Digital Large Format

[leonardobarreto.com]

Hi, this is my first post here, (from DPReview.com)
I am considering the alternatives for Large Format Digital Photography, but firs a bit of background.

I will be moving back to New York after 9 years in Latin America (wife works for UNICEF) and want to start looking for assignmets in what I used to do there which is photography of art work for galleries. Film (4 x 5 and 8 x 10 transparencies) is not out yet in this corner of the photo business just yet, so I will get my Sinar ready...

The question is -- I know that this is the architecture forum, but it was the cosest relation I coul find -- which way to go? scanning or one shot backs?

Because I will be starting I don't think I could justify $30k for a one shot back, but I have a back-ready Mamiya 645 AFD with lenses, so I think that could wait to find a PhaseOne 22 megapix affordable back, say, a year from now.

What I am considering for now is a Betterlight 4000E-HS that is just $6,500 and USB 2, so 4 times faster than earlier models.

Anyone here in this forum reseraching the same solutions?

--Are Tota lights good for the scanning backs and/or one shot PheseOnes?
--Can PC be obtain with the one shot backs? (may be problems with the angle of insidence of light in wide angle use)
--Is image quality better with 4 x 5 optics compared to the Mamiya AFD?

Thanks, and "yorishiku onegaitashimasu"

LeonardoBarreto.com

[Asher Kelman]

Welcome Leonardo!

Glad you joined. Hope you get great answers here.

I moved your post here to be in the correct forum.

Asher

[Kumar Brahmajosyula]

For art reproduction, I would suggest a Betterlight. And you might want to join the Betterlight forum, where you can find a great deal of information, and occasionally, some good deals on used equipment.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/betterlight/

Cheers,
Kumar

[Asher Kelman]

Yes, you are right Kumar, the Betterlight is a wonderful camera. A perfect match for art reproduction, as long as the picture is not stolen or the museum closed while the picture is being taken! Seriously, for the price it IS a steal.

Still, having been out of N.Y. for 9 years, I'd do a lot of checking on the market before buying new gear. I know some artists still insist on transparencies for archiving and some galleries want digital files for showing to clients.

Spending a couple of hours calling some galleries in N.Y., will update you as to the current choices you might have. One thing about the Betterlight is that it is limited in use for a lot of other assignments. What it does do it does at the best price possible.

Let us know what your findings are. Also perhaps others might be able to shed some light on this.

Asher

[Anita Saunders]

I can't recommend particular models as I haven't been lucky enough to experience them, but one-shot was really introduced in the first place to accomodate objects/people that cannot stand still. Since art work is not going anywhere and you won't be having clouds moving by etc then I imagine a scan back would be perfectly suitable.

[Rainer Viertlböck]

The question is -- I know that this is the architecture forum, but it was the cosest relation I coul find -- which way to go? scanning or one shot backs?
utside the studio.

Because I will be starting I don't think I could justify $30k for a one shot back, but I have a back-ready Mamiya 645 AFD with lenses, so I think that could wait to find a PhaseOne 22 megapix affordable back, say, a year from now.



What I am considering for now is a Betterlight 4000E-HS that is just $6,500 and USB 2, so 4 times faster than earlier models.

Anyone here in this forum reseraching the same solutions?

--Are Tota lights good for the scanning backs and/or one shot PheseOnes?
--Can PC be obtain with the one shot backs? (may be problems with the angle of insidence of light in wide angle use)
--Is image quality better with 4 x 5 optics compared to the Mamiya AFD?

Thanks, and "yorishiku onegaitashimasu"

LeonardoBarreto.com
scanbacks :
i think they still are very static, although some people seem to work with them also outside the studio

prices :
for sure,- the prices of 17 and 22mp backs will come down soon.....

wide angle color shifts:
in general you shouldnt expect problems here with dalsa sensors ( leaf + sinar/ emotion ) and constant problems with kodak sensors ( imacon + phaseone ).

image quality from lenses:
4x5" lenses will hardly match the mamiya 645 lenses,- what will be equal or better are the "digital" lenses from schneider and sinar/ rodenstock, especially here the HR lenses.

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Leonardo,

I'm just kibitzing here, and I don't (yet) closely follow what's going on in this corner of the world of digital phtography.

You said:

which way to go? scanning or one shot backs?

Could you please fill me in on the difference.

Thanks.

[leonardobarreto.com]

Thank you every one, since I'm new here -- I think we all are -- I had to do some looking to get to my own thread, but at last, getting here I find that "I've got email !"

Lets see, first let me give Doug, a background: There are two ways to capture images in formats larger than Canon/Nikon, digital backs with one shot sensors (made by Kodak, Dalsa) and can be used in many systems considered MF or LF (Medium or Large Format) in cameras from a 4 x 5 Sinar to a 645 Mamiya. This are one shot because the can use continuos light AND flash. The developmet of this is mooving fast from 6mp to 16mp, then 22mp and now more than 30mp which may -- or may not -- encrouch in to 8 x 10 territory.

On the other side there is a much less know -- but appreciated by a small group of photographers -- that has a completely different approach. This "scanning backs" are inserts all most the size of a 4 x 5 Polaroid back that has a set of tree sensor with color filters for Red Green and Blue and scan the film plane to capture the image.

The "problem" with scanning is that you have to use a stationary camera to shoot stationary subjects. Even tree leafs are a bit problematic here.

The advantages are: a abundance of resolution. True non-extrapolated color information resulting in truer capture of the same. And a lower megapixel per dollar than the one shot backs... --for now, that is--.

The good news is that new models using USB 2 are now 4 times faster than earlier ones, and, for example, the 4000E-HS is only $6,495 and can produce 53MB RGB the one shot leaders, PhaseOne P 30 and P 45 have 31 and 39 megapixels respectively but the P 30 costs $30k and the p 45 $35,995.00 (http://www.vistek.ca/marketing/procentre/phase_one_solutions.aspx#P45)

[leonardobarreto.com]

You mean normal 4x5 lenses, eventhogh scann a larger surface and are not retrofocus are not a match to 6x5 optics? that is an interesting notion. We are not talking about LF lenses used on PhaseOne backs, but on Betterlight scanning ones, no?

