  The Epson 9880 says 44 inches maximum width.  That's about 270dpi printed off of a large format 3000dpi scan.  Vastly better results than a DSLR or medium format.   This might be overkill, though...  

I mention this because large format gear is brute-force simple and inexpensive used.   You'll spend less money on this than a typical 6x7 setup by far as it's hardly changed in over 100 years.  No auto winders, no auto focus, no auto anything.  Just a box and a lens and some film.  The flatbed scanner also costs a lot less money.  Even Epson's best film oriented 4800dpi unit is about $750 new.  Note - anything over 2400-3000 DPI is largely useless for film, hence my 12K X 15K estimate above(at a silly 4800dpi, 4x5 would be an absurd 470K MP.)    Some people seem to have good results with the $350 VT700 scanner.

Me?  I'm partial to 6x7 and a scanner but I'm a total gearhead if I have the money(which I don't - heh).  but large format does offer the biggest bang for the dollar when we're talking about making enormous prints.
Logged
ynp
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 242


WWW
« Reply #26 on: January 11, 2009, 05:35:32 AM »
ReplyReply

If I may, I would recommend ether a scanback or a really cheap multishot Hasselblad (Imacon) or Sinar /Jenoptik. I do a lot of copying work to the original sizes and I am sure that even 16mpx 16 shot back will be adequate. The Museum people still use their 11 mpx. multishot backs with very cheap enlarger lenses with great success. Moscow Pushkin Museum use a  DigiFlex II  for their multi-shot digital back and they use 4-shot or 16-shot modes. The 11 mpx. back is 35mm full-frame. I remember an 11 mpx Jenoptik back was sold at $2,100 at e-bay recently.
The only problem I foresee is the software is not current (mostly MAC PowerPC).
Yevgeny
« Last Edit: January 11, 2009, 05:43:22 AM by ynp » Logged
Humblenubie
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #27 on: January 11, 2009, 06:49:12 AM »
ReplyReply

If I may, I would recommend ether a scanback or a really cheap multishot Hasselblad (Imacon) or Sinar /Jenoptik. I do a lot of copying work to the original sizes and I am sure that even 16mpx 16 shot back will be adequate. The Museum people still use their 11 mpx. multishot backs with very cheap enlarger lenses with great success. Moscow Pushkin Museum use a  DigiFlex II  for their multi-shot digital back and they use 4-shot or 16-shot modes. The 11 mpx. back is 35mm full-frame. I remember an 11 mpx Jenoptik back was sold at $2,100 at e-bay recently.
The only problem I foresee is the software is not current (mostly MAC PowerPC).
Yevgeny


Thanks Yevgeny.
Do you or others think these 'old and obsolet' hence may be no parts available gadgets are 'much better or better' than 50D, Pentax K20D ?? Please...
Or is it much better I borrow more money to buy 5D mk II or Sony A900 ?? These are multi-task gadgets.
thanks
Logged
JohnBrew
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 734


WWW
« Reply #28 on: January 12, 2009, 06:51:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Humblenubie
 Hi elders,
Im new to photography, experienced in large format digital printing and all printing methods, for that matter.
Propose to enter Fineart and photo enlargement printing on Epson 9880/Canon iPF8000S on canvas and papers.

Digitizing method:
I need to scan/ photograph big size paintings (4x3, 6x4 ft) to edit with Photoshop and print.
I know large format scanner is best option. But $15000 is too much on a scanner for a newbie. Good investment on quality but no $$$$$$$, put it simply!
The next multipurpose option is a high end camera. There too a Digital-back is out of my reach, at least now.
I am advised 3 models: EOS 1Ds Mark-III, EOS 5D Mark II or Nikon D3.
My budget is about $ 3000.
Kindly enlighten me:
1.   Is my choice of camera to Scanner is suicidal ? (Scanner-man says so)
2.   What is best I can buy at my budget for my purpose? (Considering my requirement is max. MB hi-res file capture, than photography as profession)
3.   Any Scanning Back available at this money ?
4.   Or the above mentioned camera models are the options left ?
5.   If yes, Which of the above or any other ?
Your expert opinion will be very valuable for my future course.
Im in India. You may contact me at : signergyprints@yahoo.co.in.

Thanks for the time.

Why not consider renting a MF camera with digital back?
Logged

Humblenubie
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #29 on: January 12, 2009, 09:21:53 AM »
ReplyReply


Why not consider renting a MF camera with digital back?

