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

[AlterEgo]

Hi,

This was posted by Quentin Bargate over ta GetDPI.

http://www.getdpi.com/forum/598326-post1.html

and none of which show that multi-shot has a 1 (one) sensel sensor shift precision  

there are just no details that you can isolate and with a clear conscience say - this detail was projected on 1 sensel (with) in a single shot and on the same 1 sensel all the times in multi-shot  

they only show the increased resolution, but that as we know can be achieved even w/o any precise shifts

[Theodoros]

I think you did use and you might be so kind as to put raw files behind your words  ... no ? no raw files ? only blah-blah-blah then... that we all can do 

You want me to post "raw" files for free?  ...so that you can judge?  Don't you know that art reproduction work, is work that somebody else has pay a lot for and can't be shared?  OK then... send me some paintings of yours, I'll sent you an invoice on the cost to do them for you and you can have all the raw files you want!       

[Theodoros]

Or else pop in the nearest premium museum to you and ask them fot some "raw" files...     I bet they'll give you some PIΤA along with the files you ask...   But even if you could get some...   what you would open them with?      

ΕDIT: It's "T" ...not "N"!

[AlterEgo]

You want me to post "raw" files for free? 

blah-blah-blah = that's what I thought...

[Theodoros]

blah-blah-blah = that's what I thought...

Please tell us how you'll open them and test them? 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I don't think this is about bragging rights, but about sharing information. Images are worth more than worths and raw images are worth more than processed images, it is simple as that.

Latest time I counted I have shared something like 200 raw images, admittedly they may not be easy to find.

But just as a sample, here are some test shots with the Hasselblad Planar 80/2.8: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/CastleShoot/Planar_80/

And this is a pointer to all those images: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/

The reason I posted these was that some reader was interested in old Hasselblad lenses and I have happened to make these shots to better understand some issues I have seen. Sharing raw images is of course much more helpful than posting processed JPEGs, as the reader cannot know how those images were processed. With raw mages the readers can apply their favourite processing methods.

Now, I don't pretend I am a great reproduction artist. My background is engineering and a bit science, where you share as much as feasible. You don't share trade secrets, or protect them before sharing, but without facts you don't have any credibility. Simple as that.

Just as a side note, Doug Peterson makes serious business. I am pretty sure he will be glad to send raw samples for anyone seriously asking. He needs that for credibility. But I don't think he would give away the profiles they created for free.

Best regards
Erik

Or else pop in the nearest premium museum to you and ask them fot some "raw" files...     I bet they'll give you some PINA along with the files you ask...   But even if you could get some...   what you would open them with?      

[Theodoros]

Μajor museum files, are mostly done with Sinar multishot equipment... Even if one would be able to exhibit the RAW material elsewhere than he has been paid for (which of course is impossible as he signs contract before - but still say if he could), one that doesn't own a sinarback can't open the files although he can download Sinar software for free... He can't activate the software if there is no "factory set white reference" which is supplied with the back... and he can't use the program unless there is a back to provide "black reference".

[ErikKaffehr]

Thanks for explaining, sounds reasonable to me.

Best regards
Erik

Μajor museum files, are mostly done with Sinar multishot equipment... Even if one would be able to exhibit the RAW material elsewhere than he has been paid for (which of course is impossible as he signs contract before - but still say if he could), one that doesn't own a sinarback can't open the files although he can download Sinar software for free... He can't activate the software if there is no "factory set white reference" which is supplied with the back... and he can't use the program unless there is a back to provide "black reference".

[eronald]

Somebody who owns a back can put a cheap antique painting or poster and a colorchecker in front of it and take a shot in his studio - also i would be very surprised if Sinar and others didn't have a standard set of files for demo purposes, with all the reference files.

Edmund

Μajor museum files, are mostly done with Sinar multishot equipment... Even if one would be able to exhibit the RAW material elsewhere than he has been paid for (which of course is impossible as he signs contract before - but still say if he could), one that doesn't own a sinarback can't open the files although he can download Sinar software for free... He can't activate the software if there is no "factory set white reference" which is supplied with the back... and he can't use the program unless there is a back to provide "black reference".

[AlterEgo]

Please tell us how you'll open them and test them?  

I will try rawdigger and if raw files are not yet supported then may be authors will add the support... and the file in question is just a shot of a white surface with a thin black line (for example) that takes ~1 (~one) sensel width-wise in the raw file (that you can see in rawdigger by examining the sensels) ... nobody is asking you to share your (art)work.... then comparing single shot vs multishot we can see if the system managed to shift the sensor precisely enough... but feel free to suggest anything that can backup the claim... so far JPG pictures referenced do not show anything close... more so they are not what I 'd consider sensel sharp at all for a camera w/o AA filter with optics that costs thousands and being shot in a lab conditions from a solid tripod to be used for marketing purposes 

[Theodoros]

I will try rawdigger and if raw files are not yet supported then may be authors will add the support... and the file in question is just a shot of a white surface with a thin black line (for example) that takes ~1 (~one) sensel width-wise in the raw file (that you can see in rawdigger by examining the sensels) ... nobody is asking you to share your (art)work.... then comparing single shot vs multishot we can see if the system managed to shift the sensor precisely enough... but feel free to suggest anything that can backup the claim... so far JPG pictures referenced do not show anything close... more so they are not what I 'd consider sensel sharp at all for a camera w/o AA filter with optics that costs thousands and being shot in a lab conditions from a solid tripod to be used for marketing purposes 

Good luck opening them... obviously you don't have a clue what you are talking about since you think of them like being "common" RAW files that a program may break! 

[sgilbert]

"obviously you don't have a clue what you are talking about ...."

You have to love the community spirit here. 

And since when is knowing what you're talking about a requirement for posting?

[AlterEgo]

Good luck opening them... obviously you don't have a clue what you are talking about since you think of them like being "common" RAW files that a program may break! 

so again - no raw files, just excuses not to put them where your mouth is... that is so typical of you.

[Theodoros]

so again - no raw files, just excuses not to put them where your mouth is... that is so typical of you.

Send me your mail, I'll pass you some via "filemail"... they are of 508mb each... good luck in opening them... I'll include some pictures of a collection of Norwegian trolls (done with movements) too!

[ynp]

In Art reproduction (not pictures of art) there is three factors that must be mastered...
 
ONE is setting up the subject and lighting it correctly.
TWO is having all the detail of it (for 1:1 print).
THREE is having all the tone and colour accuracy of it.

ONE differs between subjects and structure of the subject. TWO depends on the size and detail on the subject. THREE requires having absolute profiles... As far as "absolute" profiles are concerned, one can't have the required accuracy if colour interpolation is involved and "automatic" profiling "general" methods are not sufficient for having the term "reproduction" satisfied... Thus, the use of "true colour" is a necessity (to avoid an interpolation algorithm to interfere) and there is special knowledge required, where one has to "build" his own profiles for a particular project... That said, there are cases where one has to "group" the project in order to keep lighting and profile changes to a minimum.
.......

Of course tri-colour capture is not perfect... but it's the best we have available to work with and (most importantly) it has no disadvantage (only advantages with all factors involved) than the use of "normal" sensors. The longer exposure times and extensive lighting on the subject are factors that are "part of the job" for one to learn on how to control as to avoid harming the subject by emitting extensive IR on it.

+1

[ynp]

In my humble opinion, I am ready to accept the quality of the watercolor reproduction made with an Aptus10 or similar one-shot back. In most cases the one-shot systems, if profiled, produce excellent results with books and and aliasing is easier controlled on flat paper artwork or books.

When we shoot paintings, such as oil on fine woven canvas, I wouldn't use a one-shot system, regardless of the megapixel count.
I will pay for a scanner and an experience operator or shoots myself with my ancient Sinar P2-converted-to-P3 with my Sinarback 54H and LC shutter. And I know several art museums in Europe and Russia and they use very similar Sinar setups. They are offered sponsored  deals from the Digital backs manufacturers and some of museums want high volume workflow and they migrate to modern one-shot systems. Cannot discuss the details here, but I know that it is not a photographer who decide what equipment will be used in a museum.

[ynp]

Thank you all for the information on the continuous lighting for repro work. I shoot with Bron strobes and I will look into new LEDs.

[Theodoros]

Daylight Fluorescent at 5500K with OSRAM Dulux L valves (CRI>97) is also highly recommended to consider... It's the same effect as used on Cruse scanner.

[AlterEgo]

Send me your mail, I'll pass you some via "filemail"... they are of 508mb each... good luck in opening them... I'll include some pictures of a collection of Norwegian trolls (done with movements) too!

are those files with the subject asked ? you can send me a PM on this forum with the link to download, thank you.

[Theodoros]

No... I want your mail and (real) name... even privately. PM them to me, There will be original RAW files captured with Sinarback 54H in 16x true colour capture, the  subjects are Byzantine Icons out of my personal belongings that I use to calibrate and test things... You'll need Sinar software (6.1.2) to open them... which even if you download (it's free) you won't be able to activate unless if you own a Sinarback yourself.