[leonardobarreto.com]

Thank you Kumar, I will visit the Betterlight forums

[leonardobarreto.com]

talking about digital backs, there is now a P45 on eBay ! ... http://cgi.ebay.com/Phase-One-P45-Digital-Back-Kit-for-Hasselblad-H1-H2-NR_W0QQitemZ200013406817QQihZ010QQcategoryZ31388QQ ssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

[JimCollum]

the limitations to a betterlight are pretty similar to the limtations to large format in general. you end up hauling your laptop in the field. but give up film holders.. all in all, it's about the same as a 8x10 outfit in portability. things moving can be a problem.. as it can with film and 4x5/8x10. i hauled one around SE Asia and didn't regret it for a moment... and came back with images i could not have with film (using their pano adapter).

http://web1.omniblog.com/_smartsite/modules/local/blog/blog_display.php?cmd=show_blog&user_id=10004&type=cat&map_id=1004 is an online portfolio of se asia images. .most with the betterlight.

some say it's hard to capture moving water.. it's just that the scanning back captures motion differently than film. blurred water is a film artifact of time..

http://web1.omniblog.com/_smartsite/modules/image/image_page.php?a=cz1jJmlkPTE4NjQmbT00MDAw

is an example of a scanning back artifact of motion. Both the film and scanning back representation of moving water are both artifacts of time.. the film blur is just one we're used to seeing.

i've found very few subjects i'd normally take with 4x5 or 8x10 field camera that weren't possible with the betterlight. i guess the major exception are very long exposures. if you are used to taking very long exposures with film, then it's not going to work as well with the betterlight

jim

[Asher Kelman]

talking about digital backs, there is now a P45 on eBay ! ... http://cgi.ebay.com/Phase-One-P45-Digital-Back-Kit-for-Hasselblad-H1-H2-NR_W0QQitemZ200013406817QQihZ010QQcategoryZ31388QQ ssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Maybe he's well known and a good guy?

I wondered whether the companies buy the backs and resell them or what? They can't want used backs circulating.
Asher

[Asher Kelman]

Jim,

I love that Betterlight! Garrapato Beach is phenomenal. The water was done in post!

Oh wow!

[Don Lashier]

Maybe he's well known and a good guy?


Seems to be a fairly well known stock photographer. Among other things finalist in PDN 2005 favorite stock photo (http://www.musarium.com/photoannual2005/stockphotography.lasso?-SkipRecords=2) (only one vote though :)

- DL

[JimCollum]

Jim,

I love that Betterlight! Garrapato Beach is phenomenal. The water was done in post!

Oh wow!

nope.. water was as was taken. the pano scanned from right to left (actually, the sensor is stationary, the camera rotates precisely on a platform driven by the back and betterlight software). as the waves are coming in (straight towards you), the line of capture is moving to the left.. so as each line is captured, the wave is a little closer in.. as aresult, the wave looks like it's moving to the right . the color of the image is because it was captured without the IR blocking filter.. so both visible and IR light was captured (that's why the vegetation is so pale). not using the IR filter serves two purposes for me.. i like my color's mute, and it makes for a faster scan (i'm pretty sure it was about 3 min for the full scan.. the original is 58,000 pixels across

jim

[Asher Kelman]

"Seems to be a fairly well known stock photographer. Among other things finalist in PDN 2005 favorite stock photo (only one vote though :) "

It's always great to get info like that. Good find Don!

Asher

[Don Lashier]

> Good find Don!

Actually very simple, I added .com on his ebay handle and tried http://www.barwickphoto.com (http://www.barwickphoto.com), got his full name there then googled. I suppose it -is- possible that someone is impersonating him but before making a purchase this big I would call him or at least communicate via email. Plus he's not a new member so someone would have had to be thinking -way- ahead. I was puzzled at first by all the purchases of "dummy" cell phones, blackberry, etc., but this makes perfect sense as stock props.

- DL

[Ray West]

If buying on ebay, check previous 'buyers' comments. He only has ten sell comments, all for cheap tat, afaik.

Run, don't walk.

Why not phone the barwickphoto.com number? Are they genuine? Getting one sale at nearly $30k for little effort is an easy criminal option.

ebay is good, ebay is bad, be aware it has greedy sellers, and greedy buyers.

Do not believe what I or anyone else say, check it out for yourself.

Asher - re. my previous thread re b&s on this forum, association, 'pro', whatever.

Best wishes,

Ray

[leonardobarreto.com]

Jim, not even 10am here in Mexico, finished my cafe con leche and logged on to the Open Forums to visit your fine work.

But back to the mechanics of things. You mentioned "not using the IR filter serves two purposes for me...."

Can tell me a bit more about an IR filter, specifically, do I need to use one with tungsten hot lights with art work photography?

The other question is: Do you use the new USB2 backs and also what should I expect in capture times for studio controlled situations? 4 min? or less/

Thanks
LeonardoBarreto.com

ps P45 kit has 0 bids ...

[Alain Briot]

ps P45 kit has 0 bids ...

eBay isn't the best venue for buying or selling a 30k digital back . . .

[JimCollum]

thanks for the feedback!

there are normall two IR blocking filters supplied with the camera.. one for daylight, the other tungsten. the only difference is that the tungsten filter cuts out even more IR light (and also makes exposures a little longer). if you are doing art repro.. then you'll need the filters.. otherwise the IR will shift your color's dramatically (if you look on the beach in that pano, you'll see some light green kelp.. in true color, that's pretty dark brown).

I use the USB box.. and it makes a world of difference. 6000x8000 scans take about 30 seconds (given you have enough light, which is pretty controlable in the studio).

you should give Mike Colette a call at Betterlight (or email). he's the owner. they provide the best support i've seen in any product.

jim

Jim, not even 10am here in Mexico, finished my cafe con leche and logged on to the Open Forums to visit your fine work.

But back to the mechanics of things. You mentioned "not using the IR filter serves two purposes for me...."

Can tell me a bit more about an IR filter, specifically, do I need to use one with tungsten hot lights with art work photography?

The other question is: Do you use the new USB2 backs and also what should I expect in capture times for studio controlled situations? 4 min? or less/

Thanks
LeonardoBarreto.com

ps P45 kit has 0 bids ...

[Alain Briot]

Everytime I see Jim's images I feel like I need to call Betterlight and order one of their backs. But then I think about carrying a laptop in the field and that prevents me from doing it. In terms of resolution, a scanning back outdoes anything out there right now. I like the P45, but even though the tests show that it can match 4x5, I still feel more inspired with the scanning back. Eventually, that is an important aspect of what I do and of what we do if you follow the same approach. I have been very inspired by the cameras that I have used so far and I want to keep this going!

One of the things I like most about the scanning back are the "mistakes" that the back makes, which in fact become a new way of presenting the world as an image. The subsequent waves patterns in Jim's panorama is a good example. It isn't very different from using a very long exposure with film and gettting blurred surf. Certainly, the resulting images look very different from one another, however both use a specific aspect of the medium to show the world differently than it appears to our eyes.

