Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: phero66 on January 05, 2011, 11:08:15 pm
-
I have been shooting artwork for local artists and art grads for 5 years now and my setup has gradually evolved from 35mm slide to a Canon 5D and now a 1DSMKIII. I briefly owned a betterlight setup, but found both it requirements for light and vibration too strict for practical application shooting in artist studios shared with machinery or near construction. I know 35mm is not the norm for repro, so I apologize in advance if its mere mention offends! However, by adopting a strict workflow, primes (corrected for light falloff, distortion), zig-align, Colorchecker SG, Monaco Profiler for Input Profiles, and custom lights using Philips CRI 98 bulbs I have just about reached the extent this setup has to offer, and while it does what its intended very well, I know its limits and I want to offer my clients more, even if I don't have the budget of a Museum or full-time Art Repro Shop.
My price range is in the 10k range, plus a bit for lens or other required gear. I'm not sure what makes the most sense at this point, retrofitting my Linhof Kardan RE body, a Mamiya RB67 Pro S that I inherited, or skipping both and getting a technical type camera. Of the 3 the technical seems the most attractive but I do own the Kardan already and can zig-align the front-rear standards to get enough lens to sensor plane precision (in theory, but it is one more thing to do on each shoot, kind of want a more elegant solution). Movements are not really important, just really great sensor to lens parallelism, and a view finder bright enough that I can check focus and setup the zig-align hassel-free (with the 1DS I live by Live-View).
Lens:
I need about 50mm or a little wider and something with macro, around 100mm is fine (all 35mm equivalents).
In the Rodenstock realm I believe this would be a 105mm f/5.6 Apo-Sironar or perhaps just a 120mm f/5.6 Apo-Macro-Sironar. I'm not sure what I should go with if a MF body solution is more practical.
MF Back & Software:
Thinking about Multi-Shot, but modern backs out of my price range, would have to buy something from 2002 era and that makes me squeamish (I think this would be a Sinar 43h or 53m). I am really drawn to the "purity" of a 100% RGB recording, but I have never seen side-by-side comparisons to know just how much better it is for what I do, and if the results were so stunning at the pixel level that my clients would swoon :) I should note that I rarely shoot fabric, so it wouldn't be for moiré, I just want to make the most pure color calibration profiles from the camera that I can, apply them in RAW before export (which I can't do at present without running C1), and get un-interpolated pixels so that fine detail look much better at the pixel level. I have also read briefly on the forum that many who use multi-shot also use broncolor strobes for consistency. I don't have that luxury, but I do have exceedingly high CRI rated bulbs, and if the ballasts are stable enough wouldn't they work just as well? To make my case I know of betterlight users who use the same tubes, and if there were problems with consistency their camera would definitely find it. Anyways, if not Multi-shot then a used P45 or Leaf counterpart?
For Exposure Reference this is what I generally shoot at:
Lighting: Philips CRI98 Fluorescent bulbs, Cross-Polarized, exposures range 2-3 seconds @ ISO 100, f8
Monaco Delta CMC Error with current setup, 1.2 unpolarized, 2 with polarization.
What are others using in similar situations? Thanks in advance!
-John
-
I would have suggested a multi-shot digital back (particularly one with microstep/16x capability) , but your concerns about vibration might make that not a viable option; if they can be rectified, it might be the perfect fit for you price, and capability wise.
-
I'm doing some art repro work for galleries and know there are several others here on the forum with significantly more experience than I have who hopefully will add their perspective. I use a rollei 6008AF body with the 90mm apo macro, 150apo macro or 55mm PCS lenses that have low distortion. I try to use the 150 when possible but often there is not enough space in the gallery to get back far enough and the distance necessitates more powerful strobes. I started with the phase p20 back which actually worked quite well for starters. Later I added the ixpress 528c multishot back and that really is impressive. I can only report with my set up, but I shoot it in both the multishot and microstep modes in the galleries downtown and so far have not had issues with vibration. On this camera the mirror does not cycle between shots and the lenses have leaf shutters so there's almost no camera shake between shots. The difference the multishot makes is totally worth it since it really reveals the texture of the work. I would look for a used sinar or ixpress multishot back definitely and not worry about vibration - even in single shot mode the backs will outperform your Canon 1Ds3 in detail, DR and color accuracy. I also use the cross polarization method but with profoto strobes instead of hot light as I like to be able to overpower any other lighting that can not be controlled in the galleries. I would also like to have something to help with getting the camera axis aligned but in practice this is too time consuming. Typically I'll set up lights in one spot and the gallery assistant and I will walk the paintings over and hang in the lighted area. Sometimes you are lucky and the paintings are all the same size but more often they are not and I end up moving the camera to fill the frame with the painting to center it vertically. I shouldn't admit this but if I mess up a little bit, I'll rotate and correct perspective in PS after the RAW conversion because it seems that the losses in IQ are tiny. The bigger issue is lighting evenly and larger work presents problems with the cross polarization technique. I have a technical camera, the X-Act2, but don't bring it to these jobs for those reasons - its just too cumbersom. Your typical work set up may be different enough that a technical camera makes more sense for you.
-
I have been using multishot for this kind of application for years (I don't do a lot of art BTW! several a year. Most of the work I do involves fabric). The older multishot backs deliver similar quality as the newest ones but there are several things you should be aware of.
I am talking about Imacon/Hasselblad multishot backs since my experience with Sinar/Jenoptik is very limited.
The Imacon 384/528 are excellent pieces of equipment however:
1) You need to work via an Imagebank. Some don't find this a real problem some do (actually the cable and the connection to the back are works of art and I would applaud if something similar with firewire could be achieved).
2) The older Imacons have no DAC. This might be problem when you do not use high quality lenses like the Schneider Digitars in the form of CA.
3) The latest software version of Hasselblad does not support microstep (16shot). You have to use Flexcolor for that (which I always found an excellent piece of software, very few applications are as stable and reliable as Flexcolor however a lot of people seem to be complaining about it).
The 384/528 are well within your budget at this time.
The next step could be the CF22/39MS. These backs you do not need to use an imagebank. On a view camera you only need a battery and be either tethered via firewire or use CF cards. When used with H bodies you have the benefit of DAC (without level III, ultrafocus)
These backs are at the limit of your budget but well worth considering.
The final step could be the H3D39MS. This back/camera provides you with practically all of the stuff that is currently also in the latest model. This will be several K above your budget. You do have to use either an imagebank or work tether when using a view camera. You also do not have the flexibility of being able to use adapters to fit the back on various other brands of cameras (like the 384/528/CF22MS & CF39MS).
The H3/4D50MS is totally beyond your budget.
To give you an indication of the quality of the older backs. My CF39MS is only marginally better than my 384 used to be (quality per pixel) but a lot more convenient IMO. My CF39MS beats the IQ per pixel of my H4D60. There are many area where the H4D60 is blowing the 39MS out of the water but if the object is not moving and I can use multishot the 39MS is definitely better than the H4D60.
I have always used various sorts of Elinchrom lights and even plain daylight and never found an issue with color consistency doing multishot (other than the obvious like changing light due to moving clouds in office or things like that).
-
I think most system and backs >=22MP will give your superior resultats in controlled situations.
I do a lot of artwork in fact, but did not decide to go the multishot way back then when the P25 came out.
The ideal setup would of course be to do everything in studio, on a Sinar P3 cam with multishot back and electronic shutters and everthing.
The real life situation is that you will get a phonecall and will be asked to shoot the same day in a strange independant gallery or a tiny local museum or centuries old buildings without much space but huge windows. So the real deal is to have a decent MF body with 3 lenses, a laptop and 2 1500Ws strobes (I use the Multiblitz Xeno because they are quite local and easy to service here, they have anti-UV protection glasses too) with pola-filters. You may not need them with longer lenses, but with shorter lenses you get a lot of reflections.
The Zeiss 120 macro and 180mm on a Blad (and Digitar on the Bicam) are my favourite lenses for this. Beware of floor reflections on big abstract paintings.
Color reproduction is just so much better on a MFBack, there are brand differences of course, I still have the P25 (hope to upgrade next year), love the resultats, but clearly see color differences with compared P45 and P65 that get better and better.
In art reproduction, you always want to do better:
Dx sensor -> Fx-Sensor -> one shot back -> multi-shot -> scan back - kruse scanner or similar
more pixels, high tech shutters, continuous light
but on location, I'm sometimes just happy that my camera is reliable, the manual shutters run flawless, my flashes work under nearly all kind of ambient lighting with fast shutter speeds.
tom
-
Hi Erik,
Thank you for your feedback, its good to hear the 16-shot mode is not impossible on location work. I'm curious though about the Rollei setup, it seems to run as much as a small tech camera with 1 or two lenses. Since you are on the 528c how do you correct for lens light fall-off other then manually in photoshop - or do you find just no need based on the lenses you have selected? With the Canon I can auto correct falloff in DPP, which is very handy. Distortion I do with PTlens.
It is very hard to get perfectly parallel to any surface, and I hear you on not wanting to add any more time to the setup process. But the truth is, if you utilize a geared head/column (which I don't have now but did with the betterlight), its actually faster than trying to run a line from the wall and staring hard at grid lines. Even with my very best effort I too had to make slight adjustments in photoshop, but even in small amounts it softens the detail of pixels - your setup probably affords more latitude. Now with the Zig-Align I find the artwork to not be perfectly square more than any error on my part. Anyways, I would be more than happy to demo the Zig-Align if you want to check it out, were both in the same city. We would need a step-up ring from 58mm to whatever your main lens is, or we could just shoot it on my setup. I would love to see the 528c in action too. PM if interested.
-
Hi,
Yes that would be great to check out the zig align. I'll send you a PM in a minute. First let me answer your question about falloff. The rollei macro lenses are quite fantastic with almost no distortion and very little vignetting (less since most digital backs are crops) but whatever little there may be, I adjust for with the lights to begin with. For the work I am doing and the fees I collect this makes sense. I think there are software packages that normalize the light intensity across the frame and this would be really an extra step worthwhile for museum jobs etc. The biggest problem I have had is working in tight spaces with wide angle lenses and strobes. The cross polarization seems to work less evenly with wide lenses and larger art in tight spaces sometimes leaving glare on the outside edges of the work. I'm using a B&W Kassemann filter on the lens. Anyone have tips?
Eric
-
Thank you Dustbak, extreemly informative, the Imacon 528c looks like a very good deal.
To by-pass most lens issues that software correction is made for, I would need something like Rodenstock or Schneider right? Ideally I would like a system that corrects very easily or needs none at all, and a light easy transport - is that just wishful thinking?
So it looks like I have two routes:
1. 528c w/ Tech body like WRS/similar w/ 1-2 lenses, photoshop for vignetting, etc.
2. CF22MS w/ V/H1/H2 Body, lens correction through Phocus
3. Ultrafocus sounds great...but..$$$, guess the same is achieved in the techbody...
-
You are right in your options. Personally I would go for the 22/39MS together with a H2(F) body. This setup is completely geared towards multishot. The Rollei Eric uses is also a good option I think, the shutter in the Rollei lenses is also electronic if I am not mistaken (Eric?). You can also use the 384 or the 528 on either of these. A 6008 plus 528c will be not that expensive I reckon.
Option 1 is difficult with multishot unless you get electronic shutters with your tech body. The electronic shutters and the controller make the whole point of getting something really portable a bit of a moot point.
The ideal light easy transportable thing is called the H3D39MS with a HCD35-90...
AH.... 1 thing. It is so obvious to me that I have become kind of blinded by it. For multishot you always need to be tethered to a computer.
-
That is what I was hoping on the Rollei lens wise, perhaps for multistep you really need that electronic leaf shutter... or is the shutter held open the whole time and the back just blinks on an off for each exposure...
The biggest problem I have had is working in tight spaces with wide angle lenses and strobes. The cross polarization seems to work less evenly with wide lenses and larger art in tight spaces sometimes leaving glare on the outside edges of the work.
Hmm could be bounced reflections or the lights are not out wide enough due to the tight rooms one often finds in the city. If it is the wall reflecting light back in bringing along some cheap felts to tac to adjacent walls helps, same for floor or behind you if that is an issue... maybe someone else has a better idea, I rarely shoot wider then 50mm on the 35mm format.
The software I think you are referencing is called Equalight, and it works rather well (sometimes), but it is picky and you have to carry a gigantic sized (I assume the reason for location because its big), pristine, foam board with you to shoot a light fall reference image. Some might say you can blur your way out of small dents and dings, and it can work, but more often for location stuff I don't bother anymore, easier to shoot the wall blank with no artwork and then build level adjustment layers in photoshop. Maybe version 3 is more forgiving. This isn't a big deal in studio, but out on location a bear for big work.
-
At the moment the best equipment is a Hasselblad H4D50 MS. The latest technology, we achieve 200Mpix. (6 shot) is phenomenal attainable sharpness, color fidelity is excellent. We have the ability to control the exposure parameters directly from the software, even when using the camera on the optical bench. (modern digital lenses with electronic shutter). It is currently the first choice of reprographic equipment for the Lab. (Archives, library collections, galleries, museums) If you are looking for new equipment for such applications, it is the best hardware currently produced. There is one company that claims it has produced equipment that beats any DigitalBack in MultiShot technology. But the results are not satisfactory.
Best regards,
Design Freak
-
That is what I was hoping on the Rollei lens wise, perhaps for multistep you really need that electronic leaf shutter... or is the shutter held open the whole time and the back just blinks on an off for each exposure...
I'll have to have a look next time, but I'm nearly sure that the shutter opens and closes in between frames. In the 16 shot or microstep mode it actually collects about 19 or 20 frames - the extras are for calibration of some sort. With some cameras it goes really fast probably just a few seconds between frames.
-
At the moment the best equipment is a Hasselblad H4D50 MS. The latest technology, we achieve 200Mpix. (6 shot) is phenomenal attainable sharpness, color fidelity is excellent.
Do you know if there will be a CF-50MS available?
-
You are right in your options. Personally I would go for the 22/39MS together with a H2(F) body. This setup is completely geared towards multishot. The Rollei Eric uses is also a good option I think, the shutter in the Rollei lenses is also electronic if I am not mistaken (Eric?). You can also use the 384 or the 528 on either of these. A 6008 plus 528c will be not that expensive I reckon.
Option 1 is difficult with multishot unless you get electronic shutters with your tech body. The electronic shutters and the controller make the whole point of getting something really portable a bit of a moot point.
ideal light easy transportable thing is called the H3D39MS with a HCD35-90...
AH.... 1 thing. It is so obvious to me that I have become kind of blinded by it. For multishot you always need to be tethered to a computer.
I still would tether and travel, I just don't want the bulk of a 4x5 when I have no need movements. I really like the idea of DAP though, kind of hard to give that up since I already make use of the canon version in DPP. Since no one has weighed in with their use of a WRS/Arca type body and Digital lens I suppose DAP or the equivalent is even more important these days...
Forgive me for a dumb question, but I have not used a MFB yet soo... the electronic shutter is necessary because the back can't just fire through its 16 shots from a mirror lockup/bulb mode like setting...right? And one would need very stable/precise/repeatable exposures for each 16 shots, hence the electronic shutter. Also without a electronic shutter, and if the back could not complete it sequence without tripping the shutter for each shot, then I would be forced to manually cock the camera each time and cause some minor/major shifts resulting in microstep artifacting. If this is the case, then the H1/2 3d/4d is going into mirror lockup and still activating its non-leaf shutter 16 or so times right? It must be very stable.
-Design Freak-
What Digital lenses are you mainly using? I like the fact Erik has access to a T/S type for the wide end, keeps the quality up at the edges but with H your tied to HC right?
-Tom-
The P25/45 is in my range and C1 gives me everything I want color workflow and lens correction wise, I know it is not what museums would run to, but your right about location work, other then tethering its got to be light and nimble. I have not given up on single shot, they at least seem to be easier found and with phase not discontinued so frequently. And with single-shot the camera body/lenses can be manual. I guess I just have to "see" the multishot workflow impact and the resulting benefit.
I value everyone's comments, thank you for chipping in and making this decision easier.
-
Indeed the back needs a shutter to fire 4 or 16 shots. It cannot work by opening up a shutter and 'activating' the sensor 4 or 16 times. On the Hasselblad, which has a shutter in the lens, the mirror flips up and the shutter fires 4 or 16 times. It has very little vibration (practically none) making it an excellent choice for 4 or 16 shot applications.
Yes, DAC is very important to me. The Hasselblad HC lenses are not as good as Digitars or Rodenstock HR but they are very good and with DAC there is no, absolutely no CA! Distortion is also practically gone after DAC as well as vignetting.
With manual shutters you need to cock the shutter everytime in between shots and indeed risk movement, it can be done but it needs even more discipline.
-
At the moment the best equipment is a Hasselblad H4D50 MS. The latest technology, we achieve 200Mpix. (6 shot) is phenomenal attainable sharpness, color fidelity is excellent.
Best regards,
Design Freak
I'd love to see a real-world proof for such a bald statement...
-
I'd love to see a real-world proof for such a bald statement...
Leaf Aptus II-12 does not meet the requirements, the Phase One P65 + as well. The only competitor is the evolution Sinar 86H. Hasselblad has a whole system, Hasselblad is more versatile, less expensive Hasselblad, Hasselblad is more user friendly. In the end gives you the opportunity to reach 200Mpix. Hasselblad is also the most frequently implemented a system of this type in institutions such as: Libraries, Archives, Galleries, Museums. It probably means something.
Best regards,
Design Freak
-
Leaf Aptus II-12 does not meet the requirements, the Phase One P65 + as well. The only competitor is the evolution Sinar 86H. Hasselblad has a whole system, Hasselblad is more versatile, less expensive Hasselblad, Hasselblad is more user friendly. In the end gives you the opportunity to reach 200Mpix. Hasselblad is also the most frequently implemented a system of this type in institutions such as: Libraries, Archives, Galleries, Museums. It probably means something.
Best regards,
Design Freak
Some folks have little doubt. FWIW, the Art Institute of Chicago uses (I believe) the Leica S1, perhaps one of two in operation worldwide. And they do just fine. Probably means something too....
-
The P25/45 is in my range and C1 gives me everything I want color workflow and lens correction wise, I know it is not what museums would run to, but your right about location work, other then tethering its got to be light and nimble. I have not given up on single shot, they at least seem to be easier found and with phase not discontinued so frequently. And with single-shot the camera body/lenses can be manual. I guess I just have to "see" the multishot workflow impact and the resulting benefit.
Just installed a Museum P45 in Miami Beach using a copy stand and an AFD body.
Multishot has some technical image quality advantages for art reproduction - there is almost no doubt of that.
Like anything else you have to decide if that advantage is large enough to justify the additional time/money/storage/hassle. (note my bias since my company does not represent any multishot backs). 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.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (doug@captureintegration.com)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/") | RSS Feed (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/")
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/")
-
Leaf Aptus II-12 does not meet the requirements, the Phase One P65 + as well. The only competitor is the evolution Sinar 86H. Hasselblad has a whole system, Hasselblad is more versatile, less expensive Hasselblad, Hasselblad is more user friendly. In the end gives you the opportunity to reach 200Mpix. Hasselblad is also the most frequently implemented a system of this type in institutions such as: Libraries, Archives, Galleries, Museums. It probably means something.
Best regards,
Design Freak
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
-
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.
-
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:-)
-
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...
-
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.
-
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 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
-
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
-
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
-
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?
-
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,
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
I'm not a professional photographer, yet, I'm still cutting my teeth as an assistant :). 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 :).
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
-
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
-
Any suggestions or links on where to look for a good start for education on reproducing artwork?
Thanks!
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
Ok, it has been a long week and now I'm finally getting back to tackling this transition to MF. Glancing over what everyone has said, looks like for single-shot bare minimum is in the p45 range. There is the Aptus 75s too, but at 33mp it does not offer a whole lot more resolution from what I shoot now. Multi-shot was a tempting path, but two problems. First, other than 324 and 528c models, it is quite hard to track down used equipment. Also I should thank Eric, he was very kind to drop by and demo his 528c & Rollei 6008 setup, but under my lights 16-shot kept giving an error (but no specifics). Probably it was my ballasts in the Fluorescent lights, so if I want 16-shot mode for resolution I would need to spend $$$ on strobes. I'm curious though what the minimum (pack/brand) would be for this type of setup light-wise since for very large artwork (13ft long dimension) I'm using 6 Tota's on two poles. Trying to buy Grafit A4's for this would kill me @ one pack per head as another member is using.
Software: I tried Phocus with the 528c files, and really like the "Reproduction" mode, seems like an easy path for ICC creation & selection for input profiles. So far I have no issues running it on my Windows7 64bit box. I need to re-evaluate CP1 since the new version has come out. From what I remember the correct path is to linearize the tone curve and output with no profile for icc creation. On DAC I called Hasselblad and they said the circuit board on the 528 could not pass on lens information to the software, only the new back models could do this, so unless I'm wrong I don't think you can do that with the 324 and H2...
Hardware Concerns: the Hard Drives in the image banks concern me. If it were easy to just open them up, hookup the Hard drive to my system and ghost(image) the disk as a backup that would be ok. I can find a replacement probably and keep them as spares. But according to Hasselblad USA they have to be shipped overseas for repair - ouch.
I'm thinking about the Mamiya RZ67 at this point. I believe the 75mm shift, and the 140mm macro would be all I need. My main concern is the 75mm, using Capture Integrations Focal Length Equivalent Calculator it looks like a 36mm on my 1DSMKIII. For a few large pieces I shoot (and print 24x36) each year, I usually rent the Canon 135 1.4L, so the Mamiya equivalent needs to be as sharp at the edges and provide at least the same amount of view as what I get with the Canon (sensor crop would be P45). But which version of the body, is there a significant difference, shooting digital, between the II & IID versions for what I do? Also I like how the back will rotate on the body over the Phase AF/DF bodies.
I should mention it has also been recommended to me to purchase a DF body with 55mm LS & Phase 120 Macro for the same type of work. This setup will be many thousands more then the Mamiya, but would be a nice thing to use for other creative processes. The 55mm would need to be sharper then the Mamiya 75 shift at the corners to justify the purchase though.
Hasselblad route... If I went this path it would be because I could track down a CF-39MS and take advantage of the DAC with a used H1/2 body. But the cost of Multi-shot, both for the back and adequate 16-shot strobes is inhibiting.
Tech Camera I'm tempted by a used WDS or new WRS body. I'm just hesitant to have to remove the back each time I compose and focus - which could be quite a few times in a shoot. Unless of course Live-View works really well for comp along with focusing - I have a feeling is better at checking focus...
If someone has a 4-shot larger multi-shot back they are considering selling let me know, because I know those will work with my current lights.
Thanks again for all the sage advice!
-
Ok, it has been a long week and now I'm finally getting back to tackling this transition to MF. Glancing over what everyone has said, looks like for single-shot bare minimum is in the p45 range. There is the Aptus 75s too, but at 33mp it does not offer a whole lot more resolution from what I shoot now. Multi-shot was a tempting path, but two problems. First, other than 324 and 528c models, it is quite hard to track down used equipment. Also I should thank Erik, he was very kind to drop by and demo his 528c & Rollei 6008 setup, but under my lights 16-shot kept giving an error (but no specifics). Probably it was my ballasts in the Fluorescent lights, so if I want 16-shot mode for resolution I would need to spend $$$ on strobes. I'm curious though what the minimum (pack/brand) would be for this type of setup light-wise since for very large artwork (13ft long dimension) I'm using 6 Tota's on two poles. Trying to buy Grafit A4's for this would kill me @ one pack per head as another member is using.
Software: I tried Phocus with the 528c files, and really like the "Reproduction" mode, seems like an easy path for ICC creation & selection for input profiles. So far I have no issues running it on my Windows7 64bit box. I need to re-evaluate CP1 since the new version has come out. From what I remember the correct path is to linearize the tone curve and output with no profile for icc creation. On DAC I called Hasselblad and they said the circuit board on the 528 could not pass on lens information to the software, only the new back models could do this, so unless I'm wrong I don't think you can do that with the 324 and H2...
Hardware Concerns: the Hard Drives in the image banks concern me. If it were easy to just open them up, hookup the Hard drive to my system and ghost(image) the disk as a backup that would be ok. I can find a replacement probably and keep them as spares. But according to Hasselblad USA they have to be shipped overseas for repair - ouch.
I'm thinking about the Mamiya RZ67 at this point. I believe the 75mm shift, and the 140mm macro would be all I need. My main concern is the 75mm, using Capture Integrations Focal Length Equivalent Calculator it looks like a 36mm on my 1DSMKIII. For a few large pieces I shoot (and print 24x36) each year, I usually rent the Canon 135 1.4L, so the Mamiya equivalent needs to be as sharp at the edges and provide at least the same amount of view as what I get with the Canon (sensor crop would be P45). But which version of the body, is there a significant difference, shooting digital, between the II & IID versions for what I do? Also I like how the back will rotate on the body over the Phase AF/DF bodies.
I should mention it has also been recommended to me to purchase a DF body with 55mm LS & Phase 120 Macro for the same type of work. This setup will be many thousands more then the Mamiya, but would be a nice thing to use for other creative processes. The 55mm would need to be sharper then the Mamiya 75 shift at the corners to justify the purchase though.
Hasselblad route... If I went this path it would be because I could track down a CF-39MS and take advantage of the DAC with a used H1/2 body. But the cost of Multi-shot, both for the back and adequate 16-shot strobes is inhibiting.
Tech Camera I'm tempted by a used WDS or new WRS body. I'm just hesitant to have to remove the back each time I compose and focus - which could be quite a few times in a shoot. Unless of course Live-View works really well for comp along with focusing - I have a feeling is better at checking focus...
If someone has a 4-shot larger multi-shot back they are considering selling let me know, because I know those will work with my current lights.
Thanks again for all the sage advice!
If you are considering the RZ, IMHO (and biased) an Aptus 75 or 75S will give you the most practical and productive solution, mostly because of the quality of Live View but also the way it works on the RZ with the rotating plate and the simplicity in using just one sync cable
Yair
-
Hasselblad is right DAC does NOT work with 528 & 384. The image bank does sound like a weak point however I have not heard often that one broke down, they tend to be extremely reliable. The 39MS and higher do not support microstep, they only have 4-shot mode (the 50 will have a 6-shot mode later this year probably). I use Elinchrom strobes with the MS without problems.
A lot of choices and a lot of details that can be important to you to think off. Good you tried the 528 with Eric, there is nothing as good as see for yourself how stuff works.
Goodluck!
-
Hello,
I agree with Yaya. A couple of years ago I travel around New Zealand shooting art work by a painter by the name of Ralph Hotere. I shot over 300 paintings using a Mamiya RZ with a Leaf Aptus 75 back. The results where spectacular.
