Howdy
Ideally I would like to use the better light Scan Back for art reproduction work. But the price tag is a reach for me, not only the scan back but then there is every thing else to go with it; 4*5 camera, a big tripod a good lens, continuos light source. And of course the better light puts out these huge files ,so you need a some what tricked out Mac pro. and before you know it your spending anywhere from $15.000 to 25g's in one day. a bit scary for me.
My understanding is that the reason better light is so good at art repro is because none of the
color info is interpolated, that and the file size is good for large out put. (9800 or Z3100)
My theory and my question is better light vs a DSLR. It seems to me that the DSLR(Canon) is definitely not in the same league as the scan back, but how far off is it. 10% or more like 50% difference. I would like to offer the artist the best quality. but the ratio of price vs quality seems important too. Making it more affordable for the so called starving painter. Also what I like about the DSLR is the set up ; much more portable and also the time difference . A single pop vs a 10 minute scan can mean half day or 2 days copying an artist portfolio. I would like to get as close as possible to museum standards with out breaking my bank account or the artist.
I would love to hear any thoughts, comments or experiences about this?
Also would a CCD DSLR be better than a CMOS DSLR for color info ?
Travers