[Asher Kelman]

Alain you are so right about the value of different approaches to taking an image use different artifacts to give their signature. I still think an angel is assigned to certain people's camera!

The laptop doesn't bother me as the demands are not great. A large hard drive and the lightest laptop one can buy. When I'm in a hotel that doesn't have a safe, I may lug all my lenses and my lap top in two bags!! Luckily that is rare. It hapenned twice on my last trip. So getting a new lightweight PB would be no real burden.

I guess the Betterlight setup would weigh liitle more than the lenses we now carry!

Asher

[JimCollum]

When travelling in SE Asia, it really wasn't something that restricted me. in some senses, it established a 'presence' in a way that people didn't mind staying out of the image while scanning. since most of the shots were in very early, overcast light, scan times tended to be 3-4 min (the longest was a12 minute pano scan.. but we were alone there.. so not a problem). i think my biggest problem was having brought both the 4x5/Betterlight outfit, and a full Canon 1dsmk2 outfit (of course.. the fact that this was our honeymoon brought some unique issues up :^)

except for the pano adapter, i can haul my full 4x5/Betterlight outfit around (Ebony SV45Te, 4 lenses, scanning back, cables, laptop, fiters, cleaning brushes) in a medium size f64 backpack.

jim

Alain you are so right about the value of different approaches to taking an image use different artifacts to give their signature. I still think an angel is assigned to certain people's camera!

The laptop doesn't bother me as the demands are not great. A large hard drive and the lightest laptop one can buy. When I'm in a hotel that doesn't have a safe, I may lug all my lenses and my lap top in two bags!! Luckily that is rare. It hapenned twice on my last trip. So getting a new lightweight PB would be no real burden.

I guess the Betterlight setup would weigh liitle more than the lenses we now carry!

Asher

[Jack_Flesher]

Jim got me into using the Betterlight and pointed this thread out to me, so I thought I'd post a few shots of some typical motion artifacts so folks can see additional examples of what can happen.

I am nowhere near as accomplished with using the Betterlight as Jim is, but am learning more every day. I did some building shots (wouldn't call them architecture!) last week and the detail is simply stunning -- better than anything I ever got from 4x5 film and I shot a lot of that! I hope to post some of the building examples with detail crops on the blog soon. I carry my Arca-Swiss view camera, five lenses, Betterlight outfit (camera, battery and control-box) and laptop in an F64 8x10 bag. This leaves plenty of room for other gear -- like film if I suspect single-frame capture will be needed.

Anyway, here is a link to my blog with images and descriptions of the motion artifacts as well as some IR comparisons you may find interesting. All are from a May shoot in Yosemite (give it a few seconds to load the page): http://web1.omniblog.com/_smartsite/modules/local/blog/blog_display.php?cmd=show_blog&user_id=102&type=cat&map_id=1011

Cheers,

[Asher Kelman]

Jack for what I see, the Betterlight and the Cooke Portrait lens are a fantastic combo.

I can't get most of the pictures on the IR landscapes to load.

The rainbow effect I didn't see on Jim's pictures of the beach. The corrections you made were by cloning?

I see this is a big challenge.

Maybe we should have a thread on Shooting water with scanning backs. After all the appearance can be so unique and wonderful while this rainbow atifact here is a real bummer!

Asher

[Jack_Flesher]

Jack for what I see, the Betterlight and the Cooke Portrait lens are a fantastic combo.

I can't get most of the pictures on the IR landscapes to load.

The rainbow effect I didn't see on Jim's pictures of the beach. The corrections you made were by cloning?

I see this is a big challenge.

Maybe we should have a thread on Shooting water with scanning backs. After all the appearance can be so unique and wonderful while this rainbow artifact here is a real bummer!

Asher

Hi Asher! I think the host site was under a demand load -- the images seem to loading fine now.

The corrections I show the crops of are not done by cloning, but globally on a layer in Photoshop. (I can provide more specific detail if there is interest.) However, this does not eliminate the more severe rainbows as seen in the moving foreground water and those require specific treatment -- and cloning is certainly one option.

The Cooke is a phenomenal lens -- it generates a look that is unlike anything else I have seen from filters or Photoshop operations. Its major shortcomings are it is big, heavy and expensive. But for me, the investment was worth it, though I do not always carry it in the bag with me. It is *really* fun in the studio!

Cheers,

[JimCollum]

i did some playing around in the field with the Cooke.. also liked the look for landscape (not all, but it does give a specific look/feel to your subject)


http://web1.omniblog.com/_smartsite/modules/local/blog/blog_display.php?cmd=show_blog&user_id=10004&type=entry&map_id=1195


jim

[Asher Kelman]

Jim,

How do these 100% crops sharpen?

Asher

[JimCollum]

Jim,

How do these 100% crops sharpen?

Asher

a mixed bag. the Cooke captures things both sharp and unsharp.. so you end up with a sharp image of the subject inside a diffuse/glow of the subject. i'm normally pretty happy with the sharpness coming out of the Betterlight (no anti alias, no interpolation, no bayer, etc), and prefer things to maintain a 'natural' sharpness than to increase it.

that said.. if you click on the 100% crops, you'll get a window with a larger (the actual) 100% crop of the image. feel free to take any of those and play with them

some more at

http://web1.omniblog.com/_smartsite/modules/local/blog/blog_display.php?cmd=show_blog&user_id=10004&type=entry&map_id=1195



jim

[Jack_Flesher]

Here is a quick detail sample from one of my dilapidated building shots from last week. The whole image was shot in 6K capture mode (6000x8000 pixels). Most interesting is this was a dark room so I had to use ISO 2000 and about a 3 minute scan time. The Betterlight Super 6K plus goes to ISO 3200 yet it has exceptional noise traits as you can see in this shot. Thre was NO noise reduction run on this image or the crop.

Here is the full frame. Note the DR looking into the very dark room behind the door. In a print you can see into this area very well:
http://jack.cameraphile.org/albums/album08/sink.jpg

And here is a crop of the faucet and sink. This is a 600x800 pixel crop at actual pixels, so it represents exactly 1/100th of the total image. You can see the noise under the sink against the green wall. I have printed this out at 24x32 inches and you cannot see that noise in the print. I have uprezzed it and printed this portion of it at an effective 48x64 inches and you can just see the noise if your nose is in the print. The detail remains phenomenal even at that print size:
http://jack.cameraphile.org/albums/album08/sink_crop.jpg

Cheers,

[leonardobarreto.com]

I am very thank full of Mike Collete from BetterLight that has accepted me in the owners forum. I don't have a scanning back, but have to find a digital capture to photograph art work for galleries.

He answer one of my most important questions regarding the (informal) feasibility study of a scanning back.

The problem that I have is that I wish to work more on location than in studio for various reasons, so the capture system has to fit well in a taxi cabs trunk.

I don't know if carbon copy Mike Collete's response here is good or bad, but probably anyone that has ever used a scanning back knows what he said and is no proprietary secret... so here it is..


A - Tungsten hot lights will work OK, but location shoots often have
problems with not having enough different circuits to power the
required
number of tungsten lights, and/or problems with AC mains voltage
variations
that can cause tungsten lights to vary in intensity during a scan,
producing
faint dark/light banding whenever the lights change brightness.
Lowel's
Tota lights sure are compact, but these little lights aren't very
efficient,
and you'll need to use four to six of these to produce enough light to
scan
a 30 x 40 inch subject (for example). Lowel's somewhat larger "DP"
tungsten
lights are much more efficient than the Tota lights, although you'd
still
probably want to use four of these (750-watt) fixtures to cover a 30 x
40
inch area.

There are much more efficient alternatives to tungsten lights that also
tend
to produce better color rendition, although these alternative lights
aren't
usually as small as tungsten fixtures. Some relatively compact
fluorescent
fixtures are now available, as well as some of the newer HID (High
Intensity
Discharge) fixtures. "

Since 30 x 40 inch is a small area, I would have to bring MORE than the 4,500 Watts (750w x 6 in case of Totas) and expect the gallery to be able to handle that much juice etc etc.

So what I'm thinking now is that shouldn't it be better to go in the one - shot back direction?

I could wait a few months, establish my practice using film and get a 22mb back for my Mamiya 645 AFD, -- may be a P25 or even a ZD from Mamiya, if the company resuscitates, that is...


... (the expressos made me do it...)

[Ray West]

Leonardo,

I suspect in a few months time, it will all be LED. I've seen low voltage, low current prototype lights (at a customer into underwater video housing manufacturing) that is smaller and brighter, lower power than anything else they can use. And, they don't get too hot (although these need a heatsink and cooling fan for video use)

I do not think this is available yet on a wide scale commercial basis.

Best wishes,

Ray

[Asher Kelman]

Leonardo,

What are the limits in the exposure you are not being able to meet? Jack's pictures do show a little noise, but are pretty good uncorrected, even on close inspection. Do you need much better than that?

Why do you need powerful lights?

Asher

[leonardobarreto.com]

Asher, I don't have the back, I just want to make a detail image in my mind of the way that a photo scanner works and what are the limitations. I know that they produce a really good image and is probably unbeatable in a studio set up, but I will have no studio and location conditions may vary from good to no so good etc.

Can you tell me your experience with hot lights please? the more info I have the best decision I can take.

Thanks

Leonardo,

What are the limits in the exposure you are not being able to meet? Jack's pictures do show a little noise, but are pretty good uncorrected, even on close inspection. Do you need much better than that?

Why do you need powerful lights?

Asher

[Asher Kelman]

Sorry, Leonardo, I use strobes!

However, from Jack's work and Jim's work, I don't see any special need for bright lights.

Asher

[leonardobarreto.com]

The diference is that I would have to make precise color corrected scans of paintings that may be 6 feets x 7 feets, with even light from corner to corner and in the center.

I would be realy happy to be able to do this with 4 500watts Totas, but from the explanation that I got from Mike Colette this may be difficult to achieve, at least on location.

thanks, leonardo

[Rainer Viertlböck]

The diference is that I would have to make precise color corrected scans of paintings that may be 6 feets x 7 feets, with even light from corner to corner and in the center.

I would be realy happy to be able to do this with 4 500watts Totas, but from the explanation that I got from Mike Colette this may be difficult to achieve, at least on location.

thanks, leonardo
i was interested to scanbacks before i went the mf route,- i thought it might work for architecture, at leastfor interior. but after some research i really thought that it will not make my life easier... and about the price,- if i buy an actual betterlight which reads fast, and all the additional costs i will need, i am not so sure that this will come out as a "cheap" solution. and.... the new 33mp eMotion delivers now detail as 4x5" or more in a quality i havent seen before. just was shooting churches where i had to reproduce the paintings at the ceiling. its so incredible good how it came out.... and it is manageable. even with 4x5".
this was always a painfull ( for my back ) thing to shoot this ceiling - images with 4x5"..... and the results were not comparable than with my new mf back.

see this 100% image of the ceiling i am speaking.

http://www.tangential.de/e75-testshots/images_fullres/bi-internet.jpg

[Rainer Viertlböck]

see also this image, i think its nearly incredible.
never you could do this with a scanback ( or with any other system in this quality ).

http://www.tangential.de/e75-testshots/images_fullres/marktleuthen-8.jpg

[Asher Kelman]

Rainer,

Wonderful! I am amazed by this picture. What was the lens used?

I'm scared to ask the price! Still, explain to those less fortunate, why Betterlight couldn't do this? IOW, what would be deficient in a scan image inside the Church. On first glance, it would seem that a scanning back should work fine in this interior shot.

For 6'x7' art your Sinar would be perfect!

Asher

[Rainer Viertlböck]

Rainer,

Wonderful! I am amazed by this picture. What was the lens used?

I'm scared to ask the price! Still, explain to those less fortunate, why Betterlight couldn't do this? IOW, what would be deficient in a scan image inside the Church. On first glance, it would seem that a scanning back should work fine in this interior shot.

For 6'x7' art your Sinar would be perfect!

Asher

hi asher,
thank you for your nice comments....

well the scanback simply will not match the exposure time of 20seconds / iso50 in the second shot.
the first shot ( the image repro ), everybody who has shot this kind of things know how hard it is to justage the camera for shots over you, if you want to bring them really in parallel. its very hard with 4x5" and much harder with a scanback..... and: you will often have the problem that even in a situation like this in the long minutes you will need to expose the image a cloud will pass or the light will change slightly, and than you will come out with stripes in your image. sometimes it may work, sometimes not.
and make a kalkulation which times you can reach with the best scanbacks,- i think more than an equ. of 1 or 2 seconds / iso100 you will not reach and even for this you will need a lot of time for the scanning.


the lense which was used in both shots is the fabulous sinaron 28HR together with the e75 also from sinar.

[JimCollum]

although the Betterlight has better noise characteristics than single capture, they don't do well in low light situations.. max is about iso 3200 @ 1/8 sec exposure on a single capture device.. and at that speed, it gets pretty noisy. low light interiors is not where i'd be using a scan back (which is why i carry a few sheets of film with me as well :^)

jim

[Jack_Flesher]

Just to help put things in perspective, the washroom scan I shared above was taken at a scan time of about 3.4 minutes at ISO 2000, which is equal to around a 1 second exposure at ISO 100 with a single-capture device.

But I should also point out there was 9+ stops of exposure difference between the lightest part of the green wall below the light-switch and the dark window in the door...

Cheers,

[leonardobarreto.com]

I'm leaning towards the one shot back for my Mamiya 645 AFD system for many reasons

-- There are new 30mp backs coming in to the market so this will bring the price of new and used 22mp backs down, there are all ready some P25 (with the H1 included) at about $13k.

-- 22mp and Mamiya optics is good enough convination.

-- Mamiya may be back in business with the value added of a software new mother firm.

-- Much more versatile system,

-- Compared to scanning back, a $10k PhaseOne P25 is better in terms of cost.

So that's it I will just wait.

I only have one question left: can this backs (one shot) be used with tungsten? I know that my Fujifilm S2 can be set to the reading in my Minolta color meter and produce a balanced image. I would be perfect to use the same lights I use for transparencies.

Leonardo

ps Rainver, I don't think that church interior is "nearly incredible", it is incredible.

[Don Lashier]

> I only have one question left: can this backs (one shot) be used with tungsten?

Sure, no problem.

- DL

[leonardobarreto.com]

DL, Is there a limit on the exposure time? there is no reciprocity failure like in film, is it?

A veteran 8x10 transparency photographer said to me that colors where capture best in film with longer times than (may be flash?) don't know if it is true with film, but what about with a digital back?

Many photographers doing reproduction plates of art work use tungsten, so I could just bring the 645AFD+back along with the Sinar in case they want film and digital and use the same set up of hot lights.

I wonder if I could offer the to shoot digital and "make" transparencies out of the files, this way they could use the digital file for catalog printing, to make slides or transparencies...

Thank you again to every one in this thread that is helping me make my business plan :)

[Jack_Flesher]

You keep mentioning reproduction of art, so I will add a few more coments...

You can WB for tungsten with any digital back, but the color of the light itself can severely limit your ability to reproduce all of the colors in the original art piece accurately. At the very least, you will have to have an excellent profile for your camera under tungsten and getting one is not an easy task. It is why HID and CCT lights are popular choices for art repro under continuous lighting. For a single capture back, a good strobe would be a much better choice -- but only IF the art director at the museum will allow you to use them.

[Don Lashier]

You can WB for tungsten with any digital back, but the color of the light itself can severely limit your ability to reproduce all of the colors in the original art piece accurately.

Jack, I assumed Leonardo was referring to studio lights which are commonly referred to as "tungsten" (probably because they're balanced to 3200k) but are in reality Halogen. Mine are Quartz, 3200k, and a CRI of around 90. Does your precaution apply to these also or just "ordinary" tungsten? I've never had a problem with color, but admittedly have not done a lot of reproduction work.

Leonardo, no, no reciprocity failure with digital.

- DL

[Jack_Flesher]

Hi Don:

When I hear tungsten, I usually do think of household bulbs in a hardware store reflector and not something like the Tota Lights ;) Anyway for critical copy work, the difference may not be enough. I am no expert in color-management, so if anybody out there is, please correct me. Here is how I understand it. Household Tungsten bulbs usually fall in at around 2800 - 2900K. A halogen/tungsten is closer to 3200K, which means more blue, but even that is still not much blue light. As a result, any object you photograph that contains significant amounts of blue won't always reproduce in print accurately since there isn't enough blue in the light for bright or saturated blues in the object to corectly reflect back to the camera. However, less saturated blues generally will do okay and this is probably why the CRI numbers look good. And it might be fine for viewing on the narrower gamut of a monitor, but may not be adequate for a printed reproduction.

This also probably isn't a problem when you are shooting subjects that don't contain much blue to begin with -- like people for example -- but I know it can be if you are trying to replicate an artwork with lots of bright and/or saturated blues and subtle transitions into the cyans and greens -- and then want to print that out as a duplicate. This is why I said a really accurate camera profile will be necesary -- and they are tough enough to build under ideal conditions, let alone under skewed light.

Cheers,

[Don Lashier]

Jack, I'm referring to professional studio lights like Photoflex and Arri (and Lowel Totas) that are commonly refered to as "tungsten" because they are balanced for tungsten film. I doubt that these would be used in studios, and for copy work, all over the world if they had serious spectrum holes.

- DL

[Don Lashier]

Hi Jack,

I did find a reference (http://www.rmimaging.com/information/color_accurate_photography.pdf) to the issue you're talking about (from Betterlight, of all places), with cobalt blue as an example. But I doubt this is an issue in most cases - tungsten (quartz) halogen lights are widely used for art copy work, googling shows that the majority of references recommend them as the lighting of choice, some preferring strobes. I prefer continuous lights because it's easier to see what's going on with reflections eliminating some trial and error.

- DL

[Jack_Flesher]

Don:

I never said halogen had spectrum holes -- that is a different and more significant problem! I realize halogen is continuous spectrum. All I am saying is it is significantly skewed to red and this makes it difficult to profile a digital camera under them accurately.

Have you by any chance profiled your digital camera under yours? If so, how well did that turn out -- what was your delta-e? I'd be really curious to have you copy a deep blue and share the result with us.

Cheers,

[Asher Kelman]

One can talk about color profiles until the cows come home.

For perfection, only using the same paint, pigment or inks will the picture look identical in all viewing conditions and at different times of the day.

Of course, there is no end to correction tables one could have for a file, but there is neither a monitor to show the image nor a printer to get a hard copy!

Just rent the best equipment you can and see how it goes with test images? The curator will tell you if it meets their standards.

Then it is much easier to respond to the following statement:

"The museum viewed my images on a calibrated Eizo XYZ monitor. They intend to print using a PQRS printer. Here are pictures taken with Phase One and Aptus backs and one scanning back using the following lights, xxxx and yyyy. The scanned image is great but lacks qqqq. I've tried these remedies, nnnn and mmmm, but they fall short."

Asher

[Don Lashier]

Of course, there is no end to correction tables one could have for a file, but there is neither a monitor to show the image nor a printer to get a hard copy!


Very true, and I think the bigger point here is that both myself and a local artist that I've done copy work for, and who also does some of his own, have noted that it's much easier to get accurate color repro with digital than with film.

For those interested in the esoterics of repro lighting, google also turned up a research paper by RIT. This was a study of whether whether museum quality repro work can be done without visual (PS) editing (http://www.art-si.org/PDFs/Acquisition/Archiving05_Berns.pdf), and the conclusion was yes (using tungsten-halogen btw). But note that cobalt blue had delta-e of 7.3 and phthalocyanine green was even higher at 8.6.

But the point here is that tungsten-halogen is considered the norm for quality repro lighting, cobalt blue problems or not. The objection I've heard about HMI is the high amounts of uv.

- DL

[leonardobarreto.com]

Grate. It is nice to come back home to so much knowledge and argument on my thread. Thanks.

Conclusions:

-- No reciprocity failure in digital world (I sort of expected it, but good any way)
-- No good to use house hold light bulbs for high end art work copy.
-- Color control is much easier with digital than film (but with continuos or flash light ??)
-- Continuous light (quartz or halogen) do not have "serious spectrum holes" (don't know exactly what this are, but seams to be better not to have them)
-- But they are deficient in blue light so there may be problems with deep blues and transition to green and/or blue-greens. (I had a problem with my first digital assignment and this exact colors but I was using flash..)
-- Quartz and halogen lights like Lowel Totas and DP are "used in studios, and for copy work, all over the world", so they work more or less ok.

Remaining question could be

* Ideal flat fine art (color) reproduction light would be flash or continuous?
(probably the answer would be the second, but with other than halogen/quartz but some "day light" source may be.

By the way, has anyone encounter problems with the color blue when is just before it becomes green? I remembered when I was asked by an ad agency to photograph a new model of disposable shaving razors, don't remember the brand. The color was that, and came out totally wrong in digital capture (with flash), when I shot a transparency, using the same light, film reproduced the color well.

thanks, leonardo

[Stephen Eastwood]

I am suprised no one has mentioned gels, gel the lights and you can use either contious or flash, if using continous it may be hot make sure they dont get to close to very old painting for long periods of time. I would say gel your lights ideally with a color meter and then set the back accordingly.

Stephen

[leonardobarreto.com]

I am suprised no one has mentioned gels, gel the lights and you can use either contious or flash, if using continous it may be hot make sure they dont get to close to very old painting for long periods of time. I would say gel your lights ideally with a color meter and then set the back accordingly.

Stephen

It is an interesting idea. With film, tungsten balanced transparency film was used, quartz lights where balanced to the K. degrees, but small differences where always there, so small corrections had to be done measuring the light with a color meter and adding a gelatin filter in the back of the 4 x 5 lens.

With digital I think that it would be inefficient to set the camera to "day light" and then convert the "tungsten" lamps also to day light because you would loose about 50% of the "intensity".

The question would be, now that we know that this lights have a deficiency of blue, would you get it back with gelatin filters either on the lens or in front of the lights? I would guess not..

[Jack_Flesher]

But note that cobalt blue had delta-e of 7.3 and phthalocyanine green was even higher at 8.6.

But the point here is that tungsten-halogen is considered the norm for quality repro lighting, cobalt blue problems or not. The objection I've heard about HMI is the high amounts of uv.

- DL

Don:

I am not saying it can't be done -- again all I am saying is that using tungsten is going to make it tough to get accurate reproductions of saturated blues and cyans. I could not find of the date of the study you linked to and a lot has changed in the last two years. The fact is a delta-e of 7 or 8 is significant by anybody's standard. It is obviously acceptable to some museums and not others -- and even becomes irrelevant if the artwork being copied only contains red :)

FTR, I indicated HID and NOT HMI lighting -- big difference in color output.

Gelling the tungsten is a good idea, but an 80B will knock a 1000 watt light down to 500 watts in a hurry ;)

Cheers,

[Don Lashier]

> I could not find of the date of the study you linked to and a lot has changed in the last two years.

February, 2005.

HID lights do look like the superior option, better spectrum, less heat, low UV - but OUCH on the price.

ps: this also begs the question (pardon improper usage), what are you trying to reproduce? The appearance of a painting in the gallery where preferred lighting is typically ~3500K halogen or the original daylight lighting only seen in the artist's studio?

- DL

[Jack_Flesher]

My experience is that there are two main types of art repro customers. The first is museums that want to display a dupe to protect the original. The second -- which usually pays more -- is an artist who is well enough recognised they can sell copies of an original work and here is where the problems start. They tend to compare the copy directly with their original before they sign it and send it off. Ususally this is done in studio and if the deep blue and blue-greens in their seascape don't look right in the copy they are not going to be satisfied...

And for sure, HID lights are not cheap -- nor are they small! But they are freaking incredible lights. Someday I'd like to land a job that justified their use and purchase :)

FWIW, in addition to Profoto strobes, I have a pair of older CCT (cold-cathode-tube) lights made by WestLight. I bought them used from an art-repro guy who bought a set of NorthLight HID 900's.

[Asher Kelman]

My experience is that there are two main types of art repro customers. The first is museums that want to display a dupe to protect the original. The second -- which usually pays more -- is an artist who is well enough recognised they can sell copies of an original work and here is where the problems start. They tend to compare the copy directly with their original before they sign it and send it off. Ususally this is done in studio and if the deep blue and blue-greens in their seascape don't look right in the copy they are not going to be satisfied...

I found one artist who had paid handsomely for her 10ft by 8ft oil painting of a path through fields and to dark woods, She had a 4x5 tranny made and printed by a most famous atelier.

The colors are different. She says that the limited editon of 5 is a new work of art and has to be viewed as such.

After all, it is not the magnificent size of the original, it is not in oil and you can't walk in to it in the same way.

The small one, however, is a special window to this world with an entirely different presence and esthetic.

To me, in fact, it is like cloning a dog, and expecting it to have the same tricks.

Not!

Asher

[leonardobarreto.com]

Thank you for the feedback, I think that when I get to NY next mont I have to go talk to potential clients and try to evaluate what exactly they want to do with the photos. When I used to do it they where in SOHO, now that is a shopping center and they almost all moved to West Chelsea. I have a friend that will rent me a desk in the 29th st on the west side, so I can walk and get to know the art community there (I think that there are more than 150 galleries)

This is contemporary art, not a lot of museums, just galleries, and I don't think that they want the images to make copies and sell them because is not popular art at all. They use the transparencies to mail to prospective buyer, to publish catalogs of shows and for insurance.

What I'm doing here is approximating what the situation may be, and because it is such a competitive city, I want to be ready for any potential challenge, and for that, as a secret weapon I have your knowledge and kind advice.

I have learned much that will be useful later, for example, that you need about 3,000 watts of tungsten lights to cover a small painting and that the situation with a scanning back may be hard on location.

So now I continue to research MF backs, if they work with flash better than tungsten (quartz or halogen) or the contrary.

I know that if you need 3k watts to make a Betterlight work on location then other photographers will face the same problem and either they found the solution or they have to be using a digital back.

so thanks again
Leonardo

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Leonardo,

This "scanning backs" are insertsall most the size of a 4 x 5 Polaroid back that has a set of tree sensor with color filters for Red Green and Blue and scan the film plane to capture the image.
Thanks. That's what I might have thought, but I was not sure.

Best regards,

Doug

[Jack_Flesher]

Just for clarity, the "three sensor with color filters" is called a 'Tri-linear array'.

Cheers,

[leonardobarreto.com]

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/p45-long.shtml

Digital capture is here to stay, but everything is so new and changing that information is hard to find. For example, I asked in this thread if digital backs are as good with tungsten (or any other "hot" continuos source) and nobody here objected to the notion, even some stated that "Sure, no problem." ( Don Lashier www.lashier.com)

But... there seams to be a problem with digital backs and continuos light source photography. That is the reason I's posting and scanning a few forums (DPReview.com, LL, PhaseOne owner's and here) and that is to make the best decision on the direction of my approach BEFORE i even begin my reinsertion to the field.

There is also this interesting real life anecdote that I want to CC here because it may be relevant to the thread

""Hi all,

I just bid on an architectural contract to shoot some images of properties for a moderately high end property sales client. They were for publication up to B4 size (25cmx35.3cm).

After consulting their (in my opinion rather excessive) requirements I proposed hiring a P45 digital back setup for the 2 days. However, I lost the job to another photographer. The reason for this I was told was because of the superior quality and resolution of his images as he was using a Betterlight 8K-HS back.

I'm not sure that this makes sense really as a scanning back seems very unwieldy. Could this just be because they are used to people shooting 4x5 rather than any real understanding of the image quality they actually need ?

Would be interested to hear the views of other architectural photographers ... Thanks :)

Mark. """

The way I'm thinking now is:

-- I know that I will work on location and alternate from 4x5 and 8x10 transparency work shot with hot lights/tungsten film
-- Bringing a separate flash system may not be the most efficient way to work considering the time to set up for tungsten, rap up that and set up strobe lights etc.

-- Only the newer $30k models of backs are good for longer exposures, and my budget requires under-$10k solutions--

Conclusion (so far) would be to consider AGAIN a scanning back.

This would be a perfect companion to 4x5 film, with the same lenses, tripod, camera etc and 4 Norman Allure 1,000 watts each (this cost $100 each) and start the business with a $6,500k plus $400 solution.


Leonardo

ps: advice please

[Asher Kelman]

Leonardo,

A lot depends on the market you are in. How much was being paid for each picture taken where the Betterlight took the client?

I just spent an evening with a serious art collector who gets his 4x5 tannies from an old timer downtown. Apparently the photographer does just fine art photography using film and is busy all day at $28 per transparency.

Now I realize that getting a file is one stop more, but that price from an expert would be tough to beat!

I'll try to visit his studio and tell him to raise his prices!

I have no doubt that other photographers charge much more, but at least this example shows that competition might effect your commercial model.

I like the idea of working with what you now own plus, rented equipment, before putting down hard cash.

Of course, if you know really your market, then there's no problem in what you buy.

Asher

[leonardobarreto.com]

I'm going to star with transparencies, I think that this particular field is has not gone digital yet, I promise not to buy anything before a few months in NY, but what I can do and I'm doing is to learn everything there is to know in terms of the present and future alternatives to 4x5 and 8x10 transparency art work photography.

The economic side of the equation is an important one, same also applies to work flow. for example: it is not un common for photographers doing this type of work to use tungsten, so in order of being able to shoot film and digital, the scanning back is more productive because it can use the same tungsten set up.

I think that offering clients 4x5 AND digital files of high resolution at an affordable price may be more attractive than just one or the other.

They could use the digital immediately, save on scanning cost/time/effort, and the quality of direct capture may be better than the scanned transparency.

The 4x5, on the other hand could be FedExed to a client that is used to considering art acquisition with a good loupe, and a light-box. Also the 4x5 could be stored for long term inventory and/or insurance purposes.

thanks, leonardo

ps: coffe=postaholism

[Asher Kelman]

So Leonardo,

Can you share the price ranges you see out there? Further, there must be personal knowledge of the photographer that overcomes price differences.

I'll try to get more information for Los Angeles!

Asher

[leonardobarreto.com]

Asher, I'm not sure I understand your question, but my experience as an assistant to a $200k/year art work photo exclusive photographer is that he shot a lot of 8x10 and is was more than $100 per click. When I went on my own I was doing more 4x5's, and charging a lot less, but, as I said, I have to see how the market is now and charge accordingly. But if you want to check prices, there is http://www.thesohophotographer.com/rates.html

One 4x5 on location of a 2d $82.50 and 8x10 is only $145 or if installation, sculpture $190
... the best part is this "*A minimum of $600.00 of work needs to be photographed per location in Manhattan. Contact us for quotes on locations outside of Manhattan. There will be an additional charge for transportation."

There is no digital option other than "Rates for scanning"...


So Leonardo,

Can you share the price ranges you see out there? Further, there must be personal knowledge of the photographer that overcomes price differences.

I'll try to get more information for Los Angeles!

Asher

[Asher Kelman]

I certainly should visit the guy in L.A. and invite him into the new millenium!

I feel better already!

Asher

[Jack_Flesher]

FWIW, I have heard that going rates for Betterlight scans of flat artwork run in the $100 - $150 range, more for 3D work.

Incidentally, one of the big issues seems to be the ability to capture the texture of the brush or palette knife strokes in a believable fashion. This usually requires a broad directional light-source and then you have falloff across the image to deal with. Obviously somebody shooting film will not deal with this but perhaps the scanning service will -- and I'd suspect at additional cost :)

PS: Once you've seen a Betterlight true-color scan compared directly to a Bayer-color single capture, you will be hard-pressed to accept the Bayer image. And since artwork does not move and can be photographed in a controlled environment, the Betterlight becomes an ideal capture device for this application -- so I am not surprised the P45 shooter lost the job to the Betterlight shooter.

Cheers,

[leonardobarreto.com]

Thank you Jack for your reply

I like the idea of $100/shot, so, so far so good.
Also your description of the color differences from scanning to one shot methods is very convincing and makes sense.

The problem that made me consider the MF backs and was the potential problem with location work and required light.

Art work now a days tend to be large, and I wold have to be ready for any and all requirement by the gallery.

In other words, how many 1000watts Norman Allure laps can I bring alone to an unspecified assignment of scanning 2d and 3d?

Thanks, Leonardo

[ADam_Brown]

I am selling 4 BUHL Soft Cube HID Copy Lights. These lights are in excellent condition and have been lightly used in our studio for photographing and reproducing 2D art work. They are the same design as the Northlight HID lights. Please email me at adam@osiobrown.com for more information.

[Jack_Flesher]

I cannot speak to the Normans since I have never used them, but I can tell you I could do a pretty decent repro job up to a 40" x 50" print on location with my two 1000-watt Westlights. You could do it with one 900 Watt Northlight HID, but they are *NOT* a portable solution!

FWIW, lets discuss lighting needs with the Betterlight for a minute:

My 'normal' working ISO with the Betterlight super 6K in the field is around 1200 in low light. I have used ISO 2000 with very little visible noise (see the sink crops earlier in this thread -- they were taken at ISO 2000 and about a three-minute scan time). It will go up to ISO 3200, though that gets a bit noisy. With the BL, your line-time determines your total scan time, so even if you have to drop down to a line time of 1/40th sec, your total scan time is still only about 3 minutes (in standard 6000x8000 capture mode). Flat art does not require a lot of DoF and copy lenses tend to work best just a few stops down from their maximum apertures, so your wider apertures are usually fine; say f8 -- f11 with a good copy lens. 1/40th @ f11 and ISO 1200 does not require a huge amount of light so 2000 watts should be adequate. However, to connect this back to the earlier discussion, if you end up having to filter your tungsten-halogens with 80B gels, you will effectively knock out a full stop of output taking 2000 watts down to 1000. (FTR the Betterlight scanning back comes with both a daylight IR block filter and a Tungsten IR block filter suitable for tungsten lighting.)

Cheers,

[leonardobarreto.com]

This could be good, it is very portable and affordable. I could use them with tungsten film and may be the Better Light. To keep the location not to hot I could compose and focus using the 350 watt and then ad the other 650 watt halogen bulb at scan time.

Is a crazy idea or could work?



http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/largeimages/245489.jpg

The Allure C1000 is a constant light source that is great for video and still imaging. Variable output at a constant color temperature makes it the right choice for digital applications. The Allure C1000 system is also available in convenient kits.

The Allure effectively "dims" the light without changing color temperature by putting two bulbs inside one diffusion globe. This fixture includes a 350 watt, and a 650 watt, glass base, bi-pin halogen bulb. When lit at the same time, the Allure provides 1000 total watts.

[Asher Kelman]

However, to connect this back to the earlier discussion, if you end up having to filter your tungsten-halogens with 80B gels, you will effectively knock out a full stop of output taking 2000 watts down to 1000. (FTR the Betterlight scanning back comes with both a daylight IR block filter and a Tungsten IR block filter suitable for tungsten lighting.)
Cheers,
So, Jack, for the Tungsten IR block filter, how much light is lost?

Asher

[Jack_Flesher]

Under tungsten, that filter loses about 1/2 stop more than the regular IR cutoff filter. By itself, it is about a 1-1/3 stop loss over no filter.

[Jack_Flesher]

This could be good, it is very portable and affordable. I could use them with tungsten film and may be the Better Light. To keep the location not to hot I could compose and focus using the 350 watt and then ad the other 650 watt halogen bulb at scan time.

Is a crazy idea or could work?


I think you need to first do some research and see if the typical gallery owner will allow you to use hot lights on their artwork. Second, you should ask what they think of a 4x5 film transparency versus a digital file. If you get a thumbs-up on both, then the above kit may work fine...

[leonardobarreto.com]

I worked as an assistant to a busy art-repro-only photographer (in the film era) and I never saw him use anything other than 4 Lowel-Totas. He worked for midtown and downtown, including the top galleries there are. So I never thought that there could be a problem with hot lights.

With digital or not, I think that I should be able to offer transparencies, but help them to transition to digital where it will all end up sooner or later.

So the debate on going all the way digital for galleries would be this...

Cons of digital:

-- Issues of cataloguing and archiving digital images for 10 - 20 or more years.
-- Custom of sending 8 x 10 transparency of expensive painting to prospective collectors as "is done"
Pros..
-- You can make transparencies out of digital files -- i think -- and archive that on top of dig. file?
-- Same with 8 x 10...
-- An original scan is always better than a scan of film because is one less loose step.
-- You can make slides out of digital files, as many copies as needed and send them with out worry of not coming back.
-- Integration with other processes and media like web content, etc

So the idea is going to the client and telling them: you can do it the old fashion way or accept change and go digital, and I can do that for you.

so lets see what they say...

by the way, has anyone made a LF transparency out of a Betterlight scan??

thanks, leonardo

[leonardobarreto.com]

http://www.horsemanusa.com/digital/SWD.html

so much more elegant than this http://www.horsemanusa.com/digital/LD.html




... but the sexiest and most elegant ...

http://www.nphotoworks.jp/gazou/Factory/018/018.html#http://www.nphotoworks.jp/gazou/Factory/018/018_data/018_007.jpg

[Asher Kelman]

Leonardo,

Look up Sinar too!

Asher

[leonardobarreto.com]

Asher, this is strictly window shopping.

I am not convinced in which way to go for digital capture of art repro

Scanning back solutio is about $10k (about 500/month 2 years to pay), this include 4 second hand BHULs and the cheapest entry level Betterlight -- I have trypod, stands, Sinar, color meter, light meter etc)
The downside here is that this equipment is good for this an architecture, and I want to have options in case I want to do other type of photography.

The MF DB solution is attractive: I have 645 AF system with 3 AF lenses. I think that have to start with at least a 22 MP like a PhaseOne P 25. I have checked, and a 1 year warranty P 25 Mamiya mount goes for $14,500. The other alternative is the RZ that could cost new about $11,000 but the best would be a ZD back so that I could use with a Sinar adaptor and some digital view camera optics for architectural and interior.

The problem with the one shot back is that they may have difficulty doing long exposures w/out generating noise.

The good thing is that it is a much more dynamic and versatile solution. I could shoot with flash plus available light i case of installations and sculpture. I could also photograph people or rent the camera to a paparazzo friend that does fashion every now an then to help pay for the back (and may be to upgrade later to a P 45)

So this is what I'm thinking now a days ... a lot of thinking and not much photographing ... I'm packing my things here in Mexico City and getting ready to be in New York City....



Leonardo,

Look up Sinar too!

Asher

[Asher Kelman]

Leonardo,

These problems are overcome with the first hige deal. However, for now, why not rent a back for your Contax and try different lighting. Just walk into a gallery and offer them 10 free pictures as your are testing your system.

I made up a motto for myself, years ago, "Don't think! Try!" Too many photographers suffer from digitalism, at the inteface between different technology and price ranges. The cure is to be practical and just start using from the least expensive up.

Asher