shooting fine art

[Savanna]

Hello All,
I’ve browsed the archives until I’m more confused than ever.

I’m hoping a couple of you, that have years of experience shooting Fine Art, can advise.

I’m an Artist; I paint mostly large wildlife, rainforest and reef paintings that edge on realism. I paint detail, by large I mean mural size, 4’x5’ being my smallest and a 10’x24’ being my current largest on canvas.

With the new technology I can offer my clients full size reproductions. It’s a wonderful new avenue for me, but stumping me with surprising new problems! I live in the Caribbean, yes few drawbacks there except for the availability of resources, extreme shipping cost and the quality photographers have all gone digital! The problems before 9-11 were difficult enough. Shipping rolled canvases to the USA to be shot was a costly headache but an option (along the way hoping they were not damaged). since 9-11 that is mostly out of the question, and now my even-larger paintings (too large to roll) are in demand. Touch wood, that is not a complaint, I enjoy the challenge, though now I am faced with shooting my own work. An old dog learning yet another new trick, which I know I am eventually capable of, but it does take time away from what I get paid to do, so I need to be efficient in my learning and in the tools I buy. I’ve ordered books from Amazon and hope they cover the basics of “how to” shoot and lighting etc., but the mail is slow and I’m impatient… more my clients are. I need expert advice.

In the past I had my paintings professionally photographed to a 4x5 transparency. Back then my re-prints were at max - a 4’x5’ Giclee on Canvas, at 400dpi. I’m now looking at extreme enlargements of large detailed paintings, how far can I push the 4x5 format before it disintegrates? My 10’x24’ oil painting is in panels, that I can shoot individually, providing I can re-create lighting consistency between the shots. For an example: Can I shoot a 6’x 10’ painting and reproduce that to a 6’x10’ size with a 4x5 transparency, at a minimum of 300dpi, or do I need to jump to the 8x10 format?

I’ve looked through the forum for a recommended equipment list, from the camera up, for shooting artwork, and have gleaned info on lenses but not much else on this subject, at least that I can understand. I will be shooting the work indoors unless it is a true on location mural. I do have the option of shooting my paintings outdoors if it will produce more accurate color?

Going by what I’ve read here in the Forum…
I’m currently looking at a buying a Tachihara 4x5 or if advised an 8x10 with a 4x5 reducer when needed. Are there big advantages to this system? The cost is almost double.
210mm G Claron lens, Kodak EPN Film, Kodak Q14 chart…
I’m still clueless as to the rest, light meter, lights (not tungsten or fluorescents, but what?) Polarizing filters, Polaroid film type 54, and the Polaroid holder 545 (will that work with this camera?) I need advice down to the tripod…

This is a costly new bite for me to chew on; in both time spent and working within a tight budget. I do want to cut time/cost corners where it is possible. I’m considering buying the camera new because of the shipping cost and insurance. (Fed-Ex is well over $100 each way and nothing else in insurable, I don’t want to be testing and returning items). I see less risk ordering used for the other equipment, am I wrong?

Truly what I don’t know would take too much space to even ask. I’m hopping some of you won’t mind recommending a basic equipment list. Any suggestions, on quality reliable sources for buying used, is also appreciated. I’m certain I will need things I am not aware of. I’ve had basic experience with my 35mm and that’s it.

This is a long and involved request. I appreciate any professional advice offered.
If it is not appropriate to answer this long of inquiry on the Forum, I can be e-mailed at savannasgallery@yahoo.com

Thank You,
Savanna

[Ralph Barker]

Welcome to the forum, Savanna. It sounds like you have an interesting adventure in front of you.

There are several people on the forum who produce large color prints from digital scans, and many far more familiar with the process than I. Until they see your post, and have an opportunity to respond, let me get you started with a few thoughts.

It seems to me that you may want to determine a couple of things prior to selecting a format and camera gear. First, is how and where to get the color film developed. Your local labs may not be able to process large format. If not, you'll need to explore mailing the exposed film to the mainland for processing, or setting up your own processing, probably using a Jobo system. Second, I'd suggest determining your printer before selecting a format, too. Talk to them about the optimum input resolution required for the print sizes you're looking at, and then use that info to determine the drum-scan resolution you'll need. Assuming a fairly fine-grained film, like Fuji Provia or Astia, my guess would be that you'll run out of additional detail somewhere between 4,000 and 6,000 DPI. The real experts here can probably give you a better answer, though. As such, you may need to go to 8x10 to get the resolution you need for finely-detailed originals.

If you go for 8x10, you'll want to look at one for which a 4x5 reducing back is easily available. There, you might consider a used Toyo 810G, which pop up on eBay from time to time. The 810G is a monorail design, which should be fine for the studio-style work you'll be doing. The 4x5 reducing back will enable you to use both 4x5 film when you wish, and will accommodate the 4x5 Polaroid back (545i or 545-pro), which will be handy for testing.

Lighting wise, my suggestion would be to go with large-ish studio strobes, probably in soft boxes to even out the light. Personally, I've found WhiteLightning (http://www.white-lightning.com/) strobes to be good value for the money, and use their X3200s for my main lights. Note that with a view camera, you can do multiple "pops" on the strobes to get the light level you need. You'll want at least two lights, along with the accessories.

For a light meter, I like the Sekonic line (e.g. their L-558 or similar earlier models), but any good flash meter with incident capability would suffice.

The optimum tripod choice will be determined by the camera size and weight. I like the Bogen 3046 legs, which have a center-strut system for better stability. I'd also suggest the use of a secondary support bar, clamped between the monorail and the tripod, or a second, lighter tripod to support the front of the rail.

[Bruce Watson]

I'd love to see some of your work. But... back to the topic at hand.

For context, I'm a drum scanner operator.

The problem with digital printing of very large print sizes comes down to file size. The limitation is primarily from existing image editors like Photoshop, and existing OSes (PC, Mac). The reality is that you can't easily work with files larger than about 2.0Gb. Until we get 64bit OSes and image editors, you are stuck with that limit.

The implication here is that going to 10x8 film isn't going to get you that much over sticking with 5x4. If I were to scan a 5x4 original at 5000ppi 8bit (sticking with chromes), it would result in a file size of:

(5 in x 5000ppi)(4 in x 5000ppi)(3 [RGB])(1 byte [IOW 8bits]) = 1.5GB

You can see that you eventhough 10x8 film has 4x the area as 5x4 film, you aren't going to be able to scan much larger than 5x4 film. Such is the laws of physics.

So... I'd stick with 5x4 film, and accept that you are going to have to print in sections.

If you have a first class drum scan from someone who understands how to get the maximum out of a drum scanner and has a drum scanner that will deliver (for you, that means something sharper than a Tango - something like an Aztek Premier, one of the new ICGs, a high end ScanMate, or an Optronics ColorGetter 3 Pro), and you are using a fine grained chrome film, I'm thinking you can probably print that up to a maximum of about 15x enlargement, or about 75 x 60 in (190 x 152 cm) You will of course have to make some prints and decide for yourself how much enlargement you can stand - print quality is something you'll have to judge for yourself.

Now the problem becomes finding someone with a grand format printer that can make panels as large as you want.

It's a formidable task you have set for yourself. It will take lots of your time. You've got plenty of learning curves to climb. The reproductions are going to cost a pile of money. But it's all doable if you really want to. Just make sure it's worth it to you.

[Ron Marshall]

Check the prices of used digital scanning backs, such as Betterlight.

The initial cost is high, but no need to scan.

[Savanna]

Wow,
I wasn’t expecting a reply on this for days, I was still searching the forum for info.

I realize now I should have answered couple questions up front…
I will fed-ex the film to L.A. to be processed and drum scanned. I’ve seen good reviews on www.aandi.com and picked their brains, I like their customer service so far.
Other printers that I’ve used require my image to be on disk and scaled to size.
I have a printer that can print up to 8’ wide to 14’ or more in length on canvas, and another that can print a Giclee on wood or aluminum up to a 4x8’ sheet panels which can then be pieced together to recreate the larger interior murals needed in resort hotels, restaurants and villas (which are my #1 clients). My 4th printer (sad one can't do it all) can re-create my oils digitally onto kiln-fired tile, so they can be used in-doors or out, in swimming pools, spas, baths, kitchen and barbeque/bar areas and exterior entry areas.

One of the largest problems of any artwork in the tropics is humidity, sun and insects that eat at even the best conservation methods… I’m trying to overcome these issues and size has become my only snag this year. I can paint an original almost any size. These printers can now (in sections) match me, and resort owners won’t have to replace their faded artwork every10 years. The combination should work well for both of us. IF I can get over this hump.

I’ve sent the 4x5 transparencies that I had to Aandi this week to be drum scanned onto a DVD to a max size for each image. Fingers crossed. They will also be doing a few traditional Giclees for me so I will see the print quality. I have years of experience with limited edition prints and Giclees, but always in the past had a pro shoot my work... I've watched, ha, that's my only experience. For what I've paid over the years for the shoot and shipping, the cost will quickly recovered.

My web site is being revamped this week, to move gracefully (I hope) into this larger more focused pond, but I would be grateful for feedback when it is up and running.

I’m happy to hear at least for the moment the 4x5 may be sufficient.

Thank you, I look forward to your replies.

Savanna

[Henry Ambrose]

I suggest you look at this:
http://chromatics.com/Serv-ArtCopy.htm (http://chromatics.com/Serv-ArtCopy.htm" target="_blank)

They can scan up to 4x6 foot originals. I think you will get --much-- better reproductions this way than shooting film and scanning. The downside is that you will have to ship your originals.

Chromatics can also print your reproductions in several different ways and archive your files for you for subsequent printing on demand. I've used them for years for film processing and they give great reliable service.

I used to be "the guy in town" to do this kind of scanning and did work for museums and display companys that was often used over ten feet tall - I think up to sixteen feet! I was using a regular scanning camera and stitching the shots together to get enough resolution but Chromatic's machine is much superior. It is, in effect, a HUGE flatbed scanner.

On the other hand, if you are looking for justification to buy a camera don't let me stand in your way! Get an 8x10!

[George Stewart]

Since your art is static by nature, that is it doesn't move when photographed, why not shoot the items with a digital SLR camera, especially considering your remote location and the expense of Fedexing, developing, scanning and reshipping.

Here is my recommendation: get a Canon 5d, a good lens (non zoom), and a heavy tripod that will allow the camera to be leveled. Then photograph the art mosaic-style. This means take as many images as you feel comfortable with (3 overlapping images in the vertical and 5 overlapping images in the horizontal for example, for a total of 15 images). Then take these images into a computer and either use Photoshop or panorama software to assemble the final art work. You can get some information at http://www.panavue.com.

Although this is a more expensive alternative in the short term, the flexibility is greater. You can manually set the camera for white balance and exposure so that the color and details match what the art looks like regardless of where it is photographed and under what type of lighting. By mosaicing the image, the quality should be as good if not better than 4x5 scanned film. It will require care and thought to keep the camera parallel and at the same distance to the art during each image. Perhaps you could leave the camera stationary and have several places on the same wall to hang the image so that it could be repositioned prior to each shot. If you have a 35mm film camera, or even a simple digital camera, you could try this to see if it would work for you, prior to investing in a higher end digital camera.

[David Karp]

We have at least one participant on the forum who does this for a living. He has chimed in on these topics before, so it would be helpful if he joins in.

If you go the 4x5 or 8x10 route, I would recommend a monorail over the cameras you mentioned. They are designed for studio use, and you can get good used studio monorails used for a good price right now. The Toyo Ralph mentioned is a good candidate.

[Steven Nestler]

Savanna,

For what it's worth, here are some observations;

1. I see no advantage in your going 8X10 with a reducing back; there are many disadvantages.
2. The advice you've been given about a monorail is good advice.
3. I have a friend who provides the sort of services you need. Along with the other names you've been given, I would call Marc Sitkin at Digital Momentum. He's the best I've seen. http://digitalmomentum.com

Good luck,
Steven

[Stan. Laurenson-Batten]

Hello Savanna.

I am an artist that photographs my own and others work to about six feet sq.