1. It is possible in America, not in India, available rarely, not ready to rent.
2. Need to keep at hand always, for Studio use.

Any more advice ??
thanks.
Logged
ynp
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 242


WWW
« Reply #30 on: January 12, 2009, 01:11:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Humblenubie
If I may, I would recommend ether a scanback or a really cheap multishot Hasselblad (Imacon) or Sinar /Jenoptik. I do a lot of copying work to the original sizes and I am sure that even 16mpx 16 shot back will be adequate. The Museum people still use their 11 mpx. multishot backs with very cheap enlarger lenses with great success. Moscow Pushkin Museum use a  DigiFlex II  for their multi-shot digital back and they use 4-shot or 16-shot modes. The 11 mpx. back is 35mm full-frame. I remember an 11 mpx Jenoptik back was sold at $2,100 at e-bay recently.
The only problem I foresee is the software is not current (mostly MAC PowerPC).
Yevgeny


Thanks Yevgeny.
Do you or others think these 'old and obsolet' hence may be no parts available gadgets are 'much better or better' than 50D, Pentax K20D ?? Please...
Or is it much better I borrow more money to buy 5D mk II or Sony A900 ?? These are multi-task gadgets.
thanks

I do not have a definite answer. I have very limited experience with DSLR and the only DSLR I own is an old Oly E1 with a 7-14 and kit lenses.  A photographer I share my studio with bought a new  5D mk II and she is happy (she shoots people).

I tried a 5d to shoot a painting for a catalogue and the the quality was OK for a A4 size, after color calibration with the 24 ColorChecker the color was OK. And distortion was not too bad and easily correctable.
 But you mentioned that you own  a wide format printer and by definition you know color management , and I suppose you wish to print up to real size, and it is not a quick and dirty catalogue shooting. IMO the best way to start reproduction business based on your printing skills is to get a professional solution: a good quality lens and a multi shot digiback. Is is a versatile solution? No way. Will a  5D mk II be a better choice? I do not know. And did I mentioned that all multi shot backs shoot tethered?

I am sure that 4-16 shot back is a way to go. Even very old digital backs  do not have any moving parts and can be used for years and years. The only problem is the  computer interface (optic cables are no longer supported). And old multi shot backs provide unparalleled quality. And they are not gadgets, they are professional instruments  

I think that you might want to ask your questions on the LL Med Format Forum, there are some pros who shoot previous generation backs  and they have a lot of experience. I use a Sinarback 54H and we plan to keep this system for years.

Yevgeny
Logged
Plekto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 551


« Reply #31 on: January 14, 2009, 06:20:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Humblenubie
Specs: 6 x 7: 56.9 x 70.0mm/8,964 x 11,016 pixels. 100MP.

Hi Plekto,
How did you arrive the above equation?
I mean how to equate size of an image of a particualr camera?

Thanks.

Sorry - was moving...

This is a bit cumbersome, sorry.

100MP was for 4X5 film, actually(scanned film, not Digital 4 x 5). *Film* 6 X 7 is:

2400 DPI is standard DLAB or drum scanning resolution at a photo lab.  The industry seems to have settled upon this value for high quality film scanning.  Honestly, I think 2000dpi is enough(see below), but 2400 DPI is what is commonly used.(note - a home scanner doesn't need more than this as well)

56.9mm = 2.24016 inches X 2400 DPI = 5376 pixels(approximately)
70mm = 2.75591 inches X 2400 DPI = 6614 pixels(approximately)
35MP

But you have to convert in Bayer pattern losses.  If we had a 5400*6600 Foveon type sensor, it would be equivalent to 6 X 7 film.  The conversion factor for a maximum theoretical limit of 0.66x(DBs without a filter are almost exactly this ratio) is 1.5x scanned.  So 2400 x 1.5 = 3600.  

2.24016 inches X 3600 = 8064
2.75591 inches x 3600 = 9921
80MP.  

Now, to be honest, there is a lot of wiggle room between the two figures due to software and in-camera tweaking and adjusting as well as optical limits(an old off-brand crap lens is probably going to punk out at 1000DPI in either case).  Most pros consider 35-40MP to be equal to 6x7 in actual use.  4 X 5 is a whole other wad of insanity, though...
« Last Edit: January 14, 2009, 06:36:41 PM by Plekto » Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad