Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Artwork Repro in the MF World  (Read 7040 times)
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2359


« Reply #20 on: January 07, 2011, 08:53:59 AM »
ReplyReply

I think Yair is correct in this area. The Leaf12 is the only above 60MP single shot back currently commercially available. Claiming the 200MP 6-shot of Hasselblad is a better solution in general is unwarranted. Certainly considering the 6-shot module isn't even available commercially at this stage.

When it is available I am sure it will be a better solution than the Aptus12 in some areas under some conditions and vice-versa. Until it becomes available definitive statements about this are mere speculation.

Kudos for Leaf for getting the 80MP A12 out. I would love to take it for a ride and see how it performs myself.

One thing is for sure indeed, none of them fits the appr. 10K USD budget.
Logged
yaya
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1120



WWW
« Reply #21 on: January 07, 2011, 10:18:58 AM »
ReplyReply


Kudos for Leaf for getting the 80MP A12 out. I would love to take it for a ride and see how it performs myself.

Hey I'm in Amsterdam next week if you're up for it...I'll email you:-)
Logged

Yair Shahar | Product Manager | Mamiya Leaf |
e: ysh@leaf-photography.com | m: +44(0)77 8992 8199 | www.mamiyaleaf.com | yaya's blog
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2373



WWW
« Reply #22 on: January 07, 2011, 11:18:33 AM »
ReplyReply


Multishot raw files require much longer to capture and care must be taken against vibration or movement, the files are several times larger, take longer to process, can only be processed in their respective software packages.

A P45 would make a very flexible and powerful tool, doing a very nice job for art reproduction, as well as many other photographic applications. The software (Capture One) is very highly regarded and the workflow very good.


No question the p45 would do the job for most work and the p65+ and Leaf Aptus 12 certainly would too.  I used my p20 for my first year doing art reproduction jobs.  All depends on what the end use will be and final reproduction size.   

But just to clarify, you can convert the multishot and microstep files from at least the ixpress directly after capture to DNG and work them in Lightroom or Photoshop if you prefer.   You do need flexcolor or phocus to shoot.  Files are large but if thats the goal...

Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2373



WWW
« Reply #23 on: January 07, 2011, 11:23:30 AM »
ReplyReply

I think Yair is correct in this area. The Leaf12 is the only above 60MP single shot back currently commercially available. Claiming the 200MP 6-shot of Hasselblad is a better solution in general is unwarranted. Certainly considering the 6-shot module isn't even available commercially at this stage.

When it is available I am sure it will be a better solution than the Aptus12 in some areas under some conditions and vice-versa. Until it becomes available definitive statements about this are mere speculation.

Kudos for Leaf for getting the 80MP A12 out. I would love to take it for a ride and see how it performs myself.

One thing is for sure indeed, none of them fits the appr. 10K USD budget.

I'm real curious about this too and in fact am considering whether to upgrade to the AFi-II 12.    Obviously I use my camera for many other jobs besides Art repro and that's where see the larger backs winning, but I am curious to know if the purported advances in color rendering of the new backs can equal or better the multishot in that area as well as detail.
Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
PdF
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 291



« Reply #24 on: January 07, 2011, 11:33:08 AM »
ReplyReply

For the reproduction of works of art, the essential is not necessarily the number of pixels, but especially the quality of colour rendition. Multishot backs seem inevitable. The 16 shots allow a very large image at low cost, but only with light sources of top quality. The flashes must deliver their power in an absolutely regular in 16 successive shots. It's not as easy as it looks. The slightest defect is materialized by an embossing, making the image completely unusable.

For many of reproduction work, the Sinar 43H works great and can deliver 44Mpix files. In addition, it can possibly be used with a large selection of 24/36 optics, such as Nikon, quite excellent. The 54H can give files larger (88Mpix) in MF. But it is rare on the market.

Otherwise, there are the two most recent Sinar 4 shots, 75H and 86H. They can also get large files in 4 shots, which is much more comfortable than the 16-shots.

In all cases, these devices only work with multishot specific shutter systems (Sinarcam2, Sinar m or the new e-Shutter) and in all cases being permanently connected to the Mac to collect the files.

I saw at Photokina an Hasselblad multishot back (H4D 50MS). But working only on a H camera, and not with a technical camera, essential to me for work of first quality in this type of photography.

PdF
Logged

PdF
JerryReed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 274


jerry@jerryreed.net


WWW
« Reply #25 on: January 07, 2011, 01:00:01 PM »
ReplyReply

I am using the SINARCAM 2, with Sinar 54H a 16-shot back, no longer in production, but it is unsurpassed in file size 506 megs, and some believe that it is still the top of the heap for image quality.  Broncolor (I use two Grafit 4s, one for each head) has been a very dependable solution for this application producing 16 matched flashes (color and luminance) consistently.

The Zip-Align is a clever, though time consuming device that when used matches the digital back to the surface plane of the art piece to .02 seconds of a degree.  When creating images of large pieces, say 5 by 5 feet this is a useful addition that ensures a quality reproduction.

Jerry Reed
Logged

design_freak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1074



« Reply #26 on: January 07, 2011, 01:39:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Sounds like you've done some testing and research as you seem so confident...you still don't provide any proof or share any known facts...and since you've mentioned the Aptus-II 12 it's the only product at that level that is in production and that is deliverable

None of this is relevant anyway since the OP was looking for a 10K solution on his RB...

Yair

Yes, I know this market well. I know the equipment and its capabilities. I know what are the limitations of this equipment ... I understand that in this case we are dealing with a budget of 10 thousand dollars. In this case, I recommend the digital back from the secondary market. But this necessarily digitalback MultiShot type. (Imacon 528c, CF39MS) Unfortunately, none of singleshot digitalback not give us such quality. Not only counts the number of pixels ... Without simplifying, of course, that the strategic projections may be reproduced using the Leica S2. But it makes no sense. This is such a specific area that does not compromise, since there will always use the best available equipment. Most institutions can afford the hardware, purchase of equipment is a small fraction of the annual budget. Of course, in this case when we need to acquire such equipment, we have to reckon with every dollar. But in this case, we can not afford to buy hardware that does not meet the requirements. Purchase digitalback Leaf Aptus II 12 is in my view, misguided investment. For that money you can buy equipment at a lower resolution but a much better picture quality. Model H4D50 MS is currently produced (4shot), 6 shots will be available within the next 3 months (200Mpix)The current model will be sent to the factory and come back with new functionality.

Best regards,
Design Freak
« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 01:41:51 PM by design_freak » Logged

Best regards,
DF

-------------------------------------------
WORK HARD AND BE NICE TO PEOPLE
-------------------------------------------
design_freak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1074



« Reply #27 on: January 07, 2011, 02:01:00 PM »
ReplyReply

For the reproduction of works of art, the essential is not necessarily the number of pixels, but especially the quality of colour rendition. Multishot backs seem inevitable. The 16 shots allow a very large image at low cost, but only with light sources of top quality. The flashes must deliver their power in an absolutely regular in 16 successive shots. It's not as easy as it looks. The slightest defect is materialized by an embossing, making the image completely unusable.

For many of reproduction work, the Sinar 43H works great and can deliver 44Mpix files. In addition, it can possibly be used with a large selection of 24/36 optics, such as Nikon, quite excellent. The 54H can give files larger (88Mpix) in MF. But it is rare on the market.

Otherwise, there are the two most recent Sinar 4 shots, 75H and 86H. They can also get large files in 4 shots, which is much more comfortable than the 16-shots.

In all cases, these devices only work with multishot specific shutter systems (Sinarcam2, Sinar m or the new e-Shutter) and in all cases being permanently connected to the Mac to collect the files.

I saw at Photokina an Hasselblad multishot back (H4D 50MS). But working only on a H camera, and not with a technical camera, essential to me for work of first quality in this type of photography.

PdF


I know that the stand was H4D50MS. But of course it's no problem with connecting digitalunit to the Sinar  or Arca Swiss. If you have a lens with electronic shutter, we can control it directly from the software.

Best regards,
Design Freak
Logged

Best regards,
DF

-------------------------------------------
WORK HARD AND BE NICE TO PEOPLE
-------------------------------------------
BillOConnor
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 98


« Reply #28 on: January 09, 2011, 03:19:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Wasn't there a head to head test, H4D50 MS against the P65+ on this forum? As I remember, the difference was not clearly in favor
of the Hassie. Anybody remember that?
Logged
jduncan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 293


« Reply #29 on: January 09, 2011, 05:30:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Wasn't there a head to head test, H4D50 MS against the P65+ on this forum? As I remember, the difference was not clearly in favor
of the Hassie. Anybody remember that?
Yes, but, is this forum, plus I guess that the subject mather. This forum is not called  the Luminus Landscape casually.  I believe that the subject is the key point here. In countless cases the P65+ can compensate with a wider dynamic range and higher pixel count. But maybe this is not the case when color reproduction and stuff like translucency vs transparency are important.
Best regards,
Logged

english is not my first language, an I know is shows
design_freak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1074



« Reply #30 on: January 10, 2011, 10:07:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes, but, is this forum, plus I guess that the subject mather. This forum is not called  the Luminus Landscape casually.  I believe that the subject is the key point here. In countless cases the P65+ can compensate with a wider dynamic range and higher pixel count. But maybe this is not the case when color reproduction and stuff like translucency vs transparency are important.
Best regards,

I think exactly the same.
Logged

Best regards,
DF

-------------------------------------------
WORK HARD AND BE NICE TO PEOPLE
-------------------------------------------
design_freak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1074



« Reply #31 on: January 10, 2011, 10:20:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Wasn't there a head to head test, H4D50 MS against the P65+ on this forum? As I remember, the difference was not clearly in favor
of the Hassie. Anybody remember that?

Not all of them apparently read to the end of this test. In my opinion, is a little biased, but not in this thing. Maybe I am going to quote from this test: "In the end, the two systems are capable of delivering superb image quality under the right Conditions. For example, if my job was to shoot or tapestry reproductions textiles, the Hasselblad in MultiShot mode would be my tool of choice. On the other hand, if I was a landscape or portrait photographer, I would definitely opt for the Phase system. "And in this case we are talking about reproductions, right?

Best regards,
Design Freak
Logged

Best regards,
DF

-------------------------------------------
WORK HARD AND BE NICE TO PEOPLE
-------------------------------------------
BobDavid
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1064


« Reply #32 on: January 10, 2011, 06:39:08 PM »
ReplyReply

There really isn't that much of a resolution gain between 39MPs and 50MPs. I've been using a CF39 MS for years on a pancake camera for fine art reproduction and on an H2F for less critical fine art reproduction and table-top studio projects. I don't intend on upgrading for at least another five years. Meanwhile, I'm very pleased with the Sony a850 for a lot of the field work that I used to shoot with MF. Although, I wouldn't advise using 35mm systems for fine art repro.
Logged
DanielStone
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 542


« Reply #33 on: January 11, 2011, 11:44:15 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm not a professional photographer, yet, I'm still cutting my teeth as an assistant Smiley. But I worked on a job last year shooting cars, and the photog used a Hasselblad 555eld, and a Sinar Hy6(two sets running alongside each other in the studio), and I couldn't see any difference between the two honestly.

we were running 4-shot, and on the "biggie" shots, 16-passes. There wasn't any walking around the studio while that was happening Smiley.

I'm an RZ guy, but using the 555ELD(designed for digital capture) sure was easy. Color reproduction didn't have to be *spot* on for this case, but pretty damn accurate.

after asking the lead digital tech on the job about "why sinarbacks"(a 75H on the 555ELD, another 75H on the HY6, and a 54H running on another 555eld on the interiors(3rd) set in the back of the studio, he bluntly said "they're the best".

after seeing the shots in a magazine(I know, IQ sucks for magazines), and seeing them at 100% on the 30" monitor after capture, I'm apt to believe him

my local "art museum"(Huntington Museum in Arcadia, CA) uses P45+ backs in their studio. They were shooting 4x5 and 8x10 chromes up until 3 years ago. Rising silver costs just ate up their budget. Backs paid themselves off in less than a year. I remember talking with the chief photographer there, and he mentioned he would have liked to have gone with a mult-shot setup, but they just didn't have the budget at the time(seeing they needed a 2nd, backup system as well).

-Dan
Logged
John.Williams
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 138


It's your life - make yourself useful!


« Reply #34 on: January 13, 2011, 10:02:43 AM »
ReplyReply

We have an Hasselblad Ixpress 384, single owner for sale - excellent condition.

This is the 16MP Kodak sensor with 1, 4, 16 shot capability and uses the i-Adaptor plate system (you can switch between various MF camera bodies by removing the plate (4) screws, about 5 min task.) As Dustbak mentioned, the ImageBank provides power to the digital back (and storage if shooting untethered) and is the means to connect the digital back to the computer via a FireWire 400 connector.

In an ideal setting, I would recommend a Hasselblad H2 camera body for the vibration-less exposures in multishot capture; the H-system mirror goes up and stays up until the capture sequence is complete - only the leaf shutter in the lens is opening and closing. The H2 also passes through camera metadata used for post-production (optical distortion, color aberration, vignetting) and embeds in the RAW image data. We also have a used H2 - both systems are pre-owned and are priced accordingly.

