4X5 Format cam with Scan back

[jaswantvaghela]

Hello frnds,

Why our photographers friends who are in to tabletops or art reproduction hesitate to use Scan back systems ?.

Regards
jaswant

[sesshin]

No hesitation here. There is no substitute for a reproducing a large painting at actual size than than a Betterlight back (that I've found at least).

[JerryReed]

Prior to my buying a Sinar 54 H, I would have agreed with your experience, that scanning backs are the best means for fine art reproduction.   What I found that helped me to change my option and subsequent buying decision, was that all the museums that do reproductions use the same Sinar Bron equipment and not scanning backs.  When asked what helped the Museum of Fine Arts Boston, The National Gallery Washington, DC and several others, what led them to decide on Sinar multi-shot backs and Broncolor lighting, they provided lots of compelling reason, not least of which is the fact that in the 16-shot mode the file size of the 54 H is twice that of the Better Light back.  No need for hot continuous lights, and consistency of color.

I realize that you are happy with scanning backs, but thought that I would respond to your question, "...what is better for reproducing at actual size large paintings?".

HTH

[sesshin]

Maybe you could clarify a bit for me Jerry, I'm not too familiar with multi-shot backs. My particular Better Light model can produce a 16-bit image that is about 16,000x12,000 pixels and 1.1Gb in file size. This will print out paintings up to 53x40" at exact size, which covers about 99% of what comes my way. The rest I either lower the resolution or tile accordingly.

According to the Sinar web site, the 54H produces a 5440x4080 image that is a 510Mb file in 16-shot mode. So how does the Sinar produce a superior image than the Better Light with lesser specs?

As far as the continuous lighting goes, my HID copy lights are heat-diffused and UV filtered, so they meet all conservation standards. My color is pretty much always dead-on accurate when profiled so that isn't a problem either.

The reason I'm asking is because I am always open to being able to take a better photo. If the Sinar would allow me to do that I might consider switching. So far though I have nothing to complain about with the Better Light (well, except for the long scan times but even that isn't a deal breaker to me).

[JerryReed]

Maybe you could clarify a bit for me Jerry, I'm not too familiar with multi-shot backs. My particular Better Light model can produce a 16-bit image that is about 16,000x12,000 pixels and 1.1Gb in file size. This will print out paintings up to 53x40" at exact size, which covers about 99% of what comes my way. The rest I either lower the resolution or tile accordingly.

According to the Sinar web site, the 54H produces a 5440x4080 image that is a 510Mb file in 16-shot mode. So how does the Sinar produce a superior image than the Better Light with lesser specs?

As far as the continuous lighting goes, my HID copy lights are heat-diffused and UV filtered, so they meet all conservation standards. My color is pretty much always dead-on accurate when profiled so that isn't a problem either.

The reason I'm asking is because I am always open to being able to take a better photo. If the Sinar would allow me to do that I might consider switching. So far though I have nothing to complain about with the Better Light (well, except for the long scan times but even that isn't a deal breaker to me).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212410\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What scanning back are you using?  I am unfamiliar with the one that you described.

Jerry

[sesshin]

Its the Better Light Super 8K-HS.

[henrikfoto]

I use the super 6k from Betterlight. I also have many different backs (also 16-shot backs), and I think the scanning-back produses a better image. Also the software is very easy to use, and makes focusing a dream.

[JerryReed]

Its the Better Light Super 8K-HS.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212418\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I give it a look and see if i can understand the museum's decision to use a more expensive solution.

Jerry