Cross-polarized light setup for photographing artwork

[BobDavid]

This is so depressing. Every time you try to discuss practical approaches to a specific problem, someone comes along with "your equipment sucks and there's no way in hell I would even consider using that crap. Just spend so-and-so to get what I have and you'll be in the major league <subtext: because that's where I am>". Yes, I get your point, loud and very clear.

I'd appreciate it if you kept all of your many assumptions to yourself. They're not really contributing anything.

Whatever trips your trigger. No need to get defensive.

[Jason DiMichele]

Too each his own. There are a lot of good deals on used Hasselblad 39mp cameras and backs. If you really want the most accurate and efficient platform for repro, get an MS Hassey back or even a Sinar 54H (Michael Ulsaker of Ulsaker Studio in Connecticut is a genius when it comes to cobbling together high-end budget-sensitive systems).Why spend 3X for an IQ280, when there are a lot of low-mileage MFD backs/cameras out there? I do not recommend Mamiya 645 bodies, not matter what flavor. No matter what camera platform you ultimately decide to go with, the best way to shoot copy work is tethered.

My guess is that your employer is providing repro services as an ancillary service. If he can get away with using prosumer equipment, more power to him. Frankly, if I was looking for a "good enough" solution for mediocre artwork, I'd shoot the art with a Nikon and source out all canvas printing to Staples, UPS stores equipped with HPs, and FedEx Kinkos outlets. When it comes to mediocrity, which is often very acceptable, it's difficult to compete with them.

I am stepping a bit off-topic here, but I venture to guess that "21" (D Fosse) is between 24 and 34-years old. Just a hunch.

Hi Bob,

Why would one choose a hasselblad back considering Phase One is the industry leader? Go big or go home right? I would also choose a phase one back over hasselblad.

If I were in a position to get a phase back (to use on my hasselblads or Cambo monorails), the biggest reason I would acquire one would be for the user experience, slightly better colour accuracy and higher resolution (depending on the model). It really is difficult these days to justify paying 10-20x as much for a mfdb with nowhere near even a 3-5x quality improvement.  Although anything can be argued, it is a tough argument stating that current DSLRs aren't up to the task on many levels:

- resolution is outstanding these days with high quality, low noise sensors

- the dynamic range of current full frame DSLRs is more than negative or transparency film used to be, and for the sake or argument they almost have as much dynamic range as transparency and negative film combined. Regardless of he true measurements, it's overkill for reproducing art. Highly improbable that a piece of art requires 12-14 stops of dynamic range.

- colour accuracy with proper profiling is very good these days.

Your comment about using the Nikon for good enough work and sending it to printing services with knowingly sub-par printing is just a cheap jab. There are many pros using D800s photographing subject matter far more difficult than art repros who are using pro printing services. It would be foolish to argue that the results from the D800 are nothing short of spectacular.

Just in case it has any relevance or validates my reply in anyway, I'm 38.

Cheers,
Jay

[BobDavid]

Hi Bob,

That definitely is a really nice meter. However, based on what they say in the description ("They have produced an incredible meter that more than meets the needs of the photographic community. This full-featured meter will definitely make everyone happy as it is loaded with every imaginable feature - and then some..."), it perhaps is more than one needs. The price is definitely increased by the radio triggering feature. And the 1 degree spot really isn't necessary for art repro. I would be curious how much more accurate this is than say a $2-300 meter that can already meter to 1/10th of a stop. I'm curious to hear about your experiences with this meter compared to others (I think it's safe to assume you've used others during the course of your career). I'm currently using the Minolta Auto Flash IV.

Interesting idea about taking the polarizing film out of phase with each other. I'm going to play around with that to see if I can provide myself some new and interesting options with certain types of art.

With regard to the D800, I don't understand how it couldn't be used as a repro workhorse. If it works for a few a month why wouldn't it work for more? The process is identical, the only difference being which shutter is triggered on which camera. Or are you referring specifically to colour accuracy or resolution and less post processing because of these?

I agree about using as dark a space as possible. However adding micro contrast in post is easy enough (clarity in Lightroom) or local contrast enhancement in Photoshop. I do agree that it's better to get as much as possible in camera though.

Cheers,
Jay

Interesting points. ... I like that meter for its versatility, and it really does a nice job measuring luminance across a frame. For art repro, I lay the meter flat on each corner of the artwork and then take random measurements throughout the field (I use a nine-foot high copy stand). The radio trigger is nice because I just move the meter around and trigger the flash from where I am at. It gives accurate measurements down to the 1/10 f/stop.It has a software interface that enables it to be calibrated, but I haven't taken it to that level.  Another nice feature about the meter is that it has a feature specifically designed for metering flat artwork.

One thing I neglected to mention about copying 2 1/2 D art with metallic elements is it's handy to bounce a strobe off of a large white flat to bring out subtle detail without specular highlights getting clipped. This trick works best if you need to wall mount the art and use a camera stand such as a Foba or at least a very solid tripod weighted down with a sandbag. I don't shoot 21/2 D on a copy stand--it's just too awkward.

My comment about the D800 not being a true workhorse for copy work is that it's not really designed for that particular application, at least not on a pro level. You'll have one of those aha moments if you have a chance to demo a Hasselblad or Sinar back. The IR and UV cutoffs are different between 35mm CMOS and MFD CCDs. Also, the Hasselblad "true color" algorithms are excellent. The US gov't. secret service, the bureau of engraving, the Smithsonian, and just about every library or archive with a decent collection and budget gravitates towards Hasselblad or Sinar multi-shot backs.

Fine art repro is also as much about science as it is about art. No matter how well your components are calibrated, there will always be issues that come up do to various constituents used in different brands of paints. Matamerism issues often come up when photographing paintings. That is one of the reasons I preferred working on large accounts with professional artist--repeat customers. Once I got feel for the paints and media they used, color-correcting became a breeze. At one time I had a database of different brands of paints, colors, etc. that I would refer to for post processing adjustments. This came in handy when I needed someone else to do post while I was involved with other projects.

I cut my chops on high-end sRGB monitors, while I often preffered to make some corrections in LAB. I learned how to read histograms and pay attention to the numbers when making adjustments using LAB with an sRGB monitor. Dan Margulis's Photoshop LAB Color--The Canyoun Conundrum and Other Adventures in the Most Powerful Colorspace is an outstanding book. That book, more than any other reference book, lecture, or workshop, taught me how to CC quicker, faster, and better.

I have a lot of respect for the craft of art reproduction. It takes years of practical experience to get really, really good at it. Meaning, you make one or two tiny test prints and are then ready to commit to a 44" wide print.

I'm 55.

[BobDavid]

Hi Bob,

Why would one choose a hasselblad back considering Phase One is the industry leader? Go big or go home right? I would also choose a phase one back over hasselblad.

If I were in a position to get a phase back (to use on my hasselblads or Cambo monorails), the biggest reason I would acquire one would be for the user experience, slightly better colour accuracy and higher resolution (depending on the model). It really is difficult these days to justify paying 10-20x as much for a mfdb with nowhere near even a 3-5x quality improvement.  Although anything can be argued, it is a tough argument stating that current DSLRs aren't up to the task on many levels:

- resolution is outstanding these days with high quality, low noise sensors

- the dynamic range of current full frame DSLRs is more than negative or transparency film used to be, and for the sake or argument they almost have as much dynamic range as transparency and negative film combined. Regardless of he true measurements, it's overkill for reproducing art. Highly improbable that a piece of art requires 12-14 stops of dynamic range.

- colour accuracy with proper profiling is very good these days.

Your comment about using the Nikon for good enough work and sending it to printing services with knowingly sub-par printing is just a cheap jab. There are many pros using D800s photographing subject matter far more difficult than art repros who are using pro printing services. It would be foolish to argue that the results from the D800 are nothing short of spectacular.

Just in case it has any relevance or validates my reply in anyway, I'm 38.

Cheers,
Jay

Jay, PhaseOne backs are great. I've seen decent repro work come from a P45. I think of Phase backs differently than Blad and Sinar due to the fact the once you've used a multi-shot system that bypasses Bayer pattern interpolations, you'll immediately see what I am talking about. From a resolution standpoint, a 39mp MS file looks better than a single shot 60mp file. Not to belabor a point, but most top-end institutions use multi-shot systems for documenting artwork. The files are used for art conservation references, insurance, forensics, and reproductions. The US Treasury and the secret service use multi-shot cameras for forensic studies as well as for documentation.

[Jason DiMichele]

Interesting points. ... I like that meter for its versatility, and it really does a nice job measuring luminance across a frame. For art repro, I lay the meter flat on each corner of the artwork and then take random measurements throughout the field (I use a nine-foot high copy stand). The radio trigger is nice because I just move the meter around and trigger the flash from where I am at. It gives accurate measurements down to the 1/10 f/stop.It has a software interface that enables it to be calibrated, but I haven't taken it to that level.  Another nice feature about the meter is that it has a feature specifically designed for metering flat artwork.

When you say laying it on the corner of the artwork, I'm assuming you don't literally mean on the artwork without at least some sort of cloth for protection? A 9 foot high copy stand is neat. Which lens focal length are you using to cover the field of view of the art? I typically stick with macro lenses for ultimate edge to edge sharpness. The software interface you speak of, is that to calibrate the meter to the sensitivity of the specific sensor? The feature for metering flat artwork; is it a different diffuser attachment you install or is it literally a setting on the meter? Interested to learn more about what that feature does and how it works.

One thing I neglected to mention about copying 2 1/2 D art with metallic elements is it's handy to bounce a strobe off of a large white flat to bring out subtle detail without specular highlights getting clipped. This trick works best if you need to wall mount the art and use a camera stand such as a Foba or at least a very solid tripod weighted down with a sandbag. I don't shoot 21/2 D on a copy stand--it's just too awkward.

That's an interesting tip that I'll keep in my bag of tricks. How much of a benefit is it to use an industrial camera stand? I mean I'm using a pretty heavy tripod and since the floor is concrete I don't expect any vibration and since I'm shooting with MLU and remotely triggered so there's no mirror slap or camera vibration due to my finger. The shutter speeds are fast enough regardless.

Fine art repro is also as much about science as it is about art. No matter how well your components are calibrated, there will always be issues that come up do to various constituents used in different brands of paints. Matamerism issues often come up when photographing paintings. That is one of the reasons I preferred working on large accounts with professional artist--repeat customers. Once I got feel for the paints and media they used, color-correcting became a breeze. At one time I had a database of different brands of paints, colors, etc. that I would refer to for post processing adjustments. This came in handy when I needed someone else to do post while I was involved with other projects.

I totally agree that it is a science as much as an art. I actually believe that to be true with various photographic disciplines (fine art, product) especially if one is particular about achieving the best one can. Very cool about the database of post processing adjustments. Did you have to educate the professional artists about the fact that there would rarely ever be a 100% match or were they already aware of that? My clients seem to be very happy with the quality of my reproductions even though, as you know, they are usually slight differences due to physical limitations of the different mediums.

I cut my chops on high-end sRGB monitors, while I often preffered to make some corrections in LAB. I learned how to read histograms and pay attention to the numbers when making adjustments using LAB with an sRGB monitor. Dan Margulis's Photoshop LAB Color--The Canyoun Conundrum and Other Adventures in the Most Powerful Colorspace is an outstanding book. That book, more than any other reference book, lecture, or workshop, taught me how to CC quicker, faster, and better.

I'm using NECs with more or less full AdobeRGB gamut. I've mainly stuck with RGB editing. However, I do have Dan's book. When I got it I was still relatively new to the advanced post processing but I just found it in the book collection and am going to have another gander now that I will completely benefit from any tidbits of information I read. I also advise people that are serious to get very familiar with the histogram and understand the numbers. Some good info there!

I have a lot of respect for the craft of art reproduction. It takes years of practical experience to get really, really good at it. Meaning, you make one or two tiny test prints and are then ready to commit to a 44" wide print.

Most definitely. I'm happy at the level I'm at right now but I sure am always wanting to take my knowledge to the next level. I'm not at the one or two tiny test prints stage yet but I do my own printing of my art and for others with my 11880 and am quite knowledgeable with the printing world which definitely helps me from beginning to end.

Cheers,
Jay

[Jason DiMichele]

Jay, PhaseOne backs are great. I've seen decent repro work come from a P45. I think of Phase backs differently than Blad and Sinar due to the fact the once you've used a multi-shot system that bypasses Bayer pattern interpolations, you'll immediately see what I am talking about. From a resolution standpoint, a 39mp MS file looks better than a single shot 60mp file. Not to belabor a point, but most top-end institutions use multi-shot systems for documenting artwork. The files are used for art conservation references, insurance, forensics, and reproductions. The US Treasury and the secret service use multi-shot cameras for forensic studies as well as for documentation.

I completely agree with this statement, not on a mfdb point of view because I don't have experience with them but my compact camera is a Fuji X-E2 with it's XTrans II sensor. It does away with the anti-aliasing filter but more importantly it doesn't use the Bayer interpolation (using it's own colour filter array). Some say the resolution of the 16mp sensor is equivalent to that of a 36mp standard bayer sensor. I haven't tested that theory but I can definitely say that the quality is incredible and I wouldn't be surprised if it came close to what others say about it's potential. I should rent a mfdb for a weekend and see what all the fuss is about.

Cheers,
Jay

[D Fosse]

Frankly, if I was looking for a "good enough" solution for mediocre artwork, I'd shoot the art with a Nikon and source out all canvas printing to Staples, UPS stores equipped with HPs, and FedEx Kinkos outlets. When it comes to mediocrity, which is often very acceptable, it's difficult to compete with them.

I am stepping a bit off-topic here, but I venture to guess that "21" (D Fosse) is between 24 and 34-years old. Just a hunch.

[MODERATOR EDIT: inappropriate post]

Expensive equipment is and has always been the crutch of the technically challenged. That's why I'm not impressed. Yes, expensive equipment is nice, and a great help in the work. But if you can't get the job done without it (which is what you're saying), you're in big trouble.

[Christopher Sanderson]

Keep it civil or be banned. Topic locked. Convince me otherwise in a PM

[Christopher Sanderson]

OK - go to it again but please keep your hair on and refrain from posting before you have considered your post. 

[D Fosse]

Thank you, Chris. I'll stay out of this thread from here on.

Don't let an interesting discussion be stopped by my temper...

[BobDavid]

When you say laying it on the corner of the artwork, I'm assuming you don't literally mean on the artwork without at least some sort of cloth for protection? A 9 foot high copy stand is neat. Which lens focal length are you using to cover the field of view of the art? I typically stick with macro lenses for ultimate edge to edge sharpness. The software interface you speak of, is that to calibrate the meter to the sensitivity of the specific sensor? The feature for metering flat artwork; is it a different diffuser attachment you install or is it literally a setting on the meter? Interested to learn more about what that feature does and how it works.


In all honesty, I'm not sure what the advantages are to calibrating the meter other than being able to customize the meter to specific lenses and sensors/film stock, and or light (tungsten versus sunlight). If the artwork is dry, I set the meter carefully on the artwork. If it is  fragile, I will sometimes lay a piece of cotton paper on top of the area where the meter is resting. I really try to keep the meter exactly parallel to the surface and on top of it, so that I am not getting getting a biased reading from inadvertently leaning the meter more towards one light than the other. If the art is still wet (oil paintings take a long time to thoroughly cure), I try my best to keep the meter about 1/8 off of the surface and I place a little bubble level on the meter so as to keep it parallel. If it is a large canvas, I'll stick a piece of clean white foam core on the spot where the painting will be set down for the camera. I then use the meter without worrying about damaging art. By the way, I had a robust insurance policy during my repro days. I was covered for up to $100K in damages.

That's an interesting tip that I'll keep in my bag of tricks. How much of a benefit is it to use an industrial camera stand? I mean I'm using a pretty heavy tripod and since the floor is concrete I don't expect any vibration and since I'm shooting with MLU and remotely triggered so there's no mirror slap or camera vibration due to my finger. The shutter speeds are fast enough regardless.


I got a good deal on the Foba stand. It's just a nice piece of equipment. Nothing wrong with using a good tripod. I like the Manfrotto 405 geared head. It makes it so easy to adjust the camera so that it is true to the artwork. I highly recommend using a high-quality level, such as a Starrett (used by machinists) for aligning.  I use the same lockup, shutter delay technique you use. I guess that falls into the category of good copy hygiene.

I totally agree that it is a science as much as an art. I actually believe that to be true with various photographic disciplines (fine art, product) especially if one is particular about achieving the best one can. Very cool about the database of post processing adjustments. Did you have to educate the professional artists about the fact that there would rarely ever be a 100% match or were they already aware of that? My clients seem to be very happy with the quality of my reproductions even though, as you know, they are usually slight differences due to physical limitations of the different mediums.

Believe it or not, I found that most professional artists were easy to work with. They are in the business of making money. They realize a repro is not going to be compared to the original when it hangs in someone's house. Many embellish the print with paint or other media. I've had a few savvy artists tell me about the lighting where a print will be displayed. Sometimes I'd make allowances for that. I've got a range of Solux bulbs to simulate different lighting schemes. But mostly, pro artists are concerned about having a product that is relatively accurate and is absolutely pleasing to the eye. Many would sit next to me in my studio and have me make color adjustments that were way different from the originals. I found that the most difficult customers were the amateur artists--highly budget-conscious and not sophisticated. Some were educable some were not.  I started turning away business from artists whom I suspected would not "get it". The LAB database was for my benefit. A lot of my clients were happy to snap a quick photo of their paint tubes for me. Some actually gave me a list of the paints and brands they used. I would drop a few hints about which paints are easier to match. I never got technical with them unless they specifically asked. I had a couple of clients who understood the printing process, CYMK & RGB, cameras, lenses, software etc.

I'm using NECs with more or less full AdobeRGB gamut. I've mainly stuck with RGB editing. However, I do have Dan's book. When I got it I was still relatively new to the advanced post processing but I just found it in the book collection and am going to have another gander now that I will completely benefit from any tidbits of information I read. I also advise people that are serious to get very familiar with the histogram and understand the numbers. Some good info there!

My Eizo IPS monitors are about five years old. They've got a lot of life left on them as I have the luminance set as low as I can and still get accurate color. I do not like staring into bright light sources.  How do you like your NEC? I've heard good things about them. However, now that I am mostly making fine art or restoring antique photos, I am able to get away with "pleasing color" over "accurate color matching."  It would have made life a little simpler to have had a trustworthy wide gamut monitor back in the day.

Most definitely. I'm happy at the level I'm at right now but I sure am always wanting to take my knowledge to the next level. I'm not at the one or two tiny test prints stage yet but I do my own printing of my art and for others with my 11880 and am quite knowledgeable with the printing world which definitely helps me from beginning to end.

I came close to pulling the trigger on a 60" printer, but I just couldn't justify it in the end. I also had a nice arrangement with a shop that could run off wide prints for me. I had their ICC profiles and was able to get good results. Still, I'd have them make a few test strips for me. Up until my 9900 Epson blew up, I'd had 44" printers in the studio since the 9800 era. I now have just one 7890--I run it every day to avoid cleaning cycles. During my final year of offering repro services, I narrowed the scope of my business exclusively to paper. I got tired of dealing with canvas. The smartest move I made was that early on began outsourcing the topcoat stage--nice to have connections willing to barter services. I've got a fair amount of canvas in storage, if you want it you can have it. PM me and I'll tell you what inventory I've got left. If you pay for postage--it's yours.

Cheers,
Jay

[Jason DiMichele]

OK - go to it again but please keep your hair on and refrain from posting before you have considered your post. 

Thanks Chris. Appreciated!

[Jason DiMichele]

Thank you, Chris. I'll stay out of this thread from here on.

Don't let an interesting discussion be stopped by my temper...

Thanks for doing whatever you did to help keep the thread unlocked. Appreciated!

[Jason DiMichele]

In all honesty, I'm not sure what the advantages are to calibrating the meter other than being able to customize the meter to specific lenses and sensors/film stock, and or light (tungsten versus sunlight). If the artwork is dry, I set the meter carefully on the artwork. If it is  fragile, I will sometimes lay a piece of cotton paper on top of the area where the meter is resting. I really try to keep the meter exactly parallel to the surface and on top of it, so that I am not getting getting a biased reading from inadvertently leaning the meter more towards one light than the other. If the art is still wet (oil paintings take a long time to thoroughly cure), I try my best to keep the meter about 1/8 off of the surface and I place a little bubble level on the meter so as to keep it parallel. If it is a large canvas, I'll stick a piece of clean white foam core on the spot where the painting will be set down for the camera. I then use the meter without worrying about damaging art. By the way, I had a robust insurance policy during my repro days. I was covered for up to $100K in damages.

OK that's interesting to know. What is your opinion of those that say that photographing art with strobes is a no-no due to the acceleration of fading that it causes. Apparently it's best to use continuous, low-heat lighting. That makes sense but I'm thinking going to that extreme is for priceless art where absolutely anything that can assist with conservation would be critical. And I love the idea of the foam core in place of the painting for the reading. However, wouldn't a matte black foam core be a better bet than white for the purpose of reflected light/glare? As I continue to build a name for myself and I hopefully begin doing art repros for bigger artists I will also look into an insurance policy. Was the insurance company you used specific to this industry? Would you happen to know if they provide services to Canadians?

I got a good deal on the Foba stand. It's just a nice piece of equipment. Nothing wrong with using a good tripod. I like the Manfrotto 405 geared head. It makes it so easy to adjust the camera so that it is true to the artwork. I highly recommend using a high-quality level, such as a Starrett (used by machinists) for aligning.  I use the same lockup, shutter delay technique you use. I guess that falls into the category of good copy hygiene.

OK. I'm going to look into the Starrett level as you suggest.

Believe it or not, I found that most professional artists were easy to work with. They are in the business of making money. They realize a repro is not going to be compared to the original when it hangs in someone's house. Many embellish the print with paint or other media. I've had a few savvy artists tell me about the lighting where a print will be displayed. Sometimes I'd make allowances for that. I've got a range of Solux bulbs to simulate different lighting schemes. But mostly, pro artists are concerned about having a product that is relatively accurate and is absolutely pleasing to the eye. Many would sit next to me in my studio and have me make color adjustments that were way different from the originals. I found that the most difficult customers were the amateur artists--highly budget-conscious and not sophisticated. Some were educable some were not.  I started turning away business from artists whom I suspected would not "get it". The LAB database was for my benefit. A lot of my clients were happy to snap a quick photo of their paint tubes for me. Some actually gave me a list of the paints and brands they used. I would drop a few hints about which paints are easier to match. I never got technical with them unless they specifically asked. I had a couple of clients who understood the printing process, CYMK & RGB, cameras, lenses, software etc.

Interesting that some of the artists would have you adjust colour far different than the original. I suppose it gives them an opportunity to make the repro look how they perhaps wished the original looked like or even to make the prints unique from the original. Who says the creativity has to stop when the original is complete right? I can see turning away business as a good thing in some circumstances. Even for me (although still an up and comer), have had to do that because some people just don't get it as you mentioned. I know it may sound cheeky, but if you're willing to share that database with me (or at least perhaps the colours/brands that you've found matching to be the easiest) it would be appreciated. I think it's a fantastic idea.

My Eizo IPS monitors are about five years old. They've got a lot of life left on them as I have the luminance set as low as I can and still get accurate color. I do not like staring into bright light sources.  How do you like your NEC? I've heard good things about them. However, now that I am mostly making fine art or restoring antique photos, I am able to get away with "pleasing color" over "accurate color matching."  It would have made life a little simpler to have had a trustworthy wide gamut monitor back in the day.

Which cd/m2 intensity do you have your Eizo's at? I vary a bit because I'm figuring out the best lighting for my environment but I'm usually between 90 and 110. I find that even at 90 contrast is good with no banding. I am very happy with my NECs. It's one of those things that many people don't realize about monitors. It is definitely worth buying quality ones. In this industry every 3-5% advantage adds up. They aren't a fun thing to spend money on but once you have them it's quickly realized that they are worth the investment. What type of fine art do you make - photographer, painter, sculpture?

I came close to pulling the trigger on a 60" printer, but I just couldn't justify it in the end. I also had a nice arrangement with a shop that could run off wide prints for me. I had their ICC profiles and was able to get good results. Still, I'd have them make a few test strips for me. Up until my 9900 Epson blew up, I'd had 44" printers in the studio since the 9800 era. I now have just one 7890--I run it every day to avoid cleaning cycles. During my final year of offering repro services, I narrowed the scope of my business exclusively to paper. I got tired of dealing with canvas. The smartest move I made was that early on began outsourcing the topcoat stage--nice to have connections willing to barter services. I've got a fair amount of canvas in storage, if you want it you can have it. PM me and I'll tell you what inventory I've got left. If you pay for postage--it's yours.

In my area there aren't a lot of labs that can print this large so that's definitely one benefit, especially when printing large canvases. Your 9900 blew up? Unrepairable or just not worth the cost? Another thing that a lot of people don't understand is that it's a different world with different issues printing large format. It's been a very exciting journey learning it all. Well.. I obviously don't know it all but I've learned an extensive amount in a relatively short period of time. Helps when you're passionate and have a technical/creative balance. I have a canvas spraying area where I do my varnish. So far so good, however as I grow I will perhaps have someone else do the varnish and stretching for me (as long as I find someone who will do it to my standards). I hope you got my PM about the canvas. I truly appreciate the offer and would love to get it from you.


Cheers,
Jay

[BobDavid]

OK that's interesting to know. What is your opinion of those that say that photographing art with strobes is a no-no due to the acceleration of fading that it causes. Apparently it's best to use continuous, low-heat lighting. That makes sense but I'm thinking going to that extreme is for priceless art where absolutely anything that can assist with conservation would be critical. And I love the idea of the foam core in place of the painting for the reading. However, wouldn't a matte black foam core be a better bet than white for the purpose of reflected light/glare? As I continue to build a name for myself and I hopefully begin doing art repros for bigger artists I will also look into an insurance policy. Was the insurance company you used specific to this industry? Would you happen to know if they provide services to Canadians?

I've always used strobes. A burst of light at 1/1200 sec passing through polarizing gels along with heat absorption filters does not transmit much UV or IR light. Harvard and the Boston Public Library have tons of stuff being digitized with multi-shot camera systems employing strobes.  I've copied scores of "camera-ready" original editorial cartoons from daily newspapers across the US from the 1930s and never had a problem.  Now if the Dead Sea Scrolls were to show up, I'd be concerned enough where I'd want to check with an archivist/conservator. I'd also want to make sure about liability issues--insurance, client waivers, etc. That sort of project would really have to be worth my while to take in. $100K worth of insurance isn't enough coverage for photographing uber expensive flat artwork. I did have a client with a significant collection of 19th Century American art. I brought my equipment to his location. As for insurance, I have been using a company called Zurich. I've had them underwrite a range of different types of policies depending on the type of projects that came in. I have a great agent who is easy and flexible to work with, so I can more or less change my coverage whenever it is necessary.  


OK. I'm going to look into the Starrett level as you suggest.



I've got a couple. I tend to use the small one--it's about three or four inches long. Very accurate. Remember, you want the bubble to be in the same position on your camera along the x and y axes as it is at the center of the artwork (the bubble does not have to fall in the center, it just needs to be consistent with the film plane and the picture plane). Again, exercise common sense. If you are copying an oil painting that is still wet, you may have to resort to making sure you've squared everything up using a grid overlay in your camera or on the image that comes up on the screen if shooting tethered. Warped  stretcher bars are common here in Florida. I've improvised a lot of grip equipment to deal with those situations.


Interesting that some of the artists would have you adjust colour far different than the original. I suppose it gives them an opportunity to make the repro look how they perhaps wished the original looked like or even to make the prints unique from the original. Who says the creativity has to stop when the original is complete right? I can see turning away business as a good thing in some circumstances. Even for me (although still an up and comer), have had to do that because some people just don't get it as you mentioned. I know it may sound cheeky, but if you're willing to share that database with me (or at least perhaps the colours/brands that you've found matching to be the easiest) it would be appreciated. I think it's a fantastic idea.

Some of my clients loved this option. That is one way I was able to differentiate my service from other repro houses. I positioned my service as being boutique-like. My policy was (if I liked the client) to allow them to pull up a chair and hang out while I did the color correcting. They'd ask to see what something looked like if the hue, saturation, luminance was adjusted to alter the original image. I loved this aspect because it allowed me to steer them away from really tricky colors to color that was easier to print. The database was useful when I was using a CYMK RIP for the 4000, 9800, and 7800 printers. By the time the 9900 came out, I dispensed with the RIP and maintaining a database. I had also gotten much faster and better with reading histograms, working back and forth between non-destructive color spaces (Prophoto and LAB) and I'd also acquired a "feel" for it. No matter how much I rely on numbers and historgrams, I listen to my gut. Often the two or three test strips that I'll run include a "by the numbers version" and a "by the numbers plus intuition".  Also, one thing I forgot to mention was that the canned Epson profiles for the 9900 are better than the ones I was able to create. Back in the day, I used MS Access for the database.  


Which cd/m2 intensity do you have your Eizo's at? I vary a bit because I'm figuring out the best lighting for my environment but I'm usually between 90 and 110. I find that even at 90 contrast is good with no banding. I am very happy with my NECs. It's one of those things that many people don't realize about monitors. It is definitely worth buying quality ones. In this industry every 3-5% advantage adds up. They aren't a fun thing to spend money on but once you have them it's quickly realized that they are worth the investment. What type of fine art do you make - photographer, painter, sculpture?

cd/m2 @ 88.  A good test is to make a file that's 0,0,0 and then use the marquee selection tool and fill it with 1,1,1 and then 2,2,2.  And for white--255, 255, 255 and then select with the marquee tool and fill at 254, 254, 254, and the 253,253,253.  That method tells me if the monitor is calibrated well for luminance. If I can see the difference between 0,0,0, and 2,2,2 I'm happy. For highlights 253,253,253. Unfortunately, as I've gotten older, my visual perception has changed. I find it harder to see those differences now than I did eight years ago, when I went to an all digital workflow. A rule of thumb is that every ten years, your ability to discern luminance is diminished by an f/stop. As far as the kind of fine art that I am making---it's all photography. I sometimes post pictures in the "Coffee Corner" and the "Critique" forums here on LL.[/color
]




In my area there aren't a lot of labs that can print this large so that's definitely one benefit, especially when printing large canvases. Your 9900 blew up? Unrepairable or just not worth the cost? Another thing that a lot of people don't understand is that it's a different world with different issues printing large format. It's been a very exciting journey learning it all. Well.. I obviously don't know it all but I've learned an extensive amount in a relatively short period of time. Helps when you're passionate and have a technical/creative balance. I have a canvas spraying area where I do my varnish. So far so good, however as I grow I will perhaps have someone else do the varnish and stretching for me (as long as I find someone who will do it to my standards). I hope you got my PM about the canvas. I truly appreciate the offer and would love to get it from you.

 The 9900 gave me four + years of relatively trouble-free service. The best way to get long life from an Epson is to at least make one print or a nozzle check every day. I learned on the printing forum here that cleaning cycles are actually destructive to the print head. As my repro business wound down, I'd leave the printer off sometimes for a week or two. I would have gotten more life out of the head if I just printed something, no matter how minimal, every day. I was actually kind of glad the 9900 blew up. I sold it for $125, kept the ink, and bought a 7890. It takes up less space and doesn't use orange and green carts. Green and Orange are not necessary for printing photographs. Sometimes those two colors helped with repro work, but I don't think the impact was significant. I never skimped on canvas. I didn't compete on price--more on providing excellent service, creating a predictably excellent product, and treating customers really well. I went out and hustled for corporate work. I did pick ups and deliveries--provided a turnkey service for companies that wanted quality and did not want to have to deal with any of the details. I'll take photos of what I have and gauge how much is left on the rolls. I just donated 200 feet of Canson museum pro canvas to an art college. I never could get it print well on the 9900. It printed beautifully on the 9800s
Cheers,
Jay

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

OK. I'm going to look into the Starrett level as you suggest.

Hi Jay,

Those seem relatively expensive for the accuracy they provide.

I've been using an electronic digital level for some time that is very accurate (0.05 degrees, 1/1000 mm), and it's quite affordable, and simple to calibrate yourself.

They also have even more accurate levels (0.001 degrees), but they do cost serious money, and one can ask oneself if such accuracy is not overkill. Afterall, the sensor itself may also be slightly angled, because it is mounted with some tolerance that's larger than zero.

Cheers,
Bart

[adpix]

D. Fosse. Good to read your logic and your passion. More an artist than an engineer, I would wager.     

[Jason DiMichele]

I've always used strobes. A burst of light at 1/1200 sec passing through polarizing gels along with heat absorption filters does not transmit much UV or IR light. Harvard and the Boston Public Library have tons of stuff being digitized with multi-shot camera systems employing strobes.  I've copied scores of "camera-ready" original editorial cartoons from daily newspapers across the US from the 1930s and never had a problem.  Now if the Dead Sea Scrolls were to show up, I'd be concerned enough where I'd want to check with an archivist/conservator. I'd also want to make sure about liability issues--insurance, client waivers, etc. That sort of project would really have to be worth my while to take in. $100K worth of insurance isn't enough coverage for photographing uber expensive flat artwork. I did have a client with a significant collection of 19th Century American art. I brought my equipment to his location. As for insurance, I have been using a company called Zurich. I've had them underwrite a range of different types of policies depending on the type of projects that came in. I have a great agent who is easy and flexible to work with, so I can more or less change my coverage whenever it is necessary. 

OK then I don’t need to worry at my level about continuing to use my strobes. Which brand of heat absorption filters were you using? Does Zurich insurance specialize in the photographic industry or are they a general insurance company? I can obviously go and look them up on the web but I’m wondering specifically if you’ve found them more knowledgeable with regard to insuring this industry.

I've got a couple. I tend to use the small one--it's about three or four inches long. Very accurate. Remember, you want the bubble to be in the same position on your camera along the x and y axes as it is at the center of the artwork (the bubble does not have to fall in the center, it just needs to be consistent with the film plane and the picture plane). Again, exercise common sense. If you are copying an oil painting that is still wet, you may have to resort to making sure you've squared everything up using a grid overlay in your camera or on the image that comes up on the screen if shooting tethered. Warped  stretcher bars are common here in Florida. I've improvised a lot of grip equipment to deal with those situations.

Which models do you have? Will definitely have to investigate various methods of levelling and see if I can’t make my process better. I’m assuming you are referring to the stretcher bars that the painters were using?  I’m currently using stretcher bars from Upper Canada Stretchers and they are keyed solid, kiln dried clear white pine guaranteed not to warp. Would these hold up in the typical Florida building environments or do you find that anything will warp given enough humidity shift? Did you find that a lot of artists were using cheap stretcher bars?

Also, one thing I forgot to mention was that the canned Epson profiles for the 9900 are better than the ones I was able to create.

Which hardware/software profiling package were you using at the time? And did you find this was the case for Epson media specifically or any 3rd party media that you often printed on? I'm using XRite i1Photo Pro 2 and am happy with the results I am obtaining. Another area where I do tweak and fiddle when I have time to try to get the most out of my workflow and output.

cd/m2 @ 88.  A good test is to make a file that's 0,0,0 and then use the marquee selection tool and fill it with 1,1,1 and then 2,2,2.  And for white--255, 255, 255 and then select with the marquee tool and fill at 254, 254, 254, and the 253,253,253.  That method tells me if the monitor is calibrated well for luminance. If I can see the difference between 0,0,0, and 2,2,2 I'm happy. For highlights 253,253,253. Unfortunately, as I've gotten older, my visual perception has changed. I find it harder to see those differences now than I did eight years ago, when I went to an all digital workflow. A rule of thumb is that every ten years, your ability to discern luminance is diminished by an f/stop. As far as the kind of fine art that I am making---it's all photography. I sometimes post pictures in the "Coffee Corner" and the "Critique" forums here on LL.

That’s pretty low. I know the Eizo’s are great but wow. I will play around (perhaps more out of curiosity) to see what I can get away with. I already have greyscale step wedges that I use for printing on different papers to see what their shadow and highlight thresholds are. I also do not like staring into really bright displays. Having the monitors last longer is a nice bonus as well. I will check out some of your postings in the other forums.

Green and Orange are not necessary for printing photographs. Sometimes those two colors helped with repro work, but I don't think the impact was significant. I never skimped on canvas. I didn't compete on price--more on providing excellent service, creating a predictably excellent product, and treating customers really well. I went out and hustled for corporate work. I did pick ups and deliveries--provided a turnkey service for companies that wanted quality and did not want to have to deal with any of the details. I'll take photos of what I have and gauge how much is left on the rolls.

Interesting to know about the orange and green inks not significantly increasing gamut. I suppose printing technology has gotten close to peaking and will have to radically change how printers are engineered in order to gain substantial print quality. I totally agree with you with regard to providing high quality work and making it easy for the client to work with. I want to focus on larger prints and with clients that appreciate the finer papers, print quality and who perhaps push me with my abilities in order to continue my craft. I look forward to your inventory photos… never thought I would like anything to do with inventory.

Cheers,
Jay

[Jason DiMichele]

Hi Jay,

Those seem relatively expensive for the accuracy they provide.

I've been using an electronic digital level for some time that is very accurate (0.05 degrees, 1/1000 mm), and it's quite affordable, and simple to calibrate yourself.

They also have even more accurate levels (0.001 degrees), but they do cost serious money, and one can ask oneself if such accuracy is not overkill. Afterall, the sensor itself may also be slightly angled, because it is mounted with some tolerance that's larger than zero.

Cheers,
Bart

Hi Bart,

Thank you for your input. I've read many of your posts on this forum and appreciate you sharing your knowledge and experience. I will also look into the level you have suggested.

Interesting to think that some of the sensors may not be completely level. Another one of those things that most would assume a given.

Cheers,
Jay

[Jason DiMichele]

D. Fosse. Good to read your logic and your passion. More an artist than an engineer, I would wager.     

Cheers,
Jay