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

[Ken R]

Strobes are never consistent... even the best ones (Bron, profoto) can differ up to 100 (+/- 50) degrees of temperature between shots. OTOH, if colour balance is interpolated, different subject can produce a different balance between colours that doesn't (exactly) obey the same colour profile as before. Polarising filters on both lighting and/or lens are only used to control unwanted reflection (another part with painting reproduction that demands high skills to avoid), their use is sometimes necessary even if there is a "soft room" that has been set up to enclose the subject within, depending on the kind of varnish and the reflectability of it.

As far as output profile is concerned, my opinion is that there should be a perfectly calibrated monitor that should be used. My suggestion is that the monitor should be calibrated so that two different materials (a fine art matte paper and a high quality canvas) print consistently when they are printed on the same printer (automatic profile on the printer for the material used). There is no point in choosing more than two particular materials, as material profiling that are supplied from makers for each different printer are not as consisted as they should be. Personally, I use Hannemule Daguerre and Epson enhanced matte paper, both on MK black on Epson 9900 printer. Then, one can assure that if a printing lab or Offset are using their automatic profiles, results will be as accurate as possible! If they aren't, ...then it's not his fault and he can prove his case by providing his own prints for comparison.

I cannot help as to mention once more that Sinar's multishot backs, are in a class of their own for setting up a capture profile for the back and that they can output a Fogra 27 or 39 CMYK profile ready to be used on offset printing. To sum it up, lighting is very important for art reproduction, but if one uses an interpolation colour back/camera, perfect lighting isn't going to save things. There has to be a multishot back for the capture and then one has to work as to maximise the result with lighting.

I agree. Take 100 shots or so at equally spaced intervals say 5 sec. using your strobes as the only light source and play the shots back as a .mov (image sequence) chances are you will see slight variations in light intensity and / or color, very slight but I bet there are going to be some.

[Doug Peterson]

I cannot help as to mention once more that Sinar's multishot backs, are in a class of their own for setting up a capture profile for the back and that they can output a Fogra 27 or 39 CMYK profile ready to be used on offset printing. To sum it up, lighting is very important for art reproduction, but if one uses an interpolation colour back/camera, perfect lighting isn't going to save things. There has to be a multishot back for the capture and then one has to work as to maximise the result with lighting.

Crap!

I'll have to call up the head of the digitization programs at Standard, Harvard, Yale, the Smithsonian, the Library of Congress, The Getty, the Frick, Duke and Drexel, FSU and the Church of Later Day Saints, Brown and the Universities of Michigan/Minnesota/Kansas/Alabama/Pennsylvania and the rest of the partial client list here. All of them are producing the overwhelming majority of their FADGI guided high-end preservation quality Cultural Heritage Imaging using single shot solutions. They are doing it all wrong (according to you).

Seriously though, when was the last time you attended industry conferences like SAA, DLF, or ACRL and attended workgroups on art reproduction, color repro theory, archival imaging quality requirements? How many Heads of Digitization of major museums have you met with in the last year?

YaYa posted the first reply here (note he attends a large number of such conferences and has likely been boots-on-ground at more museum art digitization facilities and fine-art-repro shops than every other poster on this thread combined). The days where Multi-shot was the majority-use technology were over a decade ago. The advantage is resolution per-pixel is now minuscule when there is one at all (any slight vibration, or calibration issue and it swings sharply the other direction). And again, no need to take my word for it, there are objective guidelines and objective targets and measurement software for cultural heritage imaging with which to benchmark both technologies.

[Doug Peterson]

I agree. Take 100 shots or so at equally spaced intervals say 5 sec. using your strobes as the only light source and play the shots back as a .mov (image sequence) chances are you will see slight variations in light intensity and / or color, very slight but I bet there are going to be some.

One of the many, many reasons why Multishot is an amazing concept, but a very precarious practical application.

[DanielStone]

If an operator were to use constant illumination(LED/tungsten/quartz/halogen/etc) in place of strobes, wouldn't that eliminate the issue of frame-to-frame color inaccuracy that has potential to be problematic, especially if stitching multiple, overlapping frames?

[Theodoros]

Crap!

I'll have to call up the head of the digitization programs at Standard, Harvard, Yale, the Smithsonian, the Library of Congress, The Getty, the Frick, Duke and Drexel, FSU and the Church of Later Day Saints, Brown and the Universities of Michigan/Minnesota/Kansas/Alabama/Pennsylvania and the rest of the partial client list here. All of them are producing the overwhelming majority of their FADGI guided high-end preservation quality Cultural Heritage Imaging using single shot solutions. They are doing it all wrong (according to you).

Seriously though, when was the last time you attended industry conferences like SAA, DLF, or ACRL and attended workgroups on art reproduction, color repro theory, archival imaging quality requirements? How many Heads of Digitization of major museums have you met with in the last year?

YaYa posted the first reply here (note he attends a large number of such conferences and has likely been boots-on-ground at more museum art digitization facilities and fine-art-repro shops than every other poster on this thread combined). The days where Multi-shot was the majority-use technology were over a decade ago. The advantage is resolution per-pixel is now minuscule when there is one at all (any slight vibration, or calibration issue and it swings sharply the other direction). And again, no need to take my word for it, there are objective guidelines and objective targets and measurement software for cultural heritage imaging with which to benchmark both technologies.

No need to get upset Doug... are you claiming that Single shot is better or even equal to multishot? ...I'll be doing the "Gennadios library" (it's backed up by the American Archeological institution and supplies files to 187 American universities) in the following weeks... (About 4000 captures)... sent a (Contax fit) back to Regina so that I can compare it with my 54H & CF-39MS and you have a new customer if it proves better!  ...as simple as that isn't it? ...but I have to warn you... whatever I've tried up to now (even Aptus-12) in single shot, was rubbish (for the particular job) ....up to now! I can see why you (and Yair) insist on "an alternative"... but it's not all sales in this world Doug... Some of us (photographers) insist on what does the job and what is incompatible... I'm sorry Doug, but Sinar has proved in a class of its own on the field for the particular job under discussion... Your "references" can't change own experience unless if they can do it on the field... Multishot is also much-much faster when one seeks perfection with his work...

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

If an operator were to use constant illumination(LED/tungsten/quartz/halogen/etc) in place of strobes, wouldn't that eliminate the issue of frame-to-frame color inaccuracy that has potential to be problematic, especially if stitching multiple, overlapping frames?

Hi Daniel,

Continuous lighting is a must for stitching/scanning backs. Stitching of separate offset-tiles is much more flexible and it is capable of neutralizing the exposure/color differences at the overlap of the tiles, just like it can adjust vignetting (if not already tackled by an LCC) and lens distortions.

Cheers,
Bart

[yaya]

Theodoros it was a shame you couldn't make it when I brought that Credo 80 Contax to Greece a couple of years ago...and to be honest I don't see this discussion going anywhere and I already had a feeling at the time that you were not going to buy anything single shot.
If you and your clients are happy with what your camera produces then it's more power to you, but I don't see much point in trying to force your opinion on everyone else. The current reality of art reproduction and CH digitisation in the majority of institutes around the world is different than what you see from your position and there's nothing you could say to change that.

BR
Yair

[Theodoros]

Theodoros it was a shame you couldn't make it when I brought that Credo 80 Contax to Greece a couple of years ago...and to be honest I don't see this discussion going anywhere and I already had a feeling at the time that you were not going to buy anything single shot.
If you and your clients are happy with what your camera produces then it's more power to you, but I don't see much point in trying to force your opinion on everyone else. The current reality of art reproduction and CH digitisation in the majority of institutes around the world is different than what you see from your position and there's nothing you could say to change that.

BR
Yair

But i could make it Yair... I made it clear to you that I wanted the back for my work (which you insisted It was able to do) and I wanted to compare it with my (at the days) Imacon 528c... It was just that Regina called me last minute and "informed" me that I couldn't have a comparison (it was canceled) but I was only allowed to try it for half an hour for normal single shot back use... Nerver mind... I did have the comparison with the back (I believe) you know (although it was on Mamyia camera) and had my comparison results... Have no doubt... if it could do the job I would have got it...

[eronald]

Theo,

 Doug is going ballistic because
 a) Phase has no Multishot
 b) As Olympus now has just released the OM-D 5II multishot for something like $1K, it is clear that Sony too are going to be using software for their in-camera stabilisers for multishot, and of course when Sony does multishot with its fullframe sensors life will get really hard for Phase, when selling to institutions with a smaller budget. A 50 Mp Sony multishot 24x36 50MP sensor can probably compete quite well with a Phase CFV-50 with a 32x44 sensor, but Sony has a $3K body price.
 c) Hassy have multishot so they have no issue with the multishot SLRs. And they now have exactly the same Sony sensors as Phase so the only commercial defense Doug and Yair have against Hassy and a possible Sony product is to say that multishot is useless.
 d) We have had several Sinar and Hassy users say they like their multishot results a lot. Just like the 645Z which was pooh-poohed by Doug as a toy has suddenly garnered stellar user reviews.

 On a side-note this really puts Phase in the middle of the manure heap, because in addition to financing a new general-purpose body they now need to finance a way to do MS with their backs.

Edmund

Crap!

I'll have to call up the head of the digitization programs at Standard, Harvard, Yale, the Smithsonian, the Library of Congress, The Getty, the Frick, Duke and Drexel, FSU and the Church of Later Day Saints, Brown and the Universities of Michigan/Minnesota/Kansas/Alabama/Pennsylvania and the rest of the partial client list here. All of them are producing the overwhelming majority of their FADGI guided high-end preservation quality Cultural Heritage Imaging using single shot solutions. They are doing it all wrong (according to you).

Seriously though, when was the last time you attended industry conferences like SAA, DLF, or ACRL and attended workgroups on art reproduction, color repro theory, archival imaging quality requirements? How many Heads of Digitization of major museums have you met with in the last year?

YaYa posted the first reply here (note he attends a large number of such conferences and has likely been boots-on-ground at more museum art digitization facilities and fine-art-repro shops than every other poster on this thread combined). The days where Multi-shot was the majority-use technology were over a decade ago. The advantage is resolution per-pixel is now minuscule when there is one at all (any slight vibration, or calibration issue and it swings sharply the other direction). And again, no need to take my word for it, there are objective guidelines and objective targets and measurement software for cultural heritage imaging with which to benchmark both technologies.

[Theodoros]

Believe me... I do respect both Doug and Yair... but they also have to respect the opinion of a well known professional qualified for the job too... Especially for Doug, I would expect him to be more careful next time he will use the word "crap" against my knowledge on what I do and he doesn't! Us artists, do have a temper sometimes... and if it "explodes" against a salesman that doesn't watch his mouth can only be damaging to him...

[Doug Peterson]

I would expect him to be more careful next time he will use the word "crap" against my knowledge on what I do and he doesn't!

"Crap!" was meant to mean "O no!" or "Drat!".

In other words I was making a facetious statement that I was worried for the vast majority of institutions who are using single-shot, since you say that single-shot is not the way to go.

[Theodoros]

"Crap!" was meant to mean "O no!" or "Drat!".

In other words I was making a facetious statement that I was worried for the vast majority of institutions who are using single-shot, since you say that single-shot is not the way to go.

It isn't... so it is their "crap"... Unless if with "major institutions" you mean those that keep the "corner painter's" stuff...

[Doug Peterson]

Just like the 645Z which was pooh-poohed by Doug as a toy has suddenly garnered stellar user reviews.

O please. Show me one post, anywhere, where I've said anything of the kind. The only thing I ever done is list reasons why someone might consider a Credo/IQ/IQ2 over a 645Z. I'm a camera-phile and there are almost no cameras I would pooh-pooh (the Mamiya ZD I might take a few pot shots at every once in a while, but that back was just a dog! . Along with Phase/Leaf gear I've shot weddings with Canon, Nikon, and Fuji and have found things to love about each of them. There's a lot to like about the 645Z as well.

Likewise, for Multi-Shot, I've only pointed out that the advantages are demonstrably small, the workflow can be challenging, and the process can be error-prone.

The idea of an institution using an Olympus multishot for digitization work is... well, let's say that prospect does not keep me up at night.

Anyway, this gets tiring.

[Theodoros]

O please. Show me one post, anywhere, where I've said anything of the kind. The only thing I ever done is list reasons why someone might consider a Credo/IQ/IQ2 over a 645Z. I'm a camera-phile and there are almost no cameras I would pooh-pooh (the Mamiya ZD I might take a few pot shots at every once in a while, but that back was just a dog! . Along with Phase/Leaf gear I've shot weddings with Canon, Nikon, and Fuji and have found things to love about each of them. There's a lot to like about the 645Z as well.

Likewise, for Multi-Shot, I've only pointed out that the advantages are demonstrably small, the workflow can be challenging, and the process can be error-prone.

The idea of an institution using an Olympus multishot for digitization work is... well, let's say that prospect does not keep me up at night.

Anyway, this gets tiring.

