Best camera setup for Fine Art Repro? Scanning backs? High MegaPixel DSLR?

[egor]

Chris and Theodoros make excellent points.

A linear color reference chart that is always on the shoot table is our preference.

Theodoros' point about the 4x5 is a good one, we used a Sinar P2 with the same Betterlight 8K and it was a good combo. Like Theodoros said, I don't know why you would use a WA, either. I would recommend at very least a 120 APO Digitar or more appropriately for the originals sizes you describe a 240mm.

Otherwise, looks like a very good, dare I say "world class" set up you would have for this.

I would wonder how much distance you will have in front and to the sides of your originals?, how many are there? What are the expectations of the client? and what is your deadline? The BL is a great system but very slow and deliberate. Also, you mentioned that you will be "reproducing" these so does that mean you will be printing them as well?

In any case, good luck with the project!

[Theodoros]

Chris and Theodoros make excellent points.

A linear color reference chart that is always on the shoot table is our preference.

Which one?

Including a linear colour chart in the shot with a multishot Sinarback, is about the most reliable method to achieve superb colour accuracy. As I said before, with Sinarbacks one calibrates the back for the particular capture by shooting a Colour chart card before the shot and the back is self calibrated to the particular lighting by referring the chart to its white reference as well as the black reference it creates taking into account even the sensor's temperature. As a consequence, if one includes the same colour chart in the shot, or if he includes a linear one that matches colours perfectly, he can have a fantastic reference for printing or to be used on publications... That said, using a multishot back to avoid colour interpolation in the process, is absolutely essential as to avoid the camera's processor interfering with the  process. The better resolution, absence of artefacts and much greater colour depth of "true colour" shooting, only comes as a most welcomed bonus to add in the above.

Theodoros' point about the 4x5 is a good one, we used a Sinar P2 with the same Betterlight 8K and it was a good combo. Like Theodoros said, I don't know why you would use a WA, either. I would recommend at very least a 120 APO Digitar or more appropriately for the originals sizes you describe a 240mm.

Otherwise, looks like a very good, dare I say "world class" set up you would have for this.

I would wonder how much distance you will have in front and to the sides of your originals?, how many are there? What are the expectations of the client? and what is your deadline? The BL is a great system but very slow and deliberate. Also, you mentioned that you will be "reproducing" these so does that mean you will be printing them as well?

In any case, good luck with the project!

Personally, I don't see the point of using a view camera at all to shoot paintings, the 120macro lenses of all Contax, Mamiya or Hasselblad are among the most resolving lenses on the market and have a neutral colour character.... A view camera would be a good choice for wall paintings in Byzantine monasteries where one can't set up his lens against the centre of the painting unless he makes a special construction. However, one may also consider the Fuji GX680 if a scanning back is to be used, he may still throw away some 25% of the image area but lets not forget that the Fuji is able to deliver a 7.6x7.6cm image area and the back is easily rotatable. The Fuji is excellent with the Sinarback 54H too for multishot, with the Sinarback one can increase the gap between 16X shooting and thus avoid any vibration issue, although the Fuji can't keep the mirror locked through the whole process. Additionally, one may use Sinar's LC shutter via an adapter on a Fuji GX-680 lens and have superb accuracy when focusing using LV.  

[egor]

We use GATF standard strip and sometimes a couple of Macbeth/Kodak charts (see example)
Depends on what the end use of the capture is. Some are for reproduction, some are for restoration, some are for forensics...etc. So final analysis may be print or monitor reference. In either case, helpful to have permanently mounted on shoot board.

4x5 or any tech cam can be very handy with any artwork as they are many times not flat at all and over years (and sometimes centuries) their original mounts warp. So the ability to change the plane of focus can help especially with flat field lenses that have very shallow dof.

[drgonzo]

If you're looking to take direct measurements of the pigments used in the artwork, try ColorPony by ColorYoke Software.

It's similar to the ColorSage solution that HP had, but you can use any printer and lights you like. They have some stock measurements for pigments (acrylics, oils, the Macbeth chart) but you can create your own measurements from each artwork.

It also has a function built in to even out lighting, similar to Equalight.

I use it with my Eye-One Pro spectro, SpectraShop for measuring lights and pigments, 5Dmk2 and Canon IPF printers.

[michaeljones]

Hello,

I'm new to the forum and very interested in Sinar topics.  I hope I am not too far off topic in the current thread.  I have operated a Sinarback 57H since 2003, adding a 75H to my workflow in 2007 shooting primarily commercial projects.  Sinar sent an eXact back to test last week.  I am very impressed with the back, very clean colors and multiple options of capture size. "File Sizes 36 MB (RGB / 8 bit) up to 1.152 MB (RGB / 16 bit)".  One thing I learned is that there are two versions of the back.  One for the CTO workflow that has a clear glass mounted on the sensor and the standard version with a coated glass filter for studio work.  I tested the standard back, has anyone tried the CTM version or compared both versions?

The primary camera/work station configuration used to test the eXact was: Sinar P3, 100mm cmv Sinaron HR lens, and a 27" iMac using a Lindy FW 800 Hub connected to the Apple FW 800 to Thunderbolt adapter.

Thanks,
Michael Jones

[Theodoros]

Hello,

I'm new to the forum and very interested in Sinar topics.  I hope I am not too far off topic in the current thread.  I have operated a Sinarback 57H since 2003, adding a 75H to my workflow in 2007 shooting primarily commercial projects.  Sinar sent an eXact back to test last week.  I am very impressed with the back, very clean colors and multiple options of capture size. "File Sizes 36 MB (RGB / 8 bit) up to 1.152 MB (RGB / 16 bit)".  One thing I learned is that there are two versions of the back.  One for the CTO workflow that has a clear glass mounted on the sensor and the standard version with a coated glass filter for studio work.  I tested the standard back, has anyone tried the CTM version or compared both versions?

The primary camera/work station configuration used to test the eXact was: Sinar P3, 100mm cmv Sinaron HR lens, and a 27" iMac using a Lindy FW 800 Hub connected to the Apple FW 800 to Thunderbolt adapter.

Thanks,
Michael Jones

Is the back you refer to the Sinarback eXact Michael?

[michaeljones]

Yes, i requested a demo of the Sinarback eXact and learned about the two versions.  Since I am working with the P3 in a commercial studio I tested the "standard" version.  Apparently the clear glass allows an expanded spectrum of light for the CTO workflow.

[Theodoros]

Yes, i requested a demo of the Sinarback eXact and learned about the two versions.  Since I am working with the P3 in a commercial studio I tested the "standard" version.  Apparently the clear glass allows an expanded spectrum of light for the CTO workflow.

I'm really interested on what you think of the "standard" version when compared to the 54H... Can you comment on the differences? ...other than resolution of course.

EDIT: Also... how does the 4x 48mp mode compares with the respective 33mp one from the 75H?

[michaeljones]

Theodoros,

I'll try. My experience comes from a practical approach and is just one persons view.  The Sinarback eXact I tested has the advantage of finer color transitions, less noise in the blacks at higher ISO values, and the calibration of the new Captureflow software.  Looking into the future the fact that Captureflow will be updated for the new Mac OS versions will also be a benefit.  The eXact appears to be very well built.  The sensor is the same as the Sinarback 86H so any decision I make to upgrade to either back will need to be based on cost versus the added features the eXact offers and my clients needs.  The 57H remains an impressive back, it has worked flawlessly for 12 years.  I've kept the 57H because of it's 16 exposure capabilities, image quality, reliability and as a back up, like an old friend.  In my opinion, the fact that I have been able to use the same camera platform and lenses since 2003 while having the ability to upgrade digital backs speaks well to the Sinar system basic design.

Edit: At first look the 4XL mode seemed to not be as sharp as the 16 capture mode or the 4x capture of the eXact, I'd say the same thing when comparing the 4XL to the 4x capture of the 75H. It's intended use seems to be one of saving time, or for use if there is a situation that doesn't allow a 16 exposure capture.  I'll need to look more closely at the exported files to be certain and again it's just my opinion.

[michaeljones]

Theodoros,

To clarify, the 4-shot mode of the eXact is superior to the 4-shot mode of the 75H.
It's a bit confusing to describe.  The eXact offers: Preview, 1-shot S, 1-shot M, 1-shot, 4-shot, 4-shot XL, and 16-shot XL.  While the 75H and 86H offer: Preview, 1-shot, and 4-shot.

[Theodoros]

Theodoros,

To clarify, the 4-shot mode of the eXact is superior to the 4-shot mode of the 75H.
It's a bit confusing to describe.  The eXact offers: Preview, 1-shot S, 1-shot M, 1-shot, 4-shot, 4-shot XL, and 16-shot XL.  While the 75H and 86H offer: Preview, 1-shot, and 4-shot.

The 4-shot XL should be the same as the with 4-shot on the 86H ...no? Is it better than the 75H when combined with movements? ...A friend of mine does own the 75H with Sinar P3 (all digital) and LC shutter, so I'm quite familiar with the 75H and the Captureflow software, he also has the adapter for Contax 645 from his 54m (which is compatible with 75H, 86H & eXact), so I had a chance to try the 75H on both the Contax and the P3 (and on my Fuji GX680 which is permanently fitted with a Contax plate) using both Captureflow & Captureshop 6.1.2. I must say it is better than the Hasselblad CF-39MS I have (easier and more accurate color calibration), but I do prefer the 54H (because of the 16x mode) over the 75H (although it only works with Caprureshop). That's why I want to know if the 4-shot mode is better with movements than the 75H... Obviously resolution is more, but what about movement limitations due to smaller pixels?

P.S. I've listed my CF-39MS to trade it with an 86H or an eXact here on Lula, that's why I ask so much... I will keep my 54H (much like you do) for back up of course. http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=98023.0

[michaeljones]

Here's what Sinar says about the eXact:
4-shot = 48 MP, exports a 144mb file in 8 bit, 288mb file in 16 bit
4-shot XL = 192 MP, exports a 576mb file in 8 bit or a 1152mb file in 16 bit
16-shot = 192 MP, exports a 576mb file in 8 bit or a 1152mb file in 16 bit

The 86H:
4-shot = 48 MP, exports a 144mb file in 8 bit or a 288mb file in 16 bit.

So the 4-shot/48MP image is the same from both backs. There has to be some math or a matrix shift or both that happens for the 4-shot XL to produce the larger image file from the eXact. There must be someone on the forum that can explain it.

Movements don't seem to matter between the two backs. The optics seem to make the difference there.



I've rented the 86H from Dodd in Chicago and it is an excellent back.

[Theodoros]

Here's what Sinar says about the eXact:
4-shot = 48 MP, exports a 144mb file in 8 bit, 288mb file in 16 bit
4-shot XL = 192 MP, exports a 576mb file in 8 bit or a 1152mb file in 16 bit
16-shot = 192 MP, exports a 576mb file in 8 bit or a 1152mb file in 16 bit

The 86H:
4-shot = 48 MP, exports a 144mb file in 8 bit or a 288mb file in 16 bit.

So the 4-shot/48MP image is the same from both backs. There has to be some math or a matrix shift or both that happens for the 4-shot XL to produce the larger image file from the eXact. There must be someone on the forum that can explain it.

Movements don't seem to matter between the two backs. The optics seem to make the difference there.



I've rented the 86H from Dodd in Chicago and it is an excellent back.

I bet it is an excellent back (and the same sensor eXact even more so), but is as 75H with movements?

It seems that the eXact has its traditional "true color" modes in 4x or 16x and then has some other methods that involves interpolation for whenever color accuracy is not critical... IMO it would be best if they offered a second version of the 75H with 16x capability. That would give 132mp in "true" color 16x mode which is more than enough for everyone (given the quality of the file), but it would also be a much cheaper back given the age of Dalsa's 33mp sensor. I love the balance of this sensor, I believe it is the best MF sensor out even in single shot. Once I tried the Sinarback 75LV (on HY6) in single shot and was thrilled with the sensor's (interpolated) color accuracy and tonality. About close also was my first (single shot) back I started with... the Sinarback 22 (awful higher ISO though and prone to moire). It seems that in Sinar they have their own way that is far ahead from the rest of the makers as far as color accuracy is concerned.

[Brucecairns]

I'm just catching up with this interesting thread. Some of you guys are doing really high end stuff, but I'm at a less rarified level.  I photograph artwork professionally for local artists here in the UK, and make prints for them on an Epson 9890.

I started quite a few years ago with a 5D Mk 2, learning from my mistakes, and it was all a bit hit and miss. After a good deal of experience and investment, and having used a D800 for a while with significantly better results than the Canon, I now use a Pentax 645Z, usually with the excellent 120mm lens, and ColorYoke Color Pony (mentioned by DRGonzo on 10 March) with an EyeOne Pro and Spectrashop.

ColorPony is a fantastic platform and I highly recommend it. It incorporates Robin Myers Equalight, which means you can use strobes and soft boxes without worrying too much about the lighting pattern. ColorPony automatically compensates for any fall off and evens everything out, as well as matching the colours to the spectrometer values. It combines your raw file of the image, a lighting pattern raw file, the spectrometer readings (or some standard colour files for different media if you don't need/don't want to spend the money for the accuracy you get from your own readings), and readings from the foam core/white board that you use for the Equalight stage. Invariably I find that the first combined TIFF from ColorPony is ready to print a client proof without any adjustments. ColorPony is not cheap, but a great investment considering the time saving and accuracy. I have no connection with ColorYoke other than being a very satisfied customer.

The resolution of the Pentax 50mp sensor is superb.

If there are any newbies to art photography reading this, the other thing you really, really need to invest in is Zig-Align. If you don't get the image plane exactly parallel with the image, the best sensors and lenses in the world won't put it right.

[Theodoros]

I'm just catching up with this interesting thread. Some of you guys are doing really high end stuff, but I'm at a less rarified level.  I photograph artwork professionally for local artists here in the UK, and make prints for them on an Epson 9890.

I started quite a few years ago with a 5D Mk 2, learning from my mistakes, and it was all a bit hit and miss. After a good deal of experience and investment, and having used a D800 for a while with significantly better results than the Canon, I now use a Pentax 645Z, usually with the excellent 120mm lens, and ColorYoke Color Pony (mentioned by DRGonzo on 10 March) with an EyeOne Pro and Spectrashop.

ColorPony is a fantastic platform and I highly recommend it. It incorporates Robin Myers Equalight, which means you can use strobes and soft boxes without worrying too much about the lighting pattern. ColorPony automatically compensates for any fall off and evens everything out, as well as matching the colours to the spectrometer values. It combines your raw file of the image, a lighting pattern raw file, the spectrometer readings (or some standard colour files for different media if you don't need/don't want to spend the money for the accuracy you get from your own readings), and readings from the foam core/white board that you use for the Equalight stage. Invariably I find that the first combined TIFF from ColorPony is ready to print a client proof without any adjustments. ColorPony is not cheap, but a great investment considering the time saving and accuracy. I have no connection with ColorYoke other than being a very satisfied customer.

The resolution of the Pentax 50mp sensor is superb.

If there are any newbies to art photography reading this, the other thing you really, really need to invest in is Zig-Align. If you don't get the image plane exactly parallel with the image, the best sensors and lenses in the world won't put it right.

Hi Bruce, welcome to the forum.

The question here under discussion is set from the O/P,  it asks for "Best camera setup...", I believe it must be common sense to everybody, that taking color interpolation out of the equation improves color accuracy and eliminates possible artifacts as well as maximizes DR & resolves more... I would also expect the MF sensor to improve on your previous DSLRs and your experience (and work you've put on) for accurate color management, will certainly be beneficial information to this thread.

Never the less, it's difficult (and unfair) to compare equipment that is specifically designed to perform one task (like a tricolor capturing device), with good equipment that aims for general use and is adapted to do the same task... That said, a S/H multishot back would also be significantly cheaper than the 645z and it would integrate perfectly to the rest of the process you have worked on to adapt on your work.

[Roscolo]

ColorPony is a fantastic platform and I highly recommend it. It incorporates Robin Myers Equalight, which means you can use strobes and soft boxes without worrying too much about the lighting pattern. ColorPony automatically compensates for any fall off and evens everything out, as well as matching the colours to the spectrometer values. It combines your raw file of the image, a lighting pattern raw file, the spectrometer readings (or some standard colour files for different media if you don't need/don't want to spend the money for the accuracy you get from your own readings), and readings from the foam core/white board that you use for the Equalight stage. Invariably I find that the first combined TIFF from ColorPony is ready to print a client proof without any adjustments. ColorPony is not cheap, but a great investment considering the time saving and accuracy. I have no connection with ColorYoke other than being a very satisfied customer.

Dredging this old thread doing some research, and came across the above reference to ColorPony. Not sure how I never heard of ColorPony before. So of course I went to the company website, downloaded the trial (installs, but doesn't open). Cameras haven't been updated. Website is still dated 2014. I'm guessing the company or the software may be dead? Too bad, because it certainly looked promising. Anyone ever use ColorPony? Still using it? Anything out there similar?

[Brucecairns]

I'm still using ColorPony, and it's working well. As you say, the business seems to be inactive, but the server on which the platform runs is up and running. I think their Windows application is way out of date (I seem to remember the system requirements refer to XP), and my experience with the Mac app is that it's fine up to and including Catalina but doesn't launch on Big Sur - so I run it on an old Mac that I won't upgrade beyond Catalina. I haven't needed tech support from them for a long time, so don't have any contact with them.  They carried out a big migration to AWS some years ago, and the platform has been stable since then. I don't know, but I suspect they took a business decision to keep supporting existing customers, but not to develop the business any further. Everything works for me, but because of the lack of development I don't see it as being attractive to a new user. Presumably they're not answering emails?   

[Roscolo]

I'm still using ColorPony, and it's working well. As you say, the business seems to be inactive, but the server on which the platform runs is up and running. I think their Windows application is way out of date (I seem to remember the system requirements refer to XP), and my experience with the Mac app is that it's fine up to and including Catalina but doesn't launch on Big Sur - so I run it on an old Mac that I won't upgrade beyond Catalina. I haven't needed tech support from them for a long time, so don't have any contact with them.  They carried out a big migration to AWS some years ago, and the platform has been stable since then. I don't know, but I suspect they took a business decision to keep supporting existing customers, but not to develop the business any further. Everything works for me, but because of the lack of development I don't see it as being attractive to a new user. Presumably they're not answering emails?

Thanks. So it works well for you? Because it seems like an interesting idea, perhaps a bit too "pie in the sky" and maybe that's why it appears to have not gained a user based and died an early death. Can't really find any substantial reviews of ColorPony anywhere. Probably would not work so well for a lot of the work our studio does, but if it helped speed up the process on some of the less critical pieces it would still perhaps be a worthy addition to the toolbox.  I was looking forward to taking it for a spin, but the software didn't work on either workstation I tried it on (both Windows 10). Too bad, because if it worked as well as the demo videos show, the price seems reasonable, even for limited use on less critical pieces. Although for those pieces if you have a good workflow and profiling in place (we do) we usually get an really good proof on the first or second go anyway. Perhaps that explains the lack of demand as well. I still would like to see them revive their project. Easy for me to say from this keyboard of course!