It's time to go digital. The Canon with 16MP will give you sharp prints up to 4x6 feet or larger, and you don't have to mail anything, just send your digital file to your printer by email.
It's time to go digital. The Canon with 16MP will give you sharp prints up to 4x6 feet or larger, and you don't have to mail anything, just send your digital file to your printer by email.
Wilhelm (Sarasota)
Ok, even I won't accept this nonsense. The Canon 1Ds Mk2 will not give you a sharp 6 foot print. For high quality work, 36" is the max....30" is better.....and by email??? What?Originally Posted by Bill_1856
That is not an acceptable recommendation.
Sorry, David, but you're way behind the times.
Wilhelm (Sarasota)
I'd have to agree with Bill. I routinely make digital photgraphs of clients murals using a Canon 5D and using it on a Sinar P with a Schneider 90mm Super Angulon lens. Sometimes I make up to about 9 such "scans" and stitch them together in PS. I then make the prints on my Epson 9600 using Qimage for the print processing. With Qimage, pixals can be re interpolated up to 49 feet lengths! Yes, that's feet. They may not be exactly perfect to the original, but I will put money that if you put both images under glass and stand three feet away you couldn't tell which is which. This can be done very economicaly as well. As for e-mailing large files...how does sending 1 gb files sound? There are several free services that will do this. "You Send It" comes first to mind.
Last edited by Greg Lockrey; 14-Jul-2006 at 20:37.
Greg Lockrey
Wealth is a state of mind.
Money is just a tool.
Happiness is pedaling +25mph on a smooth road.
Savanna,
It sounds like you've got a huge challenge in front of you but it'll be rewarding when it all comes together. FWIW, I agree with most of the posters here and, personally speaking, I'd go 4x5.
If you decide to go this route, I'd second the recommendation for purchasing your gear through Jim at Midwest Photo Exchange. He's a great guy to deal with and won't lead you down the garden path.
Good luck!
Cheers
Life in the fast lane!
Re: shooting fine art
One of the funniest things I've read in a long time.
I've read through all these posts. It's my opinion that you just need to hire a photographer or a repro house to tackle the job. It WON'T be cheap. But it'll be a HECK of a lot cheaper than buying your own equipment and then dealing with the learning curve to get a good reproduction out of it. FIRSTLY - you're going to need a warehouse for the lighting setup (which will be a VERY involved setup - understatement!) unless you use natural light somehow. But have some (talented & experienced!) people come out to bid on the work and see what you're dealing with. Just trying some 'pro' lights and just about any camera setup are going to yield some very disappointing results, I feel. You're going to have to be MANY tens of thousands of dollars into equipment before you start getting in the ballpark at all. If anyone here's tried to EVENLY light a 49' length of wall before using only artificial light - you'll grasp what I mean. If anything - it would have to be an outdoor job.
Read what JM Sullivan worte. Nearly ALL large museums use a Betterlight scanning back to repro their fine art, manuscripts and even 3D art like pottery. The newer backs are outstanding, the Super 6k-2 can scan up to 9000x12000 pixels while the 8K-2 can scan up to 12000x16000 pixels. These backs fit into a normal 4x5 camera just like a filmholder. The main reason these are preferred is the INCREDIBLE detail they provide along with the ability to accurately white balance -- far more accurate color than anything you can get from scanned film.
In addition to the back you will need a sturdy 4x5 camera. A multitude of movements are not necessary as you only need the front and rear standards precisely parallel to each other and those parallel to the work you are scanning. The Sinar P is a popular choice, as is the Toyo GII (The base tilts on the GX give up some rigidity between the standards over the GII), as is the Arca. Here an Arca classic is fine because again you don't need much in the way of movements.
In addition to the back and camera you will need a sturdy camera support -- big studio stand preferred over a tripod; a Zig-align (aligns the standards and insures your camera is square to the artwork); and good lights. Hot lights will work, but heat up your studio in a hurry when working under them, so cold lights are favored. The best are going to be HID style lighting like those from Northlight. Expensive, but very stable on color output.
Surprisingly, learning to set your lighting optimally for the specific piece of work and then setting a precise white balance are the major technical hurdles to overcome.
Robert Payne, you have a lot to learn, as I did until I saw it for myself.
Wilhelm (Sarasota)
Bill,
I own a 1Ds Mk2. It is not capable of a 6 foot wide reproduction of art that is sharp. Sorry, but a 69dpi print is not considered sharp by any means. I wouldn't even produce portraits with such low resolution. If by meaning behind the times I don't accept a soft, mushy prints, then you're right. You'd be the first person to claim sharp 6 foot prints from that camera that I have ever met. Six feet is a stretch for 4x5 drum scanned film.
A 1 Ds MK2 is not suitable for that type of work. Period!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks