Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: John V. on February 20, 2014, 07:55:55 am
-
I have a budget setup so I can photograph a personal collection of artwork for reproduction, and it pretty much goes like this:
The painting is stationary on a wall and the camera is on a slider with adjustable height. (I shoot in sections and then stitch together)
2 umbrella lights with polarizing filters @45 degrees or so, polarizing lens filter for the camera.
New to this type of setup... (some are oil paintings, reflecting a lot of light)
Looking for a little help...
1) Does the light have to be directly hitting the painting, and not bouncing off the umbrellas?
2) Does cross polarization work with the camera moving to multiple positions?
What type of light are best for photographing artworks?
Any help or advice is appreciated, thank you.
-
By bouncing the polarized light into the umbrella, you are effectively negating it! Most people will use rather small polarized light sources and move them as far as possible from the paintings to minimize specular reflections and make the lighting as even as possible.
-
I figured this was the case regarding that issue! It's difficult getting a straight answer out of the internet sometimes.
However, I am still wondering.
All I have to do is flood the artwork with even lighting(through the polarizing filter only), and I can move the camera side to side and up and down and I will still achieve the same polarizing effect? As in, The camera does not have to be "aligned" with anything? ( I've seen numerous tutorials on how to photography artwork with a cross polarization setup *while the camera is stationary*) Pardon my simplicity
-
It's difficult getting a straight answer out of the internet sometimes.
Well, you just got one there. No umbrellas, you want the light source to be as small as possible. You pretty much have to use strobes (and no modeling light), polarizing film is usually not heat resistant.
I wouldn't recommend moving the camera, it's easy to get into alignment trouble. Instead use a long lens, and rotate the camera around the optical center of the lens. That will be where the diaphragm appears to be (which isn't where it actually is) when you look into it from the front. This way you eliminate parallax error. There are adjustable rails available for this (a little experimenting will be necessary to determine the exact position). A more specialized solution is the Gigapan, which is programmable to shoot at regular intervals.
You will probably have to correct geometry in Photoshop afterwards. Hard to avoid when stitching. It may help to shoot a single-frame "guide shot" and upsample that to desired size.
Oh, and if you process in Lr/ACR - apply lens correction before stitching.
-
I think you also need to adjust the polarization at the lighting, not at the camera.
-
It's possible that it is slightly more or less effective depending on the angle it's mounted on the lights. I don't know, I have never noticed any difference. As long as they are oriented at 90 degrees to each other, it's extremely effective in any case. This is easy to check:
-
Lights can be two strobes in bowl reflector angled in at 45 degrees, each with a sheet of Rosco polarizing gel. Orient the gel the same way on both lights (e.g., vertical). Using the modeling lights (temporarily) you can dial in the correct orientation for the circular polarizer while looking through the viewfinder. Watch for the specular reflections to disappear.
Good lens for it, if for example using a Nikon, would be the 60mm f/2.8 AF-s micro. The 85/1.8g is also good.
The only difficulty with the polarizing method is that it can induce color shift. You'd want to have a color reference handy, e.g., the QPCard, or the Xrite Passport.
-
Good lens for it, if for example using a Nikon, would be the 60mm f/2.8 AF-s micro. The 85/1.8g is also good.
Yes, those two are my favorites for art repro. The micro 60/2.8 is crazy sharp, flat field and with very little distortion. I've always felt it's underrated.
It's a bit short for stitching, though, even with a DX sensor. The 85/1.8, also a great lens, would be minimum IMO, but depending on the number of individual segments I'd go up to 135 - 200. The total merged result should correspond to a standard angle of view.
-
A brief note on umbrellas: while bouncing light from an umbrella will negate polarization, you can shoot through an umbrella or other scrim without affecting polarization. I do it all the time in shooting art that incorporates metallic elements, so as to reduce speculate highlights while avoiding the "angle of incidence equals angle of reflection" effect, which can leave parts of a metal surface unlit and dark.
-
That should read "specular highlights."
-
It may help to shoot a single-frame "guide shot" and upsample that to desired size.
That is a really good tip. Thanks for that! :)
-
I'm currently using two strip soft boxes for even soft light with a sheet of polarizing film over each. I then have a polarizing filter on the lens. I typically stitch with a 100mm macro or 200mm lens and autopano giga (pro will work fine) for stitching. I also create a custom camera profile under the polarized light with a passport colour checker. Since most of the time the polarization is consistent between repros for paintings the camera profiling works really well.
-
That is a really good tip. Thanks for that! :)
Yeah, I work at an art museum and used to stitch all the time, working with a D700. I would of course never have enough resolution, so it became a matter of some urgency to streamline the process.
So I found that if I set up the shot with, say, a 50mm, I could just switch to a longer lens without moving anything in the setup, and do 6-10 segments. The segments will then align perfectly with an upsampled guide shot used as a base for the merge (since the total angle of view is the same), and it also eliminates the need for further geometry adjustment. The trick is to upsample to a slightly smaller size than the merge would normally end up at, so that the merge process only samples down, not up.
The rotation point has to be set up for the long lens in advance.
And then of course I got the D800 and all of this was no longer needed. The results I get now are just as crisp at the same resolution, as long as I use live view focusing, mirror up and all that.
Using strip soft boxes, or even umbrellas, together with polarizing film is something I haven't tried, but it sounds like it's worth some experimenting. The "dead metal" effect (particularly in frames) I have just taken for granted as an unavoidable side effect.
-
That's a very interesting tip about the technique to setup the shot for stitching. I typically would just move back as far as I need to in order to have the overlap required for the resolution I wanted. Your method makes a lot of sense and I will try that. Instead of moving the camera back I will just choose the appropriate focal length that will provide me the desired final resolution. I'm using a custom build spherical pano head that I have calibrated to the lenses I use.
So you are finding that since most paintings don't have an incredible amount of fine detail (photographically speaking) that 36mp is enough to enlarge to virtually any sized print or just to a print the same size as the original painting? I'm using a Canon 5D MkII at 21mp. I usually stitch about 6-10 images.
Umbrellas may not work with the polarizing film because I've only seen it sold in about 18" strips so that's why I went with the strip softboxes.
Another question I have for you is how you hold the art while reproducing. I currently hang it on the wall with plastic spacers on the bottom to keep the painting flush. I'm thinking about moving to an easel setup with the only caveat being that I have to ensure that the camera is totally parallel to the painting.
-
No, no. You don't put the polarizing film over the umbrella or soft box. Rather, you attach a standard reflector to your strobe. Next you use a clip to attach the polarizing filter and such gels as you need for color balance, to the reflector. Then you attach an umbrella so that the shaft pokes through the gels (cut a small slit) and then the shaft locks into the strobe head. Very easy and very effective.
As a footnote, you need a color meter to verify that both strobe heads have the same Kelvin temp. Flash tubes vary. You correct the variance with Rosco-like gels placed between the flash tube and the polarizing gel.
-
I am currently putting the polarizing film over my soft boxes with Velcro. I get a softer, more diffused light. That seems quite a bit easier and quicker than your umbrella method with the added advantage of the soft boxes giving more focused light than an umbrella. I am also pretty sure that when polarized light is bounced or shot through something (diffusing panel, umbrella, etc) it loses it's polarization. Not sure why I would need to colour balance anything since the strobe is daylight balanced. I make custom camera profiles either way.
I'm using Profoto lights. Probably as close as you're gonna get in terms of colour consistency between lights that the human eye would notice. I suppose I could shoot a white board to verify colour accuracy but I can't say I've noticed any difference with light temperature.
Have you tried both methods and seen better results or is it just a different approach you prefer using?
-
Another question I have for you is how you hold the art while reproducing. I currently hang it on the wall with plastic spacers on the bottom to keep the painting flush. I'm thinking about moving to an easel setup with the only caveat being that I have to ensure that the camera is totally parallel to the painting.
For smaller works I use a large repro stand, and place a mirror on the base. When the lens is perfectly centered in the viewfinder it's parallell.
For larger paintings I use an easel, but you're right, ensuring camera and painting are perfectly parallell is a challenge. I'm working on that, hoping to find a way to use the mirror method there as well. Any suggestions?
Assuming the frame is perfectly rectangular is of course not a good assumption, and it doesn't take much to throw a corner slightly out of focus.
-
So you are finding that since most paintings don't have an incredible amount of fine detail (photographically speaking) that 36mp is enough to enlarge to virtually any sized print or just to a print the same size as the original painting? I'm using a Canon 5D MkII at 21mp. I usually stitch about 6-10 images.
Yes, for most practical purposes. But photographic technique is all - heavy, sturdy tripod, maximum enlarged live view focusing, mirror up, cable release or timer. And of course only the sharpest possible lenses, stopped down to 5.6 or 8, never more. The Micro 60/2.8 and the 85/1.8 are my current workhorses. These lenses really resolve down to pixel level with the D800.
I do occasional stitching with the D800, but only in very special cases, if the work is extremely large and fine detail is still necessary. But normally a 36 MP original goes down to individual fibers in the canvas, sharply resolved. There's really nothing useful beyond that.
-
One reason not to cover your soft box with a polarizing filter is simple cost. A smaller filter over the reflector is much less expensive. That is especially revelant to my practice of shooting through two six by six foot scrims.
The fact that polarization is not lost through scrims is easily demonstrated. Set up your lights as usual, turn on the modeling lights on the strobes and kill the room lights. Then take a bottle of colored glass and invert it on a light stand in front of your art. Look through the lens and will see two reflections on the bottle. If your polarizing filters on the lights and camera are properly aligned, you will see the two reflections disappear as you rotate the polarizing filter on your lens. I use this method all the time to establish the desired degree of polarization.
I can't speak to Profotos, but most studio strobes that I've used have a variance in Kelvin temp from head to head. You need a color meter to detect it and correct with gels. Plus I have found that keeping the over all color temp in the 5000-5500 range gives me a better image, as opposed shooting too warm or cold, and then correcting in post processing.
-
The fact that polarization is not lost through scrims
This is interesting. So you're saying I can use polarizer with, say, a large softbox with full effect? I always just assumed off-hand that wouldn't work.
Experimenting time ahead. The problem is to find a way to attach it inside the softbox, close, but not too close, to the tubes (too close, and the film will burn out and curl). There's no obvious place with my Elinchroms, but I'll think of something.
-
Let me hedge my response by saying that you will not sacrifice polarization by shooting through an umbrella or free standing scrim. What's significant here is that the light goes directly through one simple layer of cloth. But it's in the nature of soft boxes that light bounces around within them before exiting the front scrim. So polarization may be lost under that circumstance.
As a brief aside, let me say that I have found free standing scrims to be the most convenient means of lighting big canvases because I can aim the strobe where I want it as well as vary the light's intensity from soft to semi-hard by moving the strobe closer or farther from the scrim.
-
OK, that makes sense (the bouncing). Maybe not softbox, just a single layer then. Be interesting to try anyway.
-
One reason not to cover your soft box with a polarizing filter is simple cost. A smaller filter over the reflector is much less expensive. That is especially revelant to my practice of shooting through two six by six foot scrims.
The fact that polarization is not lost through scrims is easily demonstrated. Set up your lights as usual, turn on the modeling lights on the strobes and kill the room lights. Then take a bottle of colored glass and invert it on a light stand in front of your art. Look through the lens and will see two reflections on the bottle. If your polarizing filters on the lights and camera are properly aligned, you will see the two reflections disappear as you rotate the polarizing filter on your lens. I use this method all the time to establish the desired degree of polarization.
I can't speak to Profotos, but most studio strobes that I've used have a variance in Kelvin temp from head to head. You need a color meter to detect it and correct with gels. Plus I have found that keeping the over all color temp in the 5000-5500 range gives me a better image, as opposed shooting too warm or cold, and then correcting in post processing.
I get my polarizing film for about $18/linear foot so 8 feet (2 x 4ft soft boxes) of it doesn't cost that much. It is also very quick to clip the film to the front of the soft box or have permanent tabs of velcro glued on so as to velcro the film to the outer velcro of the soft box already there for modifiers, etc. I get my polarizing film from polarization.com.
Your method of determining the desired amount of polarization is interesting. Gonna try that one. I'm currently using Robin Myers' (rmimaging.com) Polarizer Adjustment Card. I can hang it right in front of the art. It is a great little and cheap tool that allows me to guarantee full polarization. I can also decide to back off a bit if I want.
My Profotos provide a consistent 5600K (+/- 30K) so pretty accurate. Do you use gels to correct for this amount or is there a threshold where you won't bother using gels?
-
As a brief aside, let me say that I have found free standing scrims to be the most convenient means of lighting big canvases because I can aim the strobe where I want it as well as vary the light's intensity from soft to semi-hard by moving the strobe closer or farther from the scrim.
How large are your large canvases? Are you using 2 or 4 lights and what power are they? Aren't you losing a lot of light efficiency when shooting through the scrim as the light coming out of the flash isn't contained or directed as much as an umbrella or soft box?
-
In a couple of days I'll shoot a triptych that measures 14-ft by 5-ft. The basic lighting will be two of Buff's biggest monoblocs. I'll shoot through two scrims and adjust things until I have less than 1/10 stop of variance. Sure, there is loss of light in my set-up, but the Nikon D800 handles multi pops very successfully.
The art incorporates metal foil, which goes dead after I have used double polarizing to kills specular highlights in the paint. So, employing the rule that angle of incidence equals angle of reflection, I point four to six additional monoblocs so that the light hits the metal fail and bounces back into the lens. These strobes are clustered around the camera and do not go through the big scrims situated to right and left. They would ruin the shot, except that they are turned very, very low so that all they do is give specular reflections, without affecting the base exposure which is two or three stops higher. Or affecting the color temperature of the shot. It's an iterative process requiring a lot of test shots to get the balance just right, so I shoot tethered to an Apple MacBook Pro.
One tip on adjusting color temps with Roscp gels. If the steps between gels is bigger than you need, then it's time for surgery. Cut away part of the gel (strips or holes) and light mixing will provide you with the correct color temp at the art, as measured by your color meter.
Finally, I have found that the Brush tool in Lightroom does wonders in adjusting local color and density.
-
It took me a while to get to test this (diffuser in front of the polarizer). But I'm not convinced.
Attached are three examples. One is a "straight" setup, polarizer attached to the strobe reflectors. The second is identical, but with umbrellas in front. The third is umbrellas only; no polarizer. Judge for yourself.
-
Definitely number one. Adding diffusion after the polarization scrambles the light again. It's physics and the whole point of a diffusion source to begin with. The quality of polarization can't be as good post diffused as light straight through the polarization film. With the film over my soft boxes I get the best of both worlds. Sure I need more lighting power (as I don't want to do multiple pops) but I continually get fantastic results.
-
Yup. No contest.
The other way isn't as easy to test. I need to get more film, but I have two strip soft boxes that should work once I get it.
This is a bit like finding the holy grail of shooting art. I want to get rid of the specular highlights, but at the same time I also want to get rid of the harsh shadows that inevitably result from using point light sources. Strip soft boxes could well be the compromise that will work.
-
I'd love to see some pictures of some of the softbox arrangements all of you are using. Photographing oil paintings is something I do regularly.
Minimizing time in Photoshop repairing glints would be very welcomed here.
Thanks
jim
-
The other way isn't as easy to test. I need to get more film, but I have two strip soft boxes that should work once I get it.
This is a bit like finding the holy grail of shooting art. I want to get rid of the specular highlights, but at the same time I also want to get rid of the harsh shadows that inevitably result from using point light sources. Strip soft boxes could well be the compromise that will work.
This is the film I'm using:
http://polarization.com/polarshop/
It's $15 a linear foot and 17" wide. I just use big clips to attach it to the soft box so that I can easily take it on and off and roll it away safely in a tube. My current art repro soft boxes are 1x4'. I found it beneficial to put a little mark at the top of the film when I've go them oriented properly so that the film on both soft boxes is attached correctly (they have to have the same alignment to be properly polarized).
With proper polarization you will always get more contrast and saturation, easily (as you know) tweaked in post processing. My shadows are totally fine. Never had any issues there.
Cheers,
Jay
-
$15/linear foot is a good price. The cheapest I can find Rosco Cinegel for is $21/linear foot (also 17" wide), but only in 10 foot quantities. The 17"x20" sheet usually goes for $44.
-
I'd love to see some pictures of some of the softbox arrangements all of you are using. Photographing oil paintings is something I do regularly.
Minimizing time in Photoshop repairing glints would be very welcomed here.
Thanks
jim
Hi Jim,
What is your current setup for art reproduction?
With regard to photos of soft box setups, there's nothing really fancy. It's just two soft boxes on a 45 degree angle to the art. The fancy part is a strip of polarizing film (in my previous post) that's attached to the front of the soft box to polarize the light coming out. Plus a polarizing filter on the camera lens.
I've used cheap and now really good lighting and soft boxes and have had good results with both. My better equipment is more reliable and consistent and is definitely more enjoyable to use. But high quality art repros can be done on the cheap.
Since I want to reproduce the art only once (more beneficial for myself and artist) I typically (unless I know for sure that it will only ever need to be reproduced at a small size) digitally stitch with my spherical panoramic head I made. I also just built an adapter to attach my 35mm bodies to my large format cameras (4x5 and 8x10) and going to see how that works out. That will allow me to orthographically stitch which will alleviate me from having to tweak any distortion from the digital stitching.. I'm digressing now sorry. ;)
Other than that just make sure the exposure corner to corner is proper. This is one situation that I don't use the histogram to check for even illumination. And I would suggest using one of the polarization cards from rmimaging.com or put a piece of shiny metal in the scene so you know when you've gotten max polarization. However, you may also want to dial back the polarization a bit if you want to keep some more of the texture depending on the painting you are reproducing.
Cheers!
-
$15/linear foot is a good price. The cheapest I can find Rosco Cinegel for is $21/linear foot (also 17" wide), but only in 10 foot quantities. The 17"x20" sheet usually goes for $44.
This is the only stuff I've used. The results are excellent. Since I've never compared it with another product I can't say if there's a quality difference but I would doubt it. Have you tried various polarization film brands? If so I would love to hear what your findings are.
Cheers!
-
We use two SB800 flashes shot into 3ft white reflector umbrellas. We do a lot of shooting on each piece to get the uniformity we want and are still left with unwanted glints on most units which require photoshopping to remove. Each piece has its own particular quirks that need accommodating.
The artist (my daughter) makes all the calls on when a shot result is adequate in real time. She does the vast majority of the PS work and I'd like to reduce that as much as possible to give her more time on easel.
We shoot these with her D300 live to her laptop using liveview and the Nikon app (don't remember the name.) Liveview shooting has made a big improvement in the process. I'd just like to get the lighting more uniform and with less specular highlighting.
Money isn't really the issue here it's reducing the time away from the easel. If I can buy something that works I'll do it. I'd prefer if it worked with the Nikon lighting systems.
BTW, we don't do any stitching as her works are 4ftx6ft max and she shoots a lot of detail shots in addition to the full work ones. Resolution for the intended purpose of documenting the work is fine at this time. Perhaps we might go to a higher resolution camera or stitching in the future but likely a higher resolution camera first to avoid more fiddling with stitched images.
Where would you suggest I look for lightboxes similar to yours?
Thanks!
Jim
-
We use two SB800 flashes shot into 3ft white reflector umbrellas. We do a lot of shooting on each piece to get the uniformity we want and are still left with unwanted glints on most units which require photoshopping to remove. Each piece has its own particular quirks that need accommodating.
The artist (my daughter) makes all the calls on when a shot result is adequate in real time. She does the vast majority of the PS work and I'd like to reduce that as much as possible to give her more time on easel.
We shoot these with her D300 live to her laptop using liveview and the Nikon app (don't remember the name.) Liveview shooting has made a big improvement in the process. I'd just like to get the lighting more uniform and with less specular highlighting.
Money isn't really the issue here it's reducing the time away from the easel. If I can buy something that works I'll do it. I'd prefer if it worked with the Nikon lighting systems.
BTW, we don't do any stitching as her works are 4ftx6ft max and she shoots a lot of detail shots in addition to the full work ones. Resolution for the intended purpose of documenting the work is fine at this time. Perhaps we might go to a higher resolution camera or stitching in the future but likely a higher resolution camera first to avoid more fiddling with stitched images.
Where would you suggest I look for lightboxes similar to yours?
Thanks!
Jim
Hi Jim,
With all honesty (and respect) I believe that your lighting setup is not particularly adequate for art reproduction. First up are your SB800's. They pack about 100WS max which isn't really powerful enough, especially if you're shooting through diffusion and then (ideally) polarized film. Between the diffusion and the polarized film you'll lose about 4 stops of light. The umbrellas are not ideal as their light source is more directional. You want as soft and diffused light as you can get. If you're using umbrellas you're going to want to get them as close as possible to the art to make a larger light source and that may get in the way of your lens. For your lens you'll want to use a longer lens and stand further back for two reasons. First reason is less distortion with a longer lens and the second reason is that you don't want to be in the path of the light reflecting off the painting which can cause reflections back onto the lens. With the SB800's I'm assuming you're shooting a fairly wide aperture with high ISO. The lower ISO the better for fine detail. Please give me more information about your camera settings while shooting. You should just use a light meter and meter all 4 corners and center of the painting to ensure you have even illumination. It's a lot quicker than shooting a number of evaluation test shots and analyzing them.
I completely agree with reducing the amount of post processing time. Using the soft boxes with polarizing film on the outside you can completely remove any glare or reflection. You can even control how much you want to curb with the polarizing filter on the camera lens. However, there will always be some level of post processing required, even if you make a custom camera profile. For example, when a photo is taken with polarization, there will almost always be more contrast and saturation. This is easily fixed. However, the majority of the post processing will come when tweaking colour and tonal separation. Depending on the painting and the colours involved, the post processing can take a few minutes or hours. But you will never have to do any glare removal. The other problem is that if you are removing glare, that means you're also not capturing the true colour of the piece since the glare is reducing contrast, saturation and possibly shifting the hue. I think it's fantastic that you and your daughter are working together on this. :)
If money isn't too much of a concern then you can probably get a nice lighting setup for about $1000-1700CA (including a light meter) so I'm not sure what that is in US dollars right now.. perhaps pocket change. LOL. And you might want to seriously consider stitching or upgrading the camera as I'll get to in a moment. I would upgrade to the D800 if I were you, especially since you're doing single shot captures.
Now to the camera. As long as you are sure that you're not going to want to print these captures you are taking now, your current camera will be fine. It's a great camera. However.. with the D300 being 12 megapixels, you would, even printing at the more or less minimum (for a reasonable viewing distance) 180ppi, you would only get about a 16x24" print. That's assuming you used 100% of the sensor and didn't require any cropping. That's not a bad print size but it's nowhere near your original of 48x72" you are reproducing. If there was a chance you wanted to print a piece of your daughters art at full size you would ideally require approximately 111 megapixels. That's just technical information though. Realistically for the detail in paintings and with the quality of today's sensors you can interpolate an image quite a bit and get good results. However, a D800 at 36 megapixels or image stitching will get you a lot closer. That's why I stitch my 22 megapixel images. I can get to 100+ megapixels quite easily. If you are going to upgrade the camera anyway you might as well capture the art once.
I use Profoto lighting and modifiers. However, there are a lot of great companies out there selling lights and modifiers (soft boxes, umbrellas, etc). For the art repro you ideally want strip soft boxes no more than 17" wide so the polarizing film will cover the width. The soft boxes will run you about $2-300 each, the polarizing film $15/ft so no more than about $60 per soft box. For the monolights I would recommend at least 500WS. Two of them will be enough. If you can spring for the 1000WS lights having the extra headroom will give you a touch more flexibility but may not be worth the cost difference.
You're very welcome! :)
Cheers,
Jay
-
Jay
I realize we don't have the optimum setup by any stretch but that's why I was asking for info! This is really for documenting her work hence the tons of detail shots. We've discussed stitching and just doing an X by Y of the whole piece but that's not likely just yet.
All you supplied is great! I'll be doing some serious research on the lighting ideas you provided.
We actually shoot about f/5 with ISO 200. Focal length varies but usually for full size it's around the middle of the 24-70mm zoom range more or less. The two SB800 are right at their limits with these settings when bounced into the umbrellas. Lack of glare is always the first acceptance criteria for the shot. We try to reduce specular specs as well at the same time but if there's a tradeoff we always go in the direction of lack of areal glare. She is extremely critical about accuracy.
Full size reproductions don't concern her now. Perhaps in the future. But I'd gladly take her D300 as a hand-me-down!
A quick glance at B&H shows a 1.5'x4' unit: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/808728-REG/Profoto_100483_Heat_Resistant_Softbox_RF_1_5x4.html
I think I'd be happier with a full length unit but a 6' unit shown there is only 1' wide.
Which would you chose?
I'd need two of course...
The Profoto Pro-B Plus is only $200 more for the 1200WS version over the 600WS Profoto AcuteB. I don't think I'd mess with the 600 for that difference.
Pricey drivers!! D4=$$
Need to look at rings also. Suggestions welcome!
Thanks!!
jim (happy studio slave)
-
Apparently physics differs from one studio to the next. But, like medicine, product photography is both art and science. On my current shoot of a set of panels that measures about 8-ft long, I have incorporated polarized lighting that shoots through fabric diffusers (very successfully) and polarizers with Rosco gels clipped to reflectors that do not shoot through scrims, the latter arrangement because I wanted harder light in a couple of spots. These reflector-mounted gels I then canted slightly so their degree of polarization differs from those behind the 6x6 diffusers.
As to multi-pops, the process does require a studio that can go dark. And a high-end camera. I have not noticed any significant build-up of noise in my images. Or complaints from editors in whose catalogs the images appear.
-
Apparently physics differs from one studio to the next. But, like medicine, product photography is both art and science. On my current shoot of a set of panels that measures about 8-ft long, I have incorporated polarized photography that shoots through fabric diffusers (very successfully) and polarizers with Rosco gels clipped to reflectors that do not shoot through scrims, the latter arrangement because I wanted harder light in a couple of spots. These reflector-mounted gels I then canted slightly so their degree of polarization differs from those behind the 6x6 diffusers.
As to multi-pops, the process does require a studio that can go dark. And a high-end camera. I have not noticed any significant build-up of noise in my images. Or complaints from editors in whose catalogs the images appear.
Physics or not, the eyes judge the results. During my testing the results have never been better than having the polarizing film the last material the light goes through. That doesn't necessarily mean that I've completely and thoroughly exhausted all testing scenarios I suppose. You must be using quite a bit of light. Doubt that you are evenly illuminating that whole 8ft panel in one go with just two lights.
Not sure how you define a "high-end camera" (mfdb?) but a "high-end camera" is not required for multi-pops. I was using multi-pops with my large format camera and film over a decade ago. You can multi-pop with any camera on bulb.
I'm glad to hear that you've been so successful with all the catalogs you're published in and create many a happy editor. :)
Cheers,
Jay
-
Jay
I realize we don't have the optimum setup by any stretch but that's why I was asking for info! This is really for documenting her work hence the tons of detail shots. We've discussed stitching and just doing an X by Y of the whole piece but that's not likely just yet.
All you supplied is great! I'll be doing some serious research on the lighting ideas you provided.
We actually shoot about f/5 with ISO 200. Focal length varies but usually for full size it's around the middle of the 24-70mm zoom range more or less. The two SB800 are right at their limits with these settings when bounced into the umbrellas. Lack of glare is always the first acceptance criteria for the shot. We try to reduce specular specs as well at the same time but if there's a tradeoff we always go in the direction of lack of areal glare. She is extremely critical about accuracy.
Full size reproductions don't concern her now. Perhaps in the future. But I'd gladly take her D300 as a hand-me-down!
A quick glance at B&H shows a 1.5'x4' unit: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/808728-REG/Profoto_100483_Heat_Resistant_Softbox_RF_1_5x4.html
I think I'd be happier with a full length unit but a 6' unit shown there is only 1' wide.
Which would you chose?
I'd need two of course...
The Profoto Pro-B Plus is only $200 more for the 1200WS version over the 600WS Profoto AcuteB. I don't think I'd mess with the 600 for that difference.
Pricey drivers!! D4=$$
Need to look at rings also. Suggestions welcome!
Thanks!!
jim (happy studio slave)
Jim,
I have 2 x Profoto 1x4' mainly because the polarization film is only 17" wide so I'm completely covered with the 1' wide soft box. If you go with the 1.5' box you'll have a bunch of light spilling out from around the polarizing film. I bought these soft boxes specifically for art repro and product photography. I have larger soft boxes and umbrellas for different styles of photography. You can also look at the regular, non-HR soft boxes as they are just as good. Can't really imagine a non-all day shooter requiring the HR unless you're pushing serious light around in that thing all day long.
With regards to the lights, you may want to consider the following. Not only are they a lot cheaper but they are awesome lights. There is a large discussion to be had with regard to battery packs / heads vs monolights (my suggestion below) but I'm going to say that for your needs you're probably spending more than you'll get out of the D4 / heads. Great that you have flexibility with your budget but might as well keep it for the next upgrade (like the camera <nudge> <nudge> lol). So my suggestion is:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/605754-REG/Profoto_901054_D1_Air_1000_W_S.html
By rings I'm assuming you mean the speed rings. The following standard Profoto speed ring is what I'm using:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/900688-REG/Profoto_100501_Speed_Ring_Adapter.html
Hopefully this will help you out. Definitely feel free to ask me for any additional advice / suggestions!
Cheers,
Jay
-
Hi Jay
Good info all! After sending that last one I also discovered the D1 1K units. They look like they are more in our price range.
I was wondering about hotspotting with the strip boxes. I was looking more seriously at the 1x6 based on your polarizer width concerns. Will the D1 adequately fill a box this long?
I've done some more reading tonight on lighting in general and this system looks like one which will serve our needs.
Where have you been getting your polarizer material? EDIT: Nevermind, found it in your previous posts.
Thanks
Feel free to email me as I think I've enabled that option.
Jim
-
Apparently physics differs from one studio to the next.
If you look at my three examples above (and open each in new tab to easily compare) - you'll see that the polarizer does have some effect behind the umbrellas. It's effectively mid-way between the other two.
But I agree with Jason that the polarizer should be the very last thing the light passes through. All of this makes perfect logical sense to me.
-
Hi Jay
Good info all! After sending that last one I also discovered the D1 1K units. They look like they are more in our price range.
I was wondering about hotspotting with the strip boxes. I was looking more seriously at the 1x6 based on your polarizer width concerns. Will the D1 adequately fill a box this long?
I've done some more reading tonight on lighting in general and this system looks like one which will serve our needs.
Where have you been getting your polarizer material?
Thanks
Feel free to email me as I think I've enabled that option.
Jim
Hi Jim,
I'll post this here in case someone finds the information useful but I will drop you an email as well so that you have my email address.
The D1 will handle most soft boxes you can throw at it with ease. I use the 500s and my 3x4' soft boxes are completely fine. When you get to really huge soft boxes you may want to consider the Profoto glass domes you can attach which spreads the light out more. I will suggest though that you may not get any more real benefit out of a 6' long soft box than a 4' for art reproduction. It may come in handy if you want to do some people photography though.
I get my polarization material from polarization.com. It's the linear polarization film by the foot product.
Cheers!
-
Jay
Our most difficult works are the big ones which are 4ft wide by 6ft tall. For logistical reasons we need to shoot these as they stand on the easel in the studio where they are created and as they are hung. That was the reason for looking at the 6ft long softboxes. OTOH, I think the light should spread from something 4ft tall at any reasonable distance to give satisfactory coverage.
Is that your experience as well? Do you just use the 1x4 softboxes with the 17" material or do you use a wider box and wider polarizer material as well?
I ran some numbers this morning based on average retouch times for these big ones and the payback for the new lighting would be under a year. It's a no brainer if it works!
Thanks
Jim
-
Is that your experience as well? Do you just use the 1x4 softboxes with the 17" material or do you use a wider box and wider polarizer material as well?
I ran some numbers this morning based on average retouch times for these big ones and the payback for the new lighting would be under a year. It's a no brainer if it works!
Thanks
Jim
Hi Jim,
The 4' box would definitely send light at least at 6' height range without having to be that far from the art. So you'll be good there. Also depending on where you will set the soft boxes up, the 4' strips will allow you to angle them more or position them in lower ceiling environments.
As far as I can tell the polarizing film only comes in 17" widths. There might be wider stuff out there (haven't found any yet) and you may be able to tape the pieces of film together (which I also haven't tried). I don't think using a piece of joining tape would impact the light in any noticeable way. For more light coverage you can just move the box further back. In my situation with the 500WS lights I have the 1x4' boxes about 8-10ft back and it's ok. You'll be even better off with the extra stop of lighting power.
I guarantee you it will work in eliminating the glare. :)
Another item I suggest you purchase is a light meter so that you don't have to constantly take test shots to evaluate even illumination. A light meter (any of the Sekonics from $233-$xxx that allow flash metering) will also pay back in probably a month. The beauty of the Profoto air remote (that comes with the kit) is that you can remotely modify the light power from the Monolights from the transmitter while you are metering the light. It's super efficient and definitely a tad fun. Lol.
You also need to purchase a polarizing filter for the camera lens. Depending on the size you need (and I suggest buying the one for your biggest lens and use step up adapter rings) it may cost up to about $100. I suggest using very high quality filters such as B+W.
The next step in saving time post processing is creating a custom camera profile under the polarized light. Best if you use Lightroom and you just need to spend $100 for the XRite Color Checker Passport. You can use their software (free) from Lightroom to create a custom camera profile for RAW (which I hope you are shooting).
Cheers!
-
Polarizing soft light is not an efficient use of light. I have never required more than two lights with wide angle modifiers to shoot artwork. The trick is being able to get an evenly-lit capture. I highly recommend investing in one of the Sekonics capable of taking flash readings on flat artwork. There are also some good programs that are available for correcting luminance variances in post production. I've had great results with Robin Myers's "EquaLight". If you are really into copy work and it is generating a lot of cash flow, I'd buy a used HD3 -39 with the 80, 50 II, and the 120 I macro (start with the 80, then move on to whatever makes the most sense. Avoid the HC 50 I--it is junk). Calibration is extremely important--monitor, printer, camera, and light for viewing prints. FF Canikons are not going to be as workable as an older MFD back. My D800 works well on some flat art and fails miserably on others, and it is calibrated. I got out of the fine art repro business about two years ago due to health reasons. It is fussy work. When I first began the business, I had a handful of corporate clients that made it worthwhile. When I started serving individual artists; that's when the annoyance factor outweighed the benefits. Professional artists understand that it's not always technically possible or financially feasible to reach for a 95% color match. Just try to explain that to an amateur painter and you will most likely end up with an uptick in blood pressure.
And of course, cross-polarization is essential. If you have artwork with metallic paint, you will need to take several exposures and selectively mask local areas in post.
-
The Sekonic with flat receptor was fine when shooting art on film, but not so successful with digital. I can read identical settings at various points on a large painting, but still note variance on the digital image. I would like to find a meter with a finer sensitivity and readout.
-
Polarizing soft light is not an efficient use of light. I have never required more than two lights with wide angle modifiers to shoot artwork.
That may well be (and that's what I'm doing now). But I do old paintings with heavy gold frames, as well as contemporary works which can sometimes be more three- than two-dimensional. So you get harsh shadows, and that's almost as annoying as glare.
That's why I can live well with slightly less effective polarization, just to soften up those shadows. And that's why I've ordered two meters...eh, six feet, of polarizer to use on two strip soft boxes. It'll be interesting to see how that works out.
-
That may well be (and that's what I'm doing now). But I do old paintings with heavy gold frames, as well as contemporary works which can sometimes be more three- than two-dimensional. So you get harsh shadows, and that's almost as annoying as glare.
The trouble with using large light sources comes with greatly increasing spectral highlights on glossy canvas'. The further back, and shallower angles minimize these highlights which even double polarizing can not eliminate.
A neat tip on eliminating those nasty highlights, use the dust & scratch filter in selected areas. You have to play with the settings to find what works best without compromising sharpness of the image.
-
That may well be (and that's what I'm doing now). But I do old paintings with heavy gold frames, as well as contemporary works which can sometimes be more three- than two-dimensional. So you get harsh shadows, and that's almost as annoying as glare.
That's why I can live well with slightly less effective polarization, just to soften up those shadows. And that's why I've ordered two meters...eh, six feet, of polarizer to use on two strip soft boxes. It'll be interesting to see how that works out.
I think you'll find that the level of polarization obtained through the strip soft boxes is fine. If you have enough light, you have enough light. You may need more power to light through diffused source but if you have the power it won't matter.
Ahhh.. a fellow Canadian perhaps? :)
-
Ahhh.. a fellow Canadian perhaps? :)
No, Norway actually...that's way over in Europe where we wouldn't know a foot if it came up and kicked us in the backside ;D
I use two Elinchrom 500 watters, which I suspect may not be quite enough to shoot at ISO 100. I normally use them close to full power now. But the high ISO performance of the D800 is so good that in practice I can bump it to 400 (or even more) without any problems.
-
No, Norway actually...that's way over in Europe where we wouldn't know a foot if it came up and kicked us in the backside ;D
I use two Elinchrom 500 watters, which I suspect may not be quite enough to shoot at ISO 100. I normally use them close to full power now. But the high ISO performance of the D800 is so good that in practice I can bump it to 400 (or even more) without any problems.
Oops. lol. It was a combination of the metres and the "eh" that tricked me. I'm sure you've heard of how much many Canadians are grammatically tied to that word. :)
It will all depend on how large the art is that you are reproducing and how close you can get the boxes whilst will providing even illumination. I look forward to hearing if you are as happy with the setup once your polarizing film arrives as I am with it.
For sure you can use 400. As I'm sure you're aware, aside from the fact that current DSLRs are superb with mid-range ISO (and some at high ISO as we'll), most paintings don't have very minute detail to get affected by potentially small amounts of noise which can easily be cleaned up.
Did you order your film from polarization.com or a different brand? If a different brand I would be interested to see what your results are!
Cheers,
Jay
-
The effectiveness of polarization may be of greater importance to the literal-minded photographer than the creative artist. The reason is that over polarization can kill the "energy" and make the canvas look embalmed, saturated but dead. The definitely energized artists for whom I shoot would would rather have a little sparkle to attract the enthusiasm of gallery and collector. There is a "wahoo" factor in contemporary art, at least in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles, and photography is expected to "reflect" it.
-
The effectiveness of polarization may be of greater importance to the literal-minded photographer than the creative artist. The reason is that over polarization can kill the "energy" and make the canvas look embalmed, saturated but dead. The definitely energized artists for whom I shoot would would rather have a little sparkle to attract the enthusiasm of gallery and collector. There is a "wahoo" factor in contemporary art, at least in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles, and photography is expected to "reflect" it.
The fact that I can eliminate polarization also means that I can control it, meaning I can dial it down. That allows me to be an intelligent artist, giving more options to the artists whom I am reproducing the art for. Being a one trick pony isn't creative, it's crippling. Energized artists? Perhaps I need to have clients in New York, Chicago or Los Angeles to truly understand your creative lingo. I also wouldn't assume that every contemporary artist is all about "wahoo". I'm sure some like the reproductions subtle.
Cheers,
Jay
-
Perhaps we should keep the dialogue as a polite exchange of ideas, rather than an opportunity for ad hominum jibes.
-
Perhaps we should keep the dialogue as a polite exchange of ideas, rather than an opportunity for ad hominum jibes.
Perhaps. And while at it we can also lose the insinuations and assumptions. I agree to getting back on track with solid information that makes this forum the great source of information and collaboration it is. :)
Cheers,
Jay
-
This Sekonic meter is extremely accurate:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=460371&gclid=CNmooPf0kL0CFcyhOgodejgAlA&Q=&is=REG&A=details
As stated earlier, 2 strobes (I like Elinchrom Digital RX-1200s) with normal and wide-angle reflectors work great. You can always dial the polarizer on the lens up or down or rotate one or both gels on the lights to capture metalic details or highlights to accentuate textured brush strokes.
As much as I love my Nikon D800, I would never even think of using it as a repro workhorse. I guess if you only shoot a few pieces of artwork a month it's workable. My shooting space for copy work is mostly black. You'd be amazed by how much more more micro contrast a camera picks up in a room without any reflective surfaces.
I agree that collages, assemblages, and other 2 1/2 D artwork requires supplemental soft light. That is when the soft box comes out and additional exposures are taken to be used as layers for masking out harsh shadows in post. Meaning, several exposures and lighting schemes may be required to get an accurate read on a difficult artwork. Back in the day, I charged $100 for a digital capture of a painting 24" X 36" or smaller. The color was typically close to 95% accurate. If a particular painting had complications, such as metal paint, 3D elements, or glass I upped the fee depending on how critical it was to create an accurate reproduction.
I started out with an 8 X 10 view camera back in the early 80s. E-6 and a C-41 processors were in-house. I remember having to create masks with an array of film stocks to hold back or burn in detail. Every element was pin-registered. It was a tedious and costly process. The sad part about it was that inkjet printers were not ready for prime time and the fate of hard work ultimately depended on the press, paper stock, pressman, etc.
Ink jet technology is infinitely better than offset lithography.
During my digital days, I made decent coin when I kept the Epson busy 20-40 hours a week and had a steady stream of copy work coming into the studio. I had no problem trusting my instincts and turning down projects. Today, on occasion, I will copy and print an odd watercolor here or there. I do this as a favor for friends--seasoned artists who are satisfied with pleasing color rather than dead-on accurate color. In other words, so long as the repro looks good to the eye, they are happy.
-
As much as I love my Nikon D800, I would never even think of using it as a repro workhorse.
As much as would like an IQ280, so far I haven't been able to convince my employer that a $35 000 investment is worthwhile. I actually presented a written proposition 18 months ago, but it was shot down.
That said, "never even think of" seems to me a statement based on something other than reproducible facts. Art reproduction has its own set of challenges, some of which are discussed here, but lighting, setup and processing is immensely more important than the sensor as long as you have enough resolution for the job. I'd take a good D300 shot over a slightly less well lit and slightly less well processed Hasselblad one, any day.
-
As much as would like an IQ280, so far I haven't been able to convince my employer that a $35 000 investment is worthwhile. I actually presented a written proposition 18 months ago, but it was shot down.
That said, "never even think of" seems to me a statement based on something other than reproducible facts. Art reproduction has its own set of challenges, some of which are discussed here, but lighting, setup and processing is immensely more important than the sensor as long as you have enough resolution for the job. I'd take a good D300 shot over a slightly less well lit and slightly less well processed Hasselblad one, any day.
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.
-
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.
-
This Sekonic meter is extremely accurate:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=460371&gclid=CNmooPf0kL0CFcyhOgodejgAlA&Q=&is=REG&A=details
As stated earlier, 2 strobes (I like Elinchrom Digital RX-1200s) with normal and wide-angle reflectors work great. You can always dial the polarizer on the lens up or down or rotate one or both gels on the lights to capture metalic details or highlights to accentuate textured brush strokes.
As much as I love my Nikon D800, I would never even think of using it as a repro workhorse. I guess if you only shoot a few pieces of artwork a month it's workable. My shooting space for copy work is mostly black. You'd be amazed by how much more more micro contrast a camera picks up in a room without any reflective surfaces.
I agree that collages, assemblages, and other 2 1/2 D artwork requires supplemental soft light. That is when the soft box comes out and additional exposures are taken to be used as layers for masking out harsh shadows in post. Meaning, several exposures and lighting schemes may be required to get an accurate read on a difficult artwork. Back in the day, I charged $100 for a digital capture of a painting 24" X 36" or smaller. The color was typically close to 95% accurate. If a particular painting had complications, such as metal paint, 3D elements, or glass I upped the fee depending on how critical it was to create an accurate reproduction.
I started out with an 8 X 10 view camera back in the early 80s. E-6 and a C-41 processors were in-house. I remember having to create masks with an array of film stocks to hold back or burn in detail. Every element was pin-registered. It was a tedious and costly process. The sad part about it was that inkjet printers were not ready for prime time and the fate of hard work ultimately depended on the press, paper stock, pressman, etc.
Ink jet technology is infinitely better than offset lithography.
During my digital days, I made decent coin when I kept the Epson busy 20-40 hours a week and had a steady stream of copy work coming into the studio. I had no problem trusting my instincts and turning down projects. Today, on occasion, I will copy and print an odd watercolor here or there. I do this as a favor for friends--seasoned artists who are satisfied with pleasing color rather than dead-on accurate color. In other words, so long as the repro looks good to the eye, they are happy.
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
Keep it civil or be banned. Topic locked. Convince me otherwise in a PM
-
OK - go to it again but please keep your hair on and refrain from posting before you have considered your post. ::)
-
Thank you, Chris. I'll stay out of this thread from here on.
Don't let an interesting discussion be stopped by my temper...
-
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
-
OK - go to it again but please keep your hair on and refrain from posting before you have considered your post. ::)
Thanks Chris. Appreciated!
-
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! :)
-
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
-
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
-
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 (http://www.digipas.com/dwl-80pro) for some time that is very accurate (0.05 degrees, 1/1000 mm), and it's quite affordable, and simple to calibrate yourself (http://www.youtube.com/v/o2mC3x0jCFI?version=3&hl=en_US&).
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
-
D. Fosse. Good to read your logic and your passion. More an artist than an engineer, I would wager.
-
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
-
Hi Jay,
Those seem relatively expensive for the accuracy they provide.
I've been using an electronic digital level (http://www.digipas.com/dwl-80pro) for some time that is very accurate (0.05 degrees, 1/1000 mm), and it's quite affordable, and simple to calibrate yourself (http://www.youtube.com/v/o2mC3x0jCFI?version=3&hl=en_US&).
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
-
D. Fosse. Good to read your logic and your passion. More an artist than an engineer, I would wager.
;)
Cheers,
Jay
-
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.
Hi Jay,
You're welcome. I've experienced the slight sensor rotation myself when I was experimenting with Flat stitching, i.e shifting the camera on a bar to one side, and the lens to the opposite side, to keep the entrance pupil stationary (only needed for 3D subjects to avoid depth parallax). The left and right images should overlap perfectly because only a shift along the bar cannot change the camera rotation (and the rigid bar did not bend from a few centimeters displacement), yet the left side of the right-hand image and right side of the left-hand image had a vertical offset of a couple of pixels. That's when I stopped obsessing about leveling. An accurate Level is good enough, perfection is a theory.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Jay,
You're welcome. I've experienced the slight sensor rotation myself when I was experimenting with Flat stitching, i.e shifting the camera on a bar to one side, and the lens to the opposite side, to keep the entrance pupil stationary (only needed for 3D subjects to avoid depth parallax). The left and right images should overlap perfectly because only a shift along the bar cannot change the camera rotation (and the rigid bar did not bend from a few centimeters displacement), yet the left side of the right-hand image and right side of the left-hand image had a vertical offset of a couple of pixels. That's when I stopped obsessing about leveling. An accurate Level is good enough, perfection is a theory.
Cheers,
Bart
I used jigs to move flat art for stitching while leaving the camera stationary. Even when using a view camera, I found that moving the art worked out better than shifting the rear standard. Using the Hasselblad multi-shot back was great for 2 1/2 D--it had enough acuity to dispense with moving the camera or the art.
-
Nice little level. No frills. Accurate enough. Fits in pants pocket (Starrett part #135a, 2.5" long).
-
Small business insurance, Zurich North America: https://secure.zurichna.com/small_business_insurance.htm
-
I did not provide canvas stretching services. I had relationships with several framers in town that would do that. I often took in paintings that were on home-made or really old stretcher bars--often warped. Some artists actually make stretcher bars (or their assistants do) from scratch.
-
I used jigs to move flat art for stitching while leaving the camera stationary. Even when using a view camera, I found that moving the art worked out better than shifting the rear standard. Using the Hasselblad multi-shot back was great for 2 1/2 D--it had enough acuity to dispense with moving the camera or the art.
Bob,
Were these jigs you speak of a geared setup for somewhat accurate positioning or were the adjustments coarse?
Cheers,
Jay
-
Bob,
Were these jigs you speak of a geared setup for somewhat accurate positioning or were the adjustments coarse?
Cheers,
Jay
Nothing geared. Usually a 48" long metal ruler or a 60" long metal bar with a depth of 3/16". I align and attach the "fence" along a x-axis grid line marked on the copy stand table. Then for lining everything up I'll use live focus with the in-camera grid activated. I then just slide the art along the fence. This method works well for artwork of any size. It's just a matter of scaling up or scaling down. I have a rig for macro setups too. As long as you keep your work true to the x-axis, and step and repeat in equal increments, stitching is a breeze. You need to be careful that the x-axis marked along the table is exactly parallel to the bottom x-axis of camera sensor.
For art work that is tall and wide, I'd use the above method and then rotate the art 180 degrees and follow the same scheme. You have to be clever about how you go about stitching the elements together. Meaning, you will have to use non-standard procedures in PS. I found that putting big puzzles together, those involving six chunks, are best done manually. It is a bit fussy to do it this way, but after you've done it a few times, it's second-nature. Use the "difference" curve mode when aligning one piece over another. Then set the curve mode back to normal.
For warped canvases, I've devised a clamping system that grabs each corner along the edges to hold the picture flat. The clamping system is attached to a sled that slides along the above mentioned fence(s). I used to build furniture, so my cabinet-making background is handy. There are many ways to improvise setups for copy work. Necessity is the mother of invention. The only time I required accuracy down to less than half a millimeter was when copying microscope slides--fortunately that account went bye-bye.
The most difficult repro job that came into my studio was a pile of architectural drawings by Frank Lloyd Wright and his assistants. The drawings were on vellum and on tissue paper. They had been mishandled, neglected, water-damaged, and some even had coffee stains. The tissue paper was crinkled and very fragile. The vellum sheets were ragged too. Some of the drawings were over 50" long. I had to put the art under a 60" X 40" 5/16" sheet of tempered glass to keep them flat. And I had to devise a "sled" to be able to slide the work along an x-axis to stitch the captures. Luckily, that project came in after I painted the ceiling black--otherwise the camera would have picked up reflections from the ceiling off the glass. I had to wrap the camera and the bracket in black velvet to eliminate reflections. It was a good gig, but very fussy. I upped my insurance coverage on that project.
I will try to get around to sending you snaps of my left over canvas stock soon. I've been sidetracked with health, family, real estate, and a few odd photo jobs.
-
I used jigs to move flat art for stitching while leaving the camera stationary. Even when using a view camera, I found that moving the art worked out better than shifting the rear standard. Using the Hasselblad multi-shot back was great for 2 1/2 D--it had enough acuity to dispense with moving the camera or the art.
I'm currently using a spherical pano head I made if I need really high resolution. I'll position myself far enough from the art that I can use a 200 or 300mm lens to minimize distortion. Works well. I did make a custom adapter for my DSLR on my Cambo monorails (4x5/8x10) but found the depth of the mirror box interfered with the image circle. I have now made a conversion for my Fuji X-E2 (Bayer-less and no anti aliasing filter) and hopefully that will work out better since the camera is much more shallow. I usually have to do very minimal geometrical tweaking. I'd like to say there is no quality loss, but theoretically there probably is.. if it can be seen by the human eye, not sure about that.
I would love to make-up a rig to be able to move the art though. That would be great as I could move the art and remotely trigger the camera and repeat. It would be great as I could then use the 100 macro and with a stepper motor controlled art holder, could make extremely accurate overlaps to maximize resolution and make post processing as efficient as possible.
Cheers,
Jay
-
Small business insurance, Zurich North America: https://secure.zurichna.com/small_business_insurance.htm
Bob,
Thanks for this info and for the level part number. :)
Cheers,
Jay
-
Nothing geared. Usually a 48" long metal ruler or a 60" long metal bar with a depth of 3/16". I align and attach the "fence" along a x-axis grid line marked on the copy stand table. Then for lining everything up I'll use live focus with the in-camera grid activated. I then just slide the art along the fence. This method works well for artwork of any size. It's just a matter of scaling up or scaling down. I have a rig for macro setups too. As long as you keep your work true to the x-axis, and step and repeat in equal increments, stitching is a breeze. You need to be careful that the x-axis marked along the table is exactly parallel to the bottom x-axis of camera sensor.
For art work that is tall and wide, I'd use the above method and then rotate the art 180 degrees and follow the same scheme. You have to be clever about how you go about stitching the elements together. Meaning, you will have to use non-standard procedures in PS. I found that putting big puzzles together, those involving six chunks, are best done manually. It is a bit fussy to do it this way, but after you've done it a few times, it's second-nature. Use the "difference" curve mode when aligning one piece over another. Then set the curve mode back to normal.
For warped canvases, I've devised a clamping system that grabs each corner along the edges to hold the picture flat. The clamping system is attached to a sled that slides along the above mentioned fence(s). I used to build furniture, so my cabinet-making background is handy. There are many ways to improvise setups for copy work. Necessity is the mother of invention. The only time I required accuracy down to less than half a millimeter was when copying microscope slides--fortunately that account went bye-bye.
The most difficult repro job that came into my studio was a pile of architectural drawings by Frank Lloyd Wright and his assistants. The drawings were on vellum and on tissue paper. They had been mishandled, neglected, water-damaged, and some even had coffee stains. The tissue paper was crinkled and very fragile. The vellum sheets were ragged too. Some of the drawings were over 50" long. I had to put the art under a 60" X 40" 5/16" sheet of tempered glass to keep them flat. And I had to devise a "sled" to be able to slide the work along an x-axis to stitch the captures. Luckily, that project came in after I painted the ceiling black--otherwise the camera would have picked up reflections from the ceiling off the glass. I had to wrap the camera and the bracket in black velvet to eliminate reflections. It was a good gig, but very fussy. I upped my insurance coverage on that project.
I will try to get around to sending you snaps of my left over canvas stock soon. I've been sidetracked with health, family, real estate, and a few odd photo jobs.
Bob,
I think I'm going to mull over this concept and figure out the best way to make it work vertically as I'm not using a copy stand. This definitely seems less complicated and costly than a stepper motor system. I don't need more complexity than I need if you know what I mean. :) I had to re-read the x-axis alignment information you wrote a couple of times but I think I've got it. I'll know when I try it. lol.
For stitching I'm using Autopano Giga which, in my experience, is superior to PS image stitching. Especially with non-orthographic stitching. I haven't done any orthographic stitching with it yet but it supports almost every projection type.
That's insane about the clamping system. At this point I kind of hope that I don't acquire clients with that type of art issues. Unless the price is right of course. :) Copying microscope slides.. I'm thinking that would get kind of old in the tooth very quickly?
That Frank Lloyd Wright job definitely sounds like an experience. It blows my mind that there can be such carelessness with such important documents. Certainly more value now but they must have still been important for obvious reasons during the day?
Thanks about the canvas inventory. I look forward to it but understand that life has other priorities. :)
Cheers,
Jay
-
Jay, I think you can rig up something for the wall. I'd think about using a ledge for the x-axis. Attach tape measure to the ledge. Rig a clamping device along the top to keep the art from tipping over. Really, my solutions are usually inexpensive, repeatable, and fast to set up. I'd nix the motion control idea for now, unless you are passionate about experimenting with it. And if you truly are passionate, go for it.
-
Jay, I think you can rig up something for the wall. I'd think about using a ledge for the x-axis. Attach tape measure to the ledge. Rig a clamping device along the top to keep the art from tipping over. Really, my solutions are usually inexpensive, repeatable, and fast to set up. I'd nix the motion control idea for now, unless you are passionate about experimenting with it. And if you truly are passionate, go for it.
Bob,
Ok that sounds great. I'm going to see what I can come up with. I'm neither here nor there about the motorized control. What I am passionate about is doing the best that I can and being able to continually provide top-notch service/product to clients. Sometimes it's nice to have someone else assist with the balance of not going over the top and creating a solution to a problem that can just as effectively be resolved with a simpler approach. ;)
Cheers,
Jay
-
I thought I'd come back and post my results with the polarizing setup for documenting my daughter's paintings. She works mostly in oil but occasionally with a background of acrylic when she wants a flat, featureless background. Her work is extremely finely detailed and she is extremely particular in documenting her work for her own use as well as catalogs and website that there be no artifacts visible.
For oil paintings the two big flaws are often little points of light reflecting in a specular fashion that are never noticed when in the gallery with broad diffuse lighting and glare: large areas of specular reflection. Lastly non-uniform illumination which usually shows as a gradient.
In the past we've used flashes and big umbrellas but it was always a struggle to get something passable. The results took hours of retouch time in Photoshop which could be much better spent doing compositions for new work.
This thread came at a perfect time as it allowed me to rework our lighting. We just finished shooting the last two works of this series which will be on display at her opening this weekend. Down to the wire!
The results were nothing short of excellent!! She will have zero retouch time on the works shot with the polarizer setup. The setup wasn't cheap but it is an easy one year payback so it's a no brainer investment. She's one happy artist!
We used two Profoto D1 1000w/s lights with 6ftx1ft softboxes covered with polarizing film. The D300 camera used a 77mm Nikon circular polarizer (CP).
Some learnings:
Spend time with the circular polarizer and the polarizing film to find the point at which light is maximally attenuated and somehow mark that point on the CP. On our polarizer that point turns out to be conveniently the "C" in circular polarizer printed on the unit. When aligned upwards the output of the lights was maximally attenuated.
The cross polarizers attenuate anything specular. The painting surface actually has a slight diffusion property which scrambles the polarization and that passes thru the CP in opposite polarity. The specular light from the same surface is often seen as glare and is very difficult to edit out later. The CP when properly aligned with the polarizing film on the softboxes completely eliminated this from all of our shots. Also no little light nits were visible.
We initially started with 4ftx1ft softboxes and found them insufficient to evenly illuminate her 4ftx6ft works. There were gradients top and bottom as a result. The 6ftx1ft boxes completely eliminated the gradients.
I was very glad I got the 1000w/s lights. It made it possible to move the softboxes back to 10ft and still shoot at ISO200 f/8. Softboxes and polarizers eat a lot of light.
The polarizing film is 17.25" wide and is sold by the foot. I got a 4x8ft sheet of 4mm black coroplast and made a frame 3" wide window frame to fit around the edge of each softbox. To that is attached the polarizing film with binder clips. That allows me to roll up the polarizing film for safe keeping and makes it easy to transport.
I bought and used a simple Sekonic 308 to ensure uniform illumination of four corners and center of artwork. Easy.
Big thanks to Jason DiMichele who provided lots of help in getting this done!
Here's a link to her upcoming show:
http://www.connersmith.us.com/exhibitions/katie-miller-enduring-solo-agniet-snoep-alive-and-present-solo/
Jim Miller
-
Here's what I use to shoot art. A movable wall that is perpendicular to the camera and rolls on PVC pipe and skateboard wheels. Then the camera on the stand is also on PVC pipe and wheels so it can move toward or away from the wall and still be perpendicular to it.
The whole idea is to not have to keep aligning the camera and the art or move the lights. By moving the camera but NOT the lights, each section won't be lighted equally. There is also a bit of software out there that allows you to even the light out over the piece. When lighting anything, you will always get a hot spot in the middle where the 2 lights overlap and then get falloff toward the edges with the most at the corners. This software reads the difference and adjusts the file so it is even over the entire piece.
http://www.rmimaging.com/equalight.html (http://www.rmimaging.com/equalight.html)
You're better off using continuous lighting rather than strobes.
I use polarizing inserts into my lights and a filter on the camera lens to allow me to adjust the amount of polarizing I need.
(http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h216/framah/IMG_1096_zpse5a6065a.jpg) (http://s65.photobucket.com/user/framah/media/IMG_1096_zpse5a6065a.jpg.html)
(http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h216/framah/IMG_1098_zps8b04a850.jpg) (http://s65.photobucket.com/user/framah/media/IMG_1098_zps8b04a850.jpg.html)
-
One more thing...
The wall has 1/8th" holes drilled in it on 1" centers the area of a sheet of mat board.. 32x40.. and it has a small shop vac hooked up to it to create a vacuum wall allowing me to hold flat art on the wall without any clamps. For stretched canvas, I use bungie cords across the top so it holds it onto the aluminum angle ledge that it sits upon.
This setup has allowed me to hold flat, a 4x5 ft piece of 1/8th inch luan that an artist painted on so I could shoot it. all large work is shot in sections and then merged back together.
My system for shooting is the Betterlight system in a Cambo 4x5 view camera.
Setup is everything. For shooting multiple small pieces of paper, I close off any unneeded holes using wide painters tape. Then what is left is the size of the paper pieces and I can shoot and swap multiple pieces of the same size very quickly.
I once shot a 2x8 foot rug hanging it on carpet tack strips and just moving the wall for each section of the rug. As no fibers were moved, all of the shots realigned perfectly when merged.
-
Nice/clever Betterlight setup. What model are you using? I'm surprised you're working in a room with white surfaces instead of black.
-
It's the Super 8K-HS. 549MB in 24 bit RGB.
The walls in the room aren't much if any of an influence on the art as it is far enough away from the art and the art is on the black wall which is the most important area where it needs to be black. I also turn the ceiling lights off when shooting because they WILL contaminate the light on the art. With 2 900 Watt lights cooking, I really don't need any more light to see in the room. ;D
-
This is our setup (http://www.pbase.com/tojo123/image/155269267/original (http://www.pbase.com/tojo123/image/155269267/original))
Folding panels allow for different lighting s lighting setups to include single lighting, dual direct non polar, dual direct polar & various indirect lighting. We mainly use strobes but have a P1 scan back that we use infrequently that require continuous lighting.
The wall easel will slide 40" left/right of center for stitch shots. This setup has been very flexible to use with the many different art mediums that come to our studio.
-
A beautiful set-up, to be sure. But how can you have such beautiful floors in a
working studio? Do you require clients to take off their shoes?
-
I used jigs to move flat art for stitching while leaving the camera stationary. Even when using a view camera, I found that moving the art worked out better than shifting the rear standard. Using the Hasselblad multi-shot back was great for 2 1/2 D--it had enough acuity to dispense with moving the camera or the art.
Great idea.
How's about a sheet of OSB/ plywood, with a frame on the back for rigidity. Attach high quality smooth wheels to the bottom, roll it side to side on a long level. Use the level's distance markers to get consistent spacing. Attach the art to the OSB/plywood.