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

[fineartprint-nz]

Hi all,

I am new to the forum and from browsing around here, there are some super knowledgeable people about and we are trying to find out the ideal scenario for fine art digital capture. We are a small print studio here in NZ with an Epson 7900 and an Epson 9900 printers. We use Eizo monitors with a colour managed workflow using x-rite i1Pro2 publish.

When in the USA we had art work captured from a 8K HS BetterLight digital scanning back and the results were truly amazing, best I have ever seen really. However, being down this end of the world means that this sort of equipment starts to skyrocket in price once gone thru this persons hand to that persons hand etc and then duties and gst and all that wonderful guff gets added afterwards just to find out that you have paid a house deposit of 50k or more on a camera!

All jokes aside, what would be the most cost effective solution (camera or scanning back wise) for us as a small fine art print studio to get going with something decent? I know that with a scanning back you seem to have to buy a camera body as well to connect the thing up to, what would suffice in this case?  Not knowing too much about these details, would someone here please assist us with as much advice as possible because we need to find a solution here.

We have access to a huge Cruse CS185 Large Format Scanner in the city here but when getting scans back of say an original oil painting with lots of glazing work on it, the scan picks up microscopic bits of dust etc by the millions that is trapped between the layers of the oil painting glazing and this shows very clearly in the scan. I have asked to have the lighting changed but this is not possible for some reason.

Anyways, enough said for now, there is a myriad of questions we have about all this and any help would be much appreciated.

Thanks All

-Barrie

[torger]

Demosaicing sensors is not ideal for repro I think. I'd look into second hand multishot backs, can be a bit hard to find though. CF39-MS for example. I'm no repro expert though so I'll let others chime in

[digitaldog]

I agree with torger. In the old days, I setup a few studio's with Betterlight scanning backs. Amazing quality and I'll bet you can find them on the cheap.

[yaya]

If you can tell us what your output requirements are and roughly where your budget is then we could start throwing some ideas...for example if you need to reproduce large originals at 300 or 600 dpi at 1:1 on your 9900 then it is obvious that you will need something than can output large files. Does the camera need to be portable or attached to a repro-stand or both? What kind of lighting are you looking to use for studio and/ or location work?

If you look at the high-end repro market world wide: museums, galleries, fine art studios and repro houses, the majority of them use single shot digital backs with 33MP or more. Some of them also use multi-shot backs for certain jobs. Some use SLR bodies and some onto for view cameras or repro specific cameras.

large format scanners are still popular for document and book scanning but for for paintings they have some limitations beyond just resolution.

A high end DSLR can also be an option but as I said above the output size and budget should guide you.

BR

Yair

[bjanes]

If you look at the high-end repro market world wide: museums, galleries, fine art studios and repro houses, the majority of them use single shot digital backs with 33MP or more. Some of them also use multi-shot backs for certain jobs. Some use SLR bodies and some onto for view cameras or repro specific cameras.

If maximal image quality is the objective, wouldn't a multishot MFDB such as the Hasselblads be a good option? Does your firm offer such backs?

Regards,

Bill

PS

I am not in the market for such a camera, but am merely interested in the options

[Doug Peterson]

Demosaicing sensors is not ideal for repro I think. I'd look into second hand multishot backs, can be a bit hard to find though. CF39-MS for example. I'm no repro expert though so I'll let others chime in

If maximal image quality is the objective, wouldn't a multishot MFDB such as the Hasselblads be a good option? Does your firm offer such backs?

Take a look at this list of Cultural Heritage clients who are using single-shot backs from Phase One and Leaf, on Digital Transitions Division of Cultural Heritage rigs. They find the quality, color, and workflow absolutely excellent.

[torger]

Take a look at this list of Cultural Heritage clients who are using single-shot backs from Phase One and Leaf, on Digital Transitions Division of Cultural Heritage rigs. They find the quality, color, and workflow absolutely excellent.

That could be because you're excellent salesmen and have a lot of know-how in repro photography which makes buying from you better even if you're not having the best hardware. Multishot is better, and reproduction is the number one use case.

When it comes to multishot products there's Sinar and there's Hasselblad. Sinar CTM (dual filtering) with Sinar eXact multishot back (up to 192 megapixls 16 shot) is pretty high end. In second hand space you'd find some Hassy/Imacon multishot gear that handled well should give excellent results from what I've seen.

[Doug Peterson]

Multishot is better, and reproduction is the number one use case.

Fortunately we don't have to agree to disagree, since there are international standards for reproduction such as FADGI which provide objective means of analyzing the quality of a reproduction system. These can be used to analyze any type of capture system, and we do (objectively) exceptionally well on all measures.

[torger]

Fortunately we don't have to agree to disagree, since there are international standards for reproduction such as FADGI which provide objective means of analyzing the quality of a reproduction system. These can be used to analyze any type of capture system, and we do (objectively) exceptionally well on all measures.

The standard is about establishing a sufficient level, not the best level. I'm sure your system is good enough, but that's not the same as being best. Also, if we step down to older gear I think multishot makes an even larger difference as you can make more use of your precious pixels.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My take would be that it is best to start with an optimised setup and than finding the equipment that fills the bill.

What you need to consider are, among other things:

• Sensor plane parallell to subject
• Illumination
• Vibrations
• Focusing, best achieved with magnified live view I would say

Then you would choose lenses and sensors

• You really want to have a sensor that has higher resolution than the subject, so you can reproduce all detail
• You also really want a sensor that has higher resolution than the lens, to avoid aliasing artefacts
• You also want a lens suited to the subject size
• Obviously you want a lens with minimal distortion

Than we have this issue about cost. How much are you willing to pay?

A good DSLR with a macro lens will do a decent job. An MFDB with an adequate lens will do an even better job. You don't want to stop down a lot. For best results, you need f/5.6 (or so), but even f/16 will give decent results with adequate sharpening.

Best regards
Erik

[HarperPhotos]

Kia ora Barrie,

Some years ago I travelled around New Zealand photographing the works of the now late Ralph Hotere. At the time I used a Mamiya 645 AFDII camera system and a Leaf Aptus 75 back.

I now use a Nikon D810 camera attached to a Horseman VCC adaptor using Rodenstock Apo Rodagon lens. The Nikon is vastly superior to the old Leaf Aptus 75.

So in my opinion for what its worth the best solution would be a Nikon D810 and some good Nikon Macro or flat field lenses as you don’t need auto focus lenses. If you go Macro the Nikon 60mm G lens is outstanding.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-AF-S-60mm-f-2-8G-ED-Macro-Lens-Manufacturer-Reconditioned-/171651110978?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item27f7341842

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Ai-s-Micro-NIKKOR-105mm-f-2-8-from-Japan-21933-/301506829500?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4633351cbc

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Micro-Nikkor-200mm-f-4-f-4-Ai-s-Lens-2090-au-/321647545774?pt=AU_Lenses&hash=item4ae3b00dae

Cheers

Simon

[ErikKaffehr]

Having been there and done that?

:-) Erik :-)

Kia ora Barrie,

Some years ago I travelled around New Zealand photographing the works of the now late Ralph Hotere. At the time I used a Mamiya 645 AFDII camera system and a Leaf Aptus 75 back.

I now use a Nikon D810 camera attached to a Horseman VCC adaptor using Rodenstock Apo Rodagon lens. The Nikon is vastly superior to the old Leaf Aptus 75.

So in my opinion for what its worth the best solution would be a Nikon D810 and some good Nikon Macro or flat field lenses as you don’t need auto focus lenses. If you go Macro the Nikon 60mm G lens is outstanding.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-AF-S-60mm-f-2-8G-ED-Macro-Lens-Manufacturer-Reconditioned-/171651110978?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item27f7341842

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Ai-s-Micro-NIKKOR-105mm-f-2-8-from-Japan-21933-/301506829500?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4633351cbc

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Micro-Nikkor-200mm-f-4-f-4-Ai-s-Lens-2090-au-/321647545774?pt=AU_Lenses&hash=item4ae3b00dae

Cheers

Simon

[Theodoros]

If you can tell us what your output requirements are and roughly where your budget is then we could start throwing some ideas...for example if you need to reproduce large originals at 300 or 600 dpi at 1:1 on your 9900 then it is obvious that you will need something than can output large files. Does the camera need to be portable or attached to a repro-stand or both? What kind of lighting are you looking to use for studio and/ or location work?

If you look at the high-end repro market world wide: museums, galleries, fine art studios and repro houses, the majority of them use single shot digital backs with 33MP or more. Some of them also use multi-shot backs for certain jobs. Some use SLR bodies and some onto for view cameras or repro specific cameras.

large format scanners are still popular for document and book scanning but for for paintings they have some limitations beyond just resolution.

A high end DSLR can also be an option but as I said above the output size and budget should guide you.

BR

Yair

Actually I find the situation with (major) museums exactly to the opposite... It's all "true colour" multishot backs and some "Cruse" (scanning back LF camera in reality) scanners with museums... If personel is not familiar or able to use the equipment, then it's photographers with such equipment employed... In the cases that the museum has a high resolution camera with interpolated colour, these are used only for minor documentation everyday work... Not for publications or reproduction.

[Theodoros]

Take a look at this list of Cultural Heritage clients who are using single-shot backs from Phase One and Leaf, on Digital Transitions Division of Cultural Heritage rigs. They find the quality, color, and workflow absolutely excellent.

You may find them excellent Doug... but since I've many times tried and compared the equipment you propose (due to art repro being my occupation) it is far inferior than using an old Imacon 528c or Hasselblad 22MS/39MS OR the (even better) Sinarback 54H... Not to mention the ultimate "king" for the job... The Sinarback eXact... sorry!

[Geods]

If you're just a print studio at this point and have been getting by just printing, I'd recommend going humble, at first. I too would recommend a Nikon D810 with a 105mm macro lens. I would also recommend stitched images to enhance quality and correct for any perspective issues with Photoshop's Adaptive Wide Angle adjustment filter.

[Theodoros]

If you're just a print studio at this point and have been getting by just printing, I'd recommend going humble, at first. I too would recommend a Nikon D810 with a 105mm macro lens. I would also recommend stitched images to enhance quality and correct for any perspective issues with Photoshop's Adaptive Wide Angle adjustment filter.

Opinions... well, my (ex-friend -used for 4 years until 2 weeks ago - now sold) Imacon 528c and my current Sinarback 54H & CF-39MS both used on Contax 645 and Fuji GX-680 had my D800E for peanuts  and now have my D810 for a laugh... Maybe I'm doing something wrong with the Nikons... 

[Jim Kasson]

I agree with torger. In the old days, I setup a few studio's with Betterlight scanning backs. Amazing quality and I'll bet you can find them on the cheap.

Hijack warning!

If anyone knows where I can get a Betterlight large format panoramic accessory, please PM me. Mike isn't making them anymore.

Jim

[Theodoros]

OK.... I think every body can understand why "true colour" backs (either multishot or scanning) are far superior than common Bayer pattern interpolation can ever be... There is no interpolation involved with true colour and resolution optimises since the eye interprets as resolution difference the colour difference between neighbouring pixels (where interpolation produces most of mistakes)... "No interpolation involved" also means that wrong colour "translation" can't exist... so colour accuracy is much higher... DR is considerably higher too (about 2 stops), simply because with "true colour" all R,G&B channels have to clip... with interpolation, if the pixel clips... it's "dead"...

Now, I guess there has to be a discussion on what is better... Scanning back or multishot? Personally, If I would rate them all, I would give 16x multishot (Hasselblad calls it microstep) shooting with 100 for score, I would then rate scanning backs with 88, 4x multishot shooting with 80 and highest resolution interpolated colour backs with ...40! 

The reason I find 16X backs being better than Scanning backs, I can only apply to scanning backs having relevant movement to the subject... 16X multishot backs are in reality quadrabling the nyquist limit since one has 4 different areas shot with constant position of the lens and pixel size the same (9μm) on all the 16 shots, thus ending up with an equal of 10x74mm sensor which is the same as scanning backs, but with no relevant movement of subject or sensor... OTOH, 4X shooting is brilliant (when compared to interpolated colour backs) but Niquist limit is up to the size of the sensor...

But resolution is only one side of the coin... the other is colour processing and it is in this regard that Sinar is in a class of its own out of all makers for "true colour" reproduction... The colour calibration method of a Sinarback is far beyond anything else in the market... There is a factory set "white reference", there is a pre-shot "black reference" in the camera's "black box" which takes into account the temprature of the sensor and then one shoots his colour chart (preferably a new macbeth - xRite one) and the sensor is self calibrated for the lighting conditions of it, taking "black reference" into account before each shot... More than that, a Sinarback offers the ability for one to export the (calibrated) files in both RGB and/or Fogra 27 & 39 forms... Sinarback software maybe a PIN for one to approach its logic or to set it up... But if one understands the logic behind it and masters its philosophy, the results are both the most accurate and easier to produce! IMO there is no better than Sinar for art repro work... They are in a class of their own! That said, my (ex) 528c was never a slouch... but I had to do all the "homework" work with "specially developed" profiles and use an ultimately calibrated monitor to achieve the same... Now I can work with my laptop and don't worry anymore about what I see on the monitor... With Sinar it is Calibrate, capture and export... With 528c it was Capture, adapt image to calibration, use a (perfectly) calibrated monitor and then export... About 70% time saving with Sinar...  A huge BRAVO on them... I can't wait to invest on their eXact!!!

P.S. Comparison between 528c and CF-39MS? ...528c "hands down" ...unless you already have a Sinarback 54H and need intermediate files for when 88mp "true colour" is an overkill... I also prefer 528c for single-shot but the cases where moire is present...

[HarperPhotos]

Hello,

If you add up the three lenses I listed from EBay plus and Nikon D810 the cost equals $4,510.00 NZ dollars.

Compare that to a digital back and it associated body and lenses you are not going to get any change from $30.000.00 NZ dollars plus the NZ distributor for Leaf and Phase couldn’t organize a piss up in a brewery and the NZ distributor for Hasselblad is pretty much the same

Cheers

Simon

[eronald]

Hello,

If you add up the three lenses I listed from EBay plus and Nikon D810 the cost equals $4,510.00 NZ dollars.

Compare that to a digital back and it associated body and lenses you are not going to get any change from $30.000.00 NZ dollars plus the NZ distributor for Leaf and Phase couldn’t organize a piss up in a brewery and the NZ distributor for Hasselblad is pretty much the same

Cheers

Simon

Obviously, if you have friends in a well-funded museum who are ready to pay you $1000 per image to do an exhibition catalogue, the price of equipment is not going to be an issue

Edmund