I wouldn't disagree on anything on the above... Only that with multishot, it is as easy as a longer exposure (for those that need it and have worked on how it should be used correctly) and that the outcome workflow for the particular job under discussion makes multishot both (much) more accurate, (much) more reliable and (much) more fast to have an art reproduction result.

[eronald]

Doug,

 I always thought dogs were faithful likeable animals

 I agree that the Sony is a bit of a laugh - but the upcoming A7R-II is not going to make Canon or Nikon happy, is my feeling, and Phase may feel unhappy too if it can do multishot. Sony seem to have got into the habit of learning from their competitors customers.

 As for your tech comments, I disagree about the advantages being small, but the workflow is doubtless challenging - but it might be less so if it were conveniently automated in some way ... our industry has been a bit slow to take up LED lighting, but if it is usable for video it can certainly useful to multishot. As for camera stability issues, well there is something called software, and if lighting is available one can shoot 30 images rather than 4 ... Incidentally astronomers love image superposition because it turns a decent sensor into a superb one, and a camera that could do this automatically would also be lovely for interior architecture and on-location cultural work in available light.

Edmund

O please. Show me one post, anywhere, where I've said anything of the kind. The only thing I ever done is list reasons why someone might consider a Credo/IQ/IQ2 over a 645Z. I'm a camera-phile and there are almost no cameras I would pooh-pooh (the Mamiya ZD I might take a few pot shots at every once in a while, but that back was just a dog! . Along with Phase/Leaf gear I've shot weddings with Canon, Nikon, and Fuji and have found things to love about each of them. There's a lot to like about the 645Z as well.

Likewise, for Multi-Shot, I've only pointed out that the advantages are demonstrably small, the workflow can be challenging, and the process can be error-prone.

The idea of an institution using an Olympus multishot for digitization work is... well, let's say that prospect does not keep me up at night.

Anyway, this gets tiring.

[Theodoros]

I believe that what Olympus or Sony does (currently) has little or nothing to do with the subject under discussion... Methods of sampling the subject to achieve higher resolution are not the same as using multishot (or scanning back). The main purpose to use tricolor capturing method is to avoid color interpolation which neither Olympus or Sony offer (yet).

[AlterEgo]

I believe that what Olympus or Sony does (currently) has little or nothing to do with the subject under discussion... Methods of sampling the subject to achieve higher resolution are not the same as using multishot (or scanning back). The main purpose to use tricolor capturing method is to avoid color interpolation which neither Olympus or Sony offer (yet).

they can offer it with one firmware fix.. because as you understand they are able to shift the sensor precisely enough... but don't be upset - there is still naturally some market left for your beloved backs

[Theodoros]

I think you should think more before you post "whatever"... Olympus method can't do "true colour" at all and Sony doesn't (officially) have any sensor shift method or patent... it's only a rumour.

[eronald]

I think you should think more before you post "whatever"... Olympus method can't do "true colour" at all and Sony doesn't (officially) have any sensor shift method or patent... it's only a rumour.

Theo,

 The way MS is done in backs AFAIK is that the sensor is mounted on a slightly mobile base that can be micro-shifted by means of super-accurate piezo actuators in the X and Y directions. Now in the last few years camera companies like Olympus and Sony have started to mount their sensors on mobile bases, although they may be using a different type of actuator that can do fast long runs. The actuators in SLRs have mainly been employed for real-time stabilisation, but with appropriate programming they can doubtless do Multi-shot, and I think we are seeing this with Olympus. Sony and I think Pentax have similar in-body stabilisation system, and barring patent issues I would expect them to follow suit. In the end the stabilisers will probably become an industry staple, just like rapid-return mirrorboxes and vertical-run shutters which once upon a time were specialty items.

Edmund

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Well, Sony has a sensor patent, and I also believe a commercial sensor that is doing just that. The sensor does three exposures storing the electron charge in three different storage areas and delivers a true RGB signal, without interpolation. That sensor is not multishot as the CFA is moved doing a single exposure. The Sony solution doesn't increase resolution.

The sensor they have is a smallish sensor with largish pixels and is not used in a "real" camera.

Best regards
Erik

I believe that what Olympus or Sony does (currently) has little or nothing to do with the subject under discussion... Methods of sampling the subject to achieve higher resolution are not the same as using multishot (or scanning back). The main purpose to use tricolor capturing method is to avoid color interpolation which neither Olympus or Sony offer (yet).