To comply with the LL TOS, please contact us off board if interested.

John
Logged

(678) 365-0435
jay_dub@mac.com
bigstu
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


« Reply #35 on: January 14, 2011, 01:13:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Any suggestions or links on where to look for a good start for education on reproducing artwork?
Thanks!
Logged
PdF
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 291



« Reply #36 on: January 14, 2011, 02:24:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Any suggestions or links on where to look for a good start for education on reproducing artwork?
Thanks!


Probably finding a job as assistant to a professional who specializes in this field.

PdF
Logged

PdF
phero66
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52


WWW
« Reply #37 on: January 14, 2011, 02:50:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Well I can't say I have found any specific sites or books on the subject, hopefully someone else can chip in.  My own training has come from about 5 years of experimentation, using several different lighting systems and cameras in many rooms and environments.

The topics that are most important:
1. Even Lighting and Glare: Look for books that talk about angle of incidence, etc. as this will relate to shine and glare.  Also look for "copy work"  and "cross-polarization" subjects.
2. Clean Lighting: What types of lights do you use and how can you mix them with different light sources, if at all. ie. Strobe, Tungsten, Fluorescent, HID, etc.  How what color temperature are your lights,
3. Color Rendering: Your lights need high enough CRI to not drastically change the colors in the artwork.
4. Color Management: Excellent book is "Real World Color Management."  If you want accurate color from capture to print then profile creation is important - for all your devices.  For color charts I recommend the ColorChecker SG.
5. Camera Systems: Art submissions were shot on 35mm slide, Digital 35mm 12mp+ can fill this gap, though there are workflow issues, like not being able to create custom ICC profiles accurate enough to be used in output unless you are running a highly managed workflow.  Likely you will have to live with good looking, but not accurate color type shots unless you invest in Profile Creation equipment ($$$). Avoid zoom lenses, buy quality primes.  Invest in support equipment that is solid and substantial enough to not invite vibrations into your shots.  Use Mirror Lock-Up & Remote Release/Timers.  Eventually you will need more megapixels or higher quality capture, MF/Technical is the eventual path, but at a much higher cost.
6. Software: This is where it gets fun, the same camera will yield a different result depending on the RAW editor you ultimately choose.  I recommend trying them all and finding a workflow that best suits your needs.  If you want highly accurate color, have invested in color management equipment and can create ICC's then you could buy into CaptureOne and use custom camera ICC's in RAW.  If using MF DB equipment you can work in their native RAW editor already with custom ICCs.  Or lastly, if you can't be bothered with ICCs at all then just export from Lightroom (no its ICC management system is not the same as what I'm talking about above), or use Photoshops RAW import functions and hand tweak from the regular ColorChecker chart.  A interesting book, "Skin," might be referenced for this method.

Getting the image to match the Artwork takes a lot of time and dedication, and even with the very best equipment knowledge of post editing is necessary.  Just be careful in how you edit, making sure your screen is high enough quality to do this, and calibrated or else you will be changing colors, correcting contrast, etc. from a faulty point of view. 

Lastly have fun, once you get the Artwork Reproduction bug it is hard to stop - at least I'm addicted.  I just love seeing new art and the process it takes to make accurate documentation of it.
Logged
yaya
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1120



WWW
« Reply #38 on: January 16, 2011, 04:50:09 AM »
ReplyReply

design_freak, no disrespect but I don't think that you have tested the Aptus-II 12 as this may have changed your opinion completely

Yair
Logged

Yair Shahar | Product Manager | Mamiya Leaf |
e: ysh@leaf-photography.com | m: +44(0)77 8992 8199 | www.mamiyaleaf.com | yaya's blog
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2359


« Reply #39 on: January 16, 2011, 05:10:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Having seen the difference between the A12 and the 50MS (at 4-shot), I can say the A12 definitely gives the 50MS a run for its money. I think in many cases the A12 will produce similar quality on a per pixel basis and the file will be bigger with more detail. The number of cases where multishot is the preferred choice and where a single shot will not be 'good enough' have been drastically reduced with the 80MP back. There still will be cases where you might be using a multishot back before this single shot but I think these will be really rare.

IMO, the Leaf A12 is the king of the hill at this moment, certainly in single shot mode, indeed  it can be used in cases where normally you would be using a multishot back.

BTW. I use Hasselblad 39 MP multishot and 60MP with which I am extremely happy. There is more to a system than only the back. It would be unfair to waive away the achievement Leaf made with the A12.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2011, 08:58:07 AM by Dustbak » Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad