Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10   Go Down

Author Topic: Best camera setup for Fine Art Repro? Scanning backs? High MegaPixel DSLR?  (Read 79838 times)

sbernthal

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 217
Re: Best camera setup for Fine Art Repro? Scanning backs? High MegaPixel DSLR?
« Reply #40 on: January 31, 2015, 10:37:48 am »

I've done a lot of repro work with Aptus and Credo.
I've had no problems getting lighting and resolution right.
But I was never able to get the colors right.
Nobody ever comoplained about the colors from these backs except for painters.
But pretty much every painter conplained.
With a lot of pushing and pulling colors in Photoshop, and choosing a different color profile for each picture, I was able to get close to the actual colors in most cases, but never a recipe that will give me the real colors for every picture out of the camera. The painters were not able to understand why, and frankly neither can I.
Talking to the company I was told this is the way it is, and that they don't handle color disputes.
In some cases the colors received were so drastically different it is hard to believe.

Can anyone explain to me what is a true color back - meaning what models on the market can do it if any, and what are the settings the photographer needs to use?
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Best camera setup for Fine Art Repro? Scanning backs? High MegaPixel DSLR?
« Reply #41 on: January 31, 2015, 10:45:25 am »

Hi,

I have seen a video with Ray Maxwell, a colour scientist, he said that you need to make a test chart with the actual pigments used in the paint and photograph it using the same illumination as used in reprography.  You can build a profile from that test chart and use it for processing.

Best regards
Erik


I've done a lot of repro work with Aptus and Credo.
I've had no problems getting lighting and resolution right.
But I was never able to get the colors right.
Nobody ever comoplained about the colors from these backs except for painters.
But pretty much every painter conplained.
With a lot of pushing and pulling colors in Photoshop, and choosing a different color profile for each picture, I was able to get close to the actual colors in most cases, but never a recipe that will give me the real colors for every picture out of the camera. The painters were not able to understand why, and frankly neither can I.
Talking to the company I was told this is the way it is, and that they don't handle color disputes.
In some cases the colors received were so drastically different it is hard to believe.

Can anyone explain to me what is a true color back - meaning what models on the market can do it if any, and what are the settings the photographer needs to use?

Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Kolor-Pikker

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 115
Re: Best camera setup for Fine Art Repro? Scanning backs? High MegaPixel DSLR?
« Reply #42 on: January 31, 2015, 11:04:45 am »

I have seen a video with Ray Maxwell, a colour scientist, he said that you need to make a test chart with the actual pigments used in the paint and photograph it using the same illumination as used in reprography.  You can build a profile from that test chart and use it for processing.

This is true, different types of paints and medium react differently to different types of light... what you see even under the same light is not what the camera sees, and lets not even get into varnish. While I personally haven't gone so far as to make a profile based on the pigments I capture, this is something I was considering doing, especially since all my work is supplied by regulars.

Of course this wouldn't work for historical paintings, since the pigments used are likely difficult to find or you have to mix them yourself, not to mention the effect of aging vs fresh paint.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2015, 11:07:55 am by Kolor-Pikker »
Logged

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2370
    • The Last Word
Re: Best camera setup for Fine Art Repro? Scanning backs? High MegaPixel DSLR?
« Reply #43 on: January 31, 2015, 11:05:46 am »

Can anyone explain to me what is a true color back - meaning what models on the market can do it if any, and what are the settings the photographer needs to use?

If you mean a three-color back that has no -- or even negligible -- color errors, I don't think there are any. If two spectra that appear different to a person match upon capture, no profile can sort that out.

A three filter back that captures colors the way the putatively normal eye sees them would have spectral responses that are a 3x3 matrix multiply away from a standard observer. I know of no camera that meets the Luther condition. There are reasons for that that go beyond the mundane practicalities of what dye sets are available. The human eye has two greatly-overlapped channels (rho and gamma) and one that's offset towards short wavelength and plays almost no part in luminance (beta). That's a good strategy if you're stuck with a simple lens that can't bring many wavelengths into simultaneous focus, like the one in our eyes. However, it's a technique that can cause chroma noise as you try to sort out the overlap.

Even attempts to meet the Luther criterion are rare. I do have some experience with one.

When I was working at the IBM Almaden Research Laboratory in the early 90s as a color scientist, I consulted with Fred Mintzer and his group in Yorktown Heights who developed a scanning camera with the objective that the wavelength-by-wavelength product of the camera's RGB filters, the IR-blocking filter, and the CCD's spectral response would be close to a 3x3 matrix multiply away from human tristimulus response. The camera was used to digitize Andrew Wyeth's work, to capture artwork in the Vatican Library, and for some other projects where color fidelity was important.

A more promising route is to capture more than three color planes.

In 1992, Michael Vrehl, a student of Joel Trussell at North Carolina State  presented a paper at the SPIE Imaging Conference. I'm sorry I can't find a link to the paper itself, only one to the abstract.

"The quality of color correction is dependent upon the filters used to scan the image. This paper introduces a method of selecting the scanning filters using a priori information about the viewing illumination. Experimental results are presented. The addition of a fourth filter produces significantly improved color correction over that obtained by three filters."

I remember being quite impressed with the improvement in color accuracy afforded by the addition of the fourth filter.  The common term for cameras that have more than three filters is multispectral cameras. The ones I've seen are for scientific use. You can turn a monochromatic camera into a multispectral camera with a color wheel.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2015, 11:16:24 am by Jim Kasson »
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8914
Re: Best camera setup for Fine Art Repro? Scanning backs? High MegaPixel DSLR?
« Reply #44 on: January 31, 2015, 11:07:34 am »

As a consumer it is easy to experimentally see the difference between a Bayer file and a non-Bayer file by just comparing a $400 Sigma file to an SLR.

Hi Edmund,

I'm afraid that there are too many issues with the color of the Foveon for reproduction, and the lack of an OLPF with so few pixels will make the (luminance) aliasing an obvious discriminator when compared to a non multi-step Bayer CFA.

Quote
I don't know why nobody makes a modern filter wheel camera for repro - with a mono version of a modern high-ISO CMOS sensor you'd just need to bring up a stabilised illuminant source for 5 seconds or so to get a good multispectral capture. Most display environments subject paintings to visible light :)

Fully agree. A filter wheel will allow to even capture more than just R/G/B, it might as well allow to sample the Yellow and Cyan band-pass of the spectrum. That would allow to reduce metameric errors. The color conversion matrix down to RGB gets a bit more involved, but that's just math for which we can use computers...

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8914
Re: Best camera setup for Fine Art Repro? Scanning backs? High MegaPixel DSLR?
« Reply #45 on: January 31, 2015, 11:16:39 am »

A more promising route is to capture more than three color planes.

Jim, I'm sure that is a much better path for reproductions, where color can be so difficult to capture (IMO it's more of an issue than resolution).

Quote
I remember being quite impressed with the improvement in color accuracy afforded by the addition of the fourth filter.  The common term for cameras that have more than three filters is multispectral cameras. The ones I've seen are for scientific use. You can turn a monochromatic camera into a multispectral camera with a color wheel.

Indeed, it becomes relatively easy to avoid metameric issues at the capture stage and potentially get a closer match to how our eyes see color (although our output modalities are commonly limited to 3 (RGB) color planes).

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: January 31, 2015, 06:14:45 pm by BartvanderWolf »
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: Best camera setup for Fine Art Repro? Scanning backs? High MegaPixel DSLR?
« Reply #46 on: January 31, 2015, 12:36:49 pm »

Hi Edmund,

I'm afraid that there are too many issues with the color of the Foveon for reproduction, and the lack of an OLPF with so few pixels will make the (luminance) aliasing an obvious discriminator when compared to a non multi-step Bayer CFA.

Bart


Bart,

 I meant that many have first-hand knowledge of the qualitative difference.
 Single-capture Bayer files are like frozen food - they can be very good but one always does realize they are not the real thing.
 Provided one has had access to the real thing once.

Edmund
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

yaya

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1254
    • http://yayapro.com
Re: Best camera setup for Fine Art Repro? Scanning backs? High MegaPixel DSLR?
« Reply #47 on: January 31, 2015, 01:06:22 pm »

Over the years there have been a number of multi-spectral imaging solutions based on monochromatic and achromatic cameras and an array of filters and/ or combination of bandpass filters and narrow-wavelength lights. They are used for reproduction but more-so for research and conservation/ restoration work of documents, manuscripts, maps, drawings, paintings and also for forensics work. Some of these products come for specialised companies and often they are based on existing digital cameras or backs.

However I somehow doubt that this is what the OP is looking for and my guess is that they will end up with a single-shot based solution, hopefully within their budget and suitable for their capabilities and needs. So while we are all trying to show off with our knowledge (or pseudo knowledge in some cases) I don't think we are being very helpful...

BR

Yair
Logged
Yair Shahar | Product Manager | Phase One - Cultural Heritage
e: ysh@phaseone.com |

Theodoros

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454
Re: Best camera setup for Fine Art Repro? Scanning backs? High MegaPixel DSLR?
« Reply #48 on: January 31, 2015, 02:15:35 pm »

Over the years there have been a number of multi-spectral imaging solutions based on monochromatic and achromatic cameras and an array of filters and/ or combination of bandpass filters and narrow-wavelength lights. They are used for reproduction but more-so for research and conservation/ restoration work of documents, manuscripts, maps, drawings, paintings and also for forensics work. Some of these products come for specialised companies and often they are based on existing digital cameras or backs.

However I somehow doubt that this is what the OP is looking for and my guess is that they will end up with a single-shot based solution, hopefully within their budget and suitable for their capabilities and needs. So while we are all trying to show off with our knowledge (or pseudo knowledge in some cases) I don't think we are being very helpful...

BR

Yair


I can see this conversation is not for the benefit of Leaf's/Phase One interest (or Pentax or DSLR) Yair... But (unfortunately) there is much truth that has been said here and is fully supported too...  I happened to have access on an Aptus-12II (on P1 camera) out of the man that bought it from a friend's family who suddenly passed away at a young age (I believe you know who I'm talking about)... So I borrowed it for comparison (since the comparison I was offered with a Contax fit Aptus 12II never happened), at the days I was only using the Imacon 528c as my MFDB... The Aptus-12ii is a fine back for landscape, fine for fashion, fine for portraiture... but that's what it has been designed for (as the rest of the Leaf/P1 stuff)... No comparison whatsoever with a back dedicated to art reproduction... art reproduction is simply out of its target group. Nothing in this world has been designed to do everything... None buys a Ferrari to go hunting on mountains with it... or buys a Land Rover to race it... It's really that simple!
Logged

chaosphere

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 60
    • matias antoniassi photography
Re: Best camera setup for Fine Art Repro? Scanning backs? High MegaPixel DSLR?
« Reply #49 on: January 31, 2015, 04:11:57 pm »

We make it with Pentax 645D or H3DII-39. Museums are happy with us, just enjoy www.endetail.fr  ;D
Logged
Matías Antoniassi
www.matantoniassi.com

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: Best camera setup for Fine Art Repro? Scanning backs? High MegaPixel DSLR?
« Reply #50 on: January 31, 2015, 04:26:26 pm »

Over the years there have been a number of multi-spectral imaging solutions based on monochromatic and achromatic cameras and an array of filters and/ or combination of bandpass filters and narrow-wavelength lights. They are used for reproduction but more-so for research and conservation/ restoration work of documents, manuscripts, maps, drawings, paintings and also for forensics work. Some of these products come for specialised companies and often they are based on existing digital cameras or backs.

However I somehow doubt that this is what the OP is looking for and my guess is that they will end up with a single-shot based solution, hopefully within their budget and suitable for their capabilities and needs. So while we are all trying to show off with our knowledge (or pseudo knowledge in some cases) I don't think we are being very helpful...

BR



Yair,

As my favorite Leaf rep, could you increase my pseudo-knowledge by telling me what "BR" means?

BTW,  I did do some art repros for artists. back in the days.  They were very sensitive , very vocal when it came to color hues, less interested  in detail. As a friend of mine put it "when a guy has spent 20 years on his blue, and you copy his painting, he wants to see his blue". I find this interesting because every time I buy the book/catalogue from a BIG exhibition, eg. Monet, the colors are dreadful. So maybe institutions are more forgiving of the quality of the work :)

Edmund
« Last Edit: January 31, 2015, 05:12:08 pm by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

Theodoros

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454
Re: Best camera setup for Fine Art Repro? Scanning backs? High MegaPixel DSLR?
« Reply #51 on: January 31, 2015, 05:33:19 pm »

Yair,

As my favorite Leaf rep, could you increase my pseudo-knowledge by telling me what "BR" means?

BTW,  I did do some art repros for artists. back in the days.  They were very sensitive , very vocal when it came to color hues, less interested  in detail. As a friend of mine put it "when a guy has spent 20 years on his blue, and you copy his painting, he wants to see his blue". I find this interesting because every time I buy the book/catalogue from a BIG exhibition, eg. Monet, the colors are dreadful. So maybe institutions are more forgiving of the quality of the work :)

Edmund
It's not that they are more forgiving... Sometimes it is only that the committee that runs an institution ...just doesn't spent their own money (! ....That's why I said earlier that "open competitions" are a good thing! Look at that example above (surely that was no competition)! ...nice graphics work on the cover though!
Logged

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2370
    • The Last Word
Re: Best camera setup for Fine Art Repro? Scanning backs? High MegaPixel DSLR?
« Reply #52 on: January 31, 2015, 05:59:30 pm »

Jim, I'm sure that is a much better path for reproductions, where color can be so difficult to capture (IMO it's more of an issue than resolution).

We're in complete agreement here, Bart. The only reasons that make sense to me as to why it hasn't happened in a big way are:

1) Most people want pleasing color, not accurate color.
2) You lose resolution in a CFA-filtered sensor.
3) The raw processors would have to be completely rewritten.

OTOH, profiling would get a lot easier. Done right, you wouldn't need different profiles for different illuminants.

Indeed, it becomes relatively easy to avoid metameric issues at the capture stage and potentially get a closer math to how our eyes see color (although our output modalities are commonly limited to 3 (RGB) color planes).

Maybe easy for you, Bart. I remember the math in Vrehl's paper as only easy for people like me when we're doing handwaving discussions in the bar after the session. Things that we so easy then appear in a different light when you're sitting at the keyboard trying to make the darn program work.

But sure, back away from the problem and you're right. The camera filters are basis functions, the eye's filters are basis functions, there needs to be a conversion from the first to the second that minimizes some error function over a sample set of reasonable illuminants and surface reflectance spectra. After that, it's a SMOP*.

Jim


*Small Matter of Programming


« Last Edit: January 31, 2015, 06:20:56 pm by Jim Kasson »
Logged

RobertJ

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 706
Re: Best camera setup for Fine Art Repro? Scanning backs? High MegaPixel DSLR?
« Reply #53 on: January 31, 2015, 06:11:43 pm »

Get a Sinar 54H and don't look back.
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: Best camera setup for Fine Art Repro? Scanning backs? High MegaPixel DSLR?
« Reply #54 on: January 31, 2015, 06:40:49 pm »

Basis? can we really span the spectral space with 3 or 4 vectors? I think that statement is some handwaving too far. What we attempt to do with a small filter set is to span the "habitual" perceptual space.

To usefully discuss this topic further it would be useful to know what dispersion there is among real world observer-functions.  I believe the  usual assumption is that the retinal cone pigments define the functions, that these pigments are unique and thus the observer functions are known. But is that really true? Hint - there are actually some quadrichromats out there ...

An interesting workaround I have seen to the camera issue was an HP system that used a spectro to get a better handle on the pigments in the work of art ...unfortunately the software came with a dongle the precise size and weight of an HP Z printer :)

As far as SMOP goes, I think there are a lot of smart slaves H1B visa workers with a PhD out there. I've never yet seen a problem that could be mathematically defined that didn't get quickly programmed.

Edmund

We're in complete agreement here, Bart. The only reasons that make sense to me as to why it hasn't happened in a big way are:

1) Most people want pleasing color, not accurate color.
2) You lose resolution in a CFA-filtered sensor.
3) The raw processors would have to be completely rewritten.

OTOH, profiling would get a lot easier. Done right, you wouldn't need different profiles for different illuminants.

Maybe easy for you, Bart. I remember the math in Vrehl's paper as only easy for people like me when we're doing handwaving discussions in the bar after the session. Things that we so easy then appear in a different light when you're sitting at the keyboard trying to make the darn program work.

But sure, back away from the problem and you're right. The camera filters are basis functions, the eye's filters are basis functions, there needs to be a conversion from the first to the second that minimizes some error function over a sample set of reasonable illuminants and surface reflectance spectra. After that, it's a SMOP*.

Jim


*Small Matter of Programming



« Last Edit: January 31, 2015, 06:49:29 pm by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

ben730

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 234
    • www.benhuggler.com
Re: Best camera setup for Fine Art Repro? Scanning backs? High MegaPixel DSLR?
« Reply #55 on: January 31, 2015, 06:49:11 pm »

Sorry, I didn't read all the posts, so I maybe repeat ........

I make twice a year about 300 repros for a local auction house. There are 200 years old oil paintings,
aquarels, modern art.....behind glass, with frame, with gold, silver.........I have so many problems to solve.......
It often takes much more time for the job then I offered, but at the end it's okay.

In my opinion the light is one of the biggest problem to reach accurate color.

Of course, the sensor is important, but on a certain sensor level other problems become more important.
Out of my 12 Bron G 3200 I don't have 4 lamps with an identical flash color. They are all a little bit different.
All have the same protecting glass, all powered by Grafit A4 packs, but I think the age of the flash tube
determines.
Even the polarisation filters I use for certain pictures in front of my lamps change the colors a little bit. (I don't know why,
I'm not a physicist, but I've got eyes and a well calibrated monitor)
BTW: When the floor in a studio hasn't the same color as the ceiling, it's not worth talking about the sensor of the camera......

Regards,
Ben


Theodoros

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454
Re: Best camera setup for Fine Art Repro? Scanning backs? High MegaPixel DSLR?
« Reply #56 on: January 31, 2015, 06:52:21 pm »

Get a Sinar 54H and don't look back.

Ssssshhh.... they may hear you and raise the prices! Wait till I get a second one!
Logged

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2370
    • The Last Word
Re: Best camera setup for Fine Art Repro? Scanning backs? High MegaPixel DSLR?
« Reply #57 on: January 31, 2015, 07:01:41 pm »

Basis? can we really span the spectral space with 3 or 4 vectors? I think that statement is some handwaving too far. What we attempt to do with a small filter set is to span the "habitual" perceptual space.

To usefully discuss this topic further it would be useful to know what dispersion there is among real world observer-functions.  I believe the  usual assumption is that the retinal cone pigments define the functions, that these pigments are unique and thus the observer functions are known. But is that really true? Hint - there are actually some quadrichromats out there ...

Even forgetting the variability of human vision by subject, we know we can't do a good job with three. I've seen some papers that said that you could with 6 or 8. The upshot was that you don't need 5 nm wide filters every 5 nm.

But that all assumes that there aren't arbitrary narrow spikes in surface color reflectances (florescence, anyone?) and/or illuminants.

In any event, it's a highly technical problem. Too technical to discuss here in any detail, IMHO. And maybe too hard for to pay for the R&D to solve it completely for a market as small as art reproduction.

Jim

Theodoros

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454
Re: Best camera setup for Fine Art Repro? Scanning backs? High MegaPixel DSLR?
« Reply #58 on: January 31, 2015, 08:20:36 pm »

Even forgetting the variability of human vision by subject, we know we can't do a good job with three. I've seen some papers that said that you could with 6 or 8. The upshot was that you don't need 5 nm wide filters every 5 nm.

But that all assumes that there aren't arbitrary narrow spikes in surface color reflectances (florescence, anyone?) and/or illuminants.

In any event, it's a highly technical problem. Too technical to discuss here in any detail, IMHO. And maybe too hard for to pay for the R&D to solve it completely for a market as small as art reproduction.

Jim
IMO, Sinar is far ahead than the rest when profiling comes into play, they don't "just" use the tricolour information from the sensor, but also have a reference factory set white and the sensor is self calibrated in (absolute) black automatically before each shot taking sensor temperature into account... The tricolour calibration (which is automatically adapted to the reference white and black) is done by shooting the well known Macbeth card (now x-rite). The method of course can't be absolute, but as long as one uses an extremely well calibrated external monitor that can cope well with proven materials manufacturer's profiles of a printer... (one has to let his printer work with the automatic profiles of the material maker for that printer), then he may find that the outcome (on the profiled monitor) is very close to the painting and all adaptation on the calibrated monitor to near perfection is both easier and time saving...  Of course if the capture was by combining more colours, the accuracy would improve further, but for the moment and the technology available and provided that one has developed the skills to do everything correctly, the result can be breathtaking.
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: Best camera setup for Fine Art Repro? Scanning backs? High MegaPixel DSLR?
« Reply #59 on: February 01, 2015, 12:30:17 am »


But that all assumes that there aren't arbitrary narrow spikes in surface color reflectances (florescence, anyone?) and/or illuminants.


Jim

Strictu sensu, I believe fluorescence is not really a reflection, it's a re-emission :)

Of course monochrome LEDs do have narrow peaks - so imaging a scene containing a display illuminated by RGB LEDs, or even a signboard might become an issue as well. I guess fish scales, butterflies, some flowers etc. ... but few of these are found in a museum.

Edmund
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10   Go Up