Cheers
Simon
-
Thanks Dustbak for confirming that. On your Elinchrom's, were you using them in 16-shot mode with the 384/528 too or just 4-shot on the newer backs? What series are they?
Thanks!
-
Phero, did you use Phocus when capturing on a 384. This is not supposed to work. I used all sort of flashlights on my 384: from broncolor light bleu powerpacks, elinchrom 1500/2000/3000 Ws standard packs out of the 1980 ies to profoto and they all worked perfect. But only with Flexcolor, phocus will give a error pop up screen.
-
Hi Peter, no we used FlexColor. And Eric told me that in the past FlexColor would give an error based on movement or light fluctuation, but in this case it just errored out (no reason given). It could have been other factors besides the lights, but my guess is its them. He has had success with similar parameters using Profoto Strobes. That is good to hear about the compatibility of strobes you used. I might have to keep this option open.
Yair, is it the 75/75s that has the rotating option on the RZ or newer Aptus backs as well? Does this apply to only the "IID" model or the "II" too? I'm actually leaning towards the Aptus II 10 route if I can get it.
-
FYI
The 384 works just fine with Phocus.
The image bank would seem to be a weak point (I have a spare) but in practice they are rock solid.
If you are shooting tethered I cannot see why you would need a ghost of the HD that is inside the image bank.
Nick-T
-
Hi Nick, the reason I bring up ghosting is that I'm unsure how the HD is formatted, and if some mini-OS is running on it, etc. If it is just a basic drive with nothing more than formatting it would be easy to replace. Since much of this equipment is 8+ years old, and most HDs become suspect by about year 4 (yes they last longer, but in general I like to replace before failure), I would feel better if I had a backup or a way to create a spare image of the drive. Maybe drive wear/tear is much less because of tethering, dunno.
From what I understand you can shoot with the 384 in Phocus, 4-shot mode, but not 16-shot; however, you can edit the 16-shot images in Phocus if originally shot in FlexColor.
-
A bit of a repeat but I've got a question: We were able to capture 4 shot images at John's with my 528c but not with the microstep for some reason. I've used this extensively in microstep mode with my profoto strobes and daylight but never with flourecent lights. John apparently put a lot of effort into sourcing top quality components for them. The exposure time needed with the lights and polarizers was about 2 secs so a fairly long period of time to record.
Yes Phocus works great with this back for multishot mode but doesn't support microstep so we used flexcolor. I happen to like flexcolor.
Yair, I would love to see some of these comparison images you mentioned.
Eric
-
Yair, is it the 75/75s that has the rotating option on the RZ or newer Aptus backs as well? Does this apply to only the "IID" model or the "II" too? I'm actually leaning towards the Aptus II 10 route if I can get it.
We make rotating adapters that fit ANY RZ model and they come in 3 "flavours" to suit your back's mount: Mamiya/ Phase One, Hasselblad H and Hasselblad V.
So if you are thinking about getting an Aptus-II 10 you have 3 options in terms of the mount you choose to go with
Yair
-
Thanks Dustbak for confirming that. On your Elinchrom's, were you using them in 16-shot mode with the 384/528 too or just 4-shot on the newer backs? What series are they?
Thanks!
I use. Elinchrom RX600, 1200RX & 2400RX generators and Quadra's. I have used these with the 39MS without problems. I have used the 600RX's (mono's) with the 384 in 16-shot. Personally I have had often issues doing microstep (16-shot) but considering the place I work is on the top floor of a mostly wooden building that should be no surprise.
-
Hi Nick, the reason I bring up ghosting is that I'm unsure how the HD is formatted, and if some mini-OS is running on it, etc. If it is just a basic drive with nothing more than formatting it would be easy to replace. Since much of this equipment is 8+ years old, and most HDs become suspect by about year 4 (yes they last longer, but in general I like to replace before failure), I would feel better if I had a backup or a way to create a spare image of the drive. Maybe drive wear/tear is much less because of tethering, dunno.
From what I understand you can shoot with the 384 in Phocus, 4-shot mode, but not 16-shot; however, you can edit the 16-shot images in Phocus if originally shot in FlexColor.
You are right the drive is specially formatted. Plug in a new drive navigate to the maintenance menu (you'll need a dealer code) and format.
I missed that you were referring to 16 shot when you said Phocus did not support the 384/528, quite right phocus does not support 16 shot capture and there seems to be less and less demand for it as pixel counts have climbed.
Nick-T
-
I would like to update this a bit with lighting questions. So I built some new photographic light banks earlier in the year, but now that I'm looking at MF upgrades, Techcams with copal shutters, etc. flash seems to be on the horizon.
Currently I own two lighting systems.
1. 6 Tota Lights on two stands - while not pretty they do a fine job of lighting anything from small to large artwork, but at the cost of setup time (45min or so per job). Each head is linear - I like that.
2. 2 40" tall Flourescent Light Banks. I built these for setup speed and CRI (98). Setup is 5min or less, and they function as a viewing booth of sorts when shooting and viewing the artwork since Color Temp is closer to laptop screen then the Tungston. Downside is weight, each fixture runs about 22lbs.
Neither of these systems will work with copals because of the 1 sec. limit unless I go electronic. On the non techcam side I can go Rollei or Phase/Mamiya 645, but limited to single shots, no stitching unless I move artwork.
Anyways, what I'm getting at is how do I keep a fairly linear light source when moving to strobe, since 99% of strobes are round head designs. Yes there are the hard style softboxes that Hensel, Profoto & Broncolor make, in addition to the striplights (with flat faces) - are these what everyone is using? But the cost to make a round light source linear is pretty heavy - unless one could get by with say small "soft" softboxes. Polarizing a regular softbox would not be easy unless using the Chimera Busterbite I think - but correct me if I'm wrong.
The cheaper alternatives & faster setup (except vs. striplights) would be to use 6 monolights and just gel the reflectors, but the idea of overlapping circles makes me uncomfortable - maybe it shouldn't but it just does. If there is light fall-off I would rather it trail off in a non circular manner so that it is easier to correct in post. Which brings up the last option, pencil or lightstick heads. These seems to be a direct replacement to the Totas I already use. Only problem is gel holder, I might have to modify my Tota's holders, maybe weld an umbrella shaft on their mounting arm, but otherwise could work. Major downer is I'm back to 45min - 1 hr. setups :(
-
As with many technologies that may be a better idea for a while, the advancements go to the technologies that have the most money spent on them. The Bayer array using one shot falls into this category. While the H4D50 MS did shoot sharper images than the P65+ in the test posted here, one wonders if the careful application of sharpening might make the difference moot. We have better sharpening tools than ever before, Nik, even high pass in CS5, so that the penalty in productivity that the MS backs bring to the workflow might no longer be worth it.
Also, instead of pixel-peeping, could we see some examples of the difference in offset reproduction, or even high quality inkjet prints? Always, one must ask, can the client see the difference? Is there truly a difference?
-
If you're using Capture One you can use the LCC tool to even out lighting on the artwork. Obviously it's best that you get the lighting as close as reasonable effort/equipment can get you. However, with a digital back's file latitude and the accuracy of the LCC tool you'll find that even a half stop variation will result in almost no noticeable image quality degradation.
1. Light the artwork as well as you can (using polarizers where possible/practical) and high quality lights that have consistency from one pop of the flash to the next (I suggest Broncolor or Profoto - but I'm very biased - see signature)
2. Place a piece of white seamless over the artwork and fill the camera frame with that white. Avoid wrinkles/bowing. A piece of white mattboard or other taunt material also works - just needs to be white and fill the frame.
3. Capture a frame of just the white material
4. In the Lens Correction tab select [LCC > Analyze] and name it something pertinent
5. Capture a frame of the artwork
6. In the Lens Correction tab select [LCC > {name of the LCC you made in step 4}]
If you're shooting a lot of pieces in the same lighting you can set in the Camera Tab [Next Capture Adjustments > Copy from Primary] so that the LCC is applied to incoming captures (it's still a raw file in case you want to adjust/remove the LCC later) as you shoot them.
This also corrects for any lens fall off (though it should be very slight at the standard f/8-f/11 art repro apertures).
This also corrects for any slight variation in color temperature (from uneven power, poor quality strobes, or aging of the glass/bulb).
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (doug@captureintegration.com)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/") | RSS Feed (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/")
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/")
-
Well smack me with a brick, it just dawned on me that all I need to make a strobe less circular in output is to toss the reflector & find some barn doors (hopefully with gel attachment but if not then 3rd party). Why can't it always be this easy! ;D
Doug, just saw your comment come in while typeing the above - I have used the LCC module on my last job and found it worked great. There are times (very large artwork, that can't be hung due to a wall issue) that I have to correct falloff manually in PS. This is where linear falloff helps, since I cannot really shoot the area with a white sheet or otherwise (floor is visable in shoot area). In an ideal situation I would hang and shoot on the wall, drape white material as you say, keep taunt and slightly defocus the lens, but for the big stuff I can't :(
Speaking of Bron, how does the Visatek line handle color temperture and flash-to-flash consistency through its 4 stop range? The Brons and Profotos of course offer a lot more options, but if these lights are just shooting artwork I don't need a whole lot other then consistency, etc.