As far as equipment is concerned I find 5x4 the most useful for work to about 2 sq. mtr.
For mural type sizes a 10 X 8 format is better but has the complications of limited film stock.

In the past few years I have managed to copy all work using 5x4 with velvia 50 film which I use for all work be it in colour sepia or plain graphite.

I process using the jobo Cpp2 which gives me total control over the final tone of the copy.

So, as far as camera equipment is concerned you can get exellent results from the very basic 5X4 camera with a good firm support system. You should have no problems with a suitable lens, there are many good buys second hand. The lens I use most is a Sch.Apo Symmar 'L' 300mm but a 150mm will also cover most situations.

Now, this is where I differ from most:

I use ambient light only with reflectors. I am careful to choose the time of day and the conditions to suite. My choice is usually two or three hours each side of mid-day and a haze covered sky.
The positionaing of the art work to the light is also important but as you are an artist you will
be aware of this.

Once you have made a few copies of art work on various supports your confidence will grow with a serendipitous buzz. Best wishes. Stan. L-B

[John Hoenstine]

Hi Savanna,

I do photography a lot of artwork. Fine paintings are sold by sending large format (4x5 and 8x10) transparencies to the client. The standard film for photographing artwork is Kodak's EPY which is a tungsten balanced film. I don't know the contrast of EPN but EPY is low enough in contrast to work well with paintings. Tungsten lights are cheaper than strobes and the only other choice is what Stan L-B recomended which also works well with daylight film. For paintings that large I would recommend a at least 4 and probably 6 lights. Buy sheats of polarizer filters from Edmund Scientific (one sheat will filter two lights when cut in half). Polarize both the lights and the lens in a darkened room. Find the biggest and heavyest tripod you can afford. They are probably cheap on Ebay because unless your are only in the studio everyone else wants the lightest they can get away with - Magestic or Stanford and Davis might be good choices. As for film size usually bigger is better but I don't have much experience with scanning so place more weight on other answers.

Good Luck

[Paul Moshay]

Savanna, I photograph artwork for a living, as Dave Karp said, and have done so for 14 years now. The ideas presented so far are all good, a very heavy tripod at least or a camera stand, like the Cambo, if you can afford it, sure makes the work much easier. A monorail camera like a Toyo, which can be had quite cheaply nowdays. Make sure it has a gridded groundglass to insure squareness of the image. The best film is Kodak EPN, it comes in 4x5 and 8x10 and has the longest tonal scale and lowest contrast and scans well, EPY works well too but is a warmer color balance and slightly higher in contrast, but is necessary if using tungsten lamps. The GClaron line of lenses is perfect for this work but any modern APO multicoated lens will be fine, and will be brighter on the GG as the GClaron is f9. I use A & I for my film processing, they are very good and deliver on time. It is necessary to have one lab process your film as each lab can have slight color and density differences, I know they are all Kodak Q Labs but there are tolerances and that can drive you crazy chasing your tail with the variables. Unless you run a lot of film I suggest sending the film to a good lab. Lighting such large art is an art in itself, the light needs to be within one third of a stop all over the image to get quality reproductions. You may take the advise of another poster to photograph the art in sections and scan then join them together in PS for the final printing, that way a 4x5 will hold better detail. Doing the work in daylight has it's own problems such as cloud cover or other inclement weather and the color balance will change by the minute, so I advise all controled lighting indoors. There are 5000k flourescent lamps and that is what I use in my studio. I built two light banks with ten two lamp fixtures, twenty tubes each side, and that gives 1 second at f22 at 6 feet from the artwork. I balance for each lot of film with the Calumet polyester gels. Any more help I can give just email me. Paul

[Savanna]

Thank you for all your advice,
I have copied pages of notes and am off to search for the equipment.

For what I’m looking for, you seem to all agree, buying used isn’t a bad option?
I’ve decided to start with the 4x5 and see how that goes this year.
I’m not into E-Bay but can you suggest reliable “used” dealers for me to start with.
I’m wary of what I pull up at random on the Internet.

Thank you all for your assistance.
Savanna

[Ellis Vener]

My recommendations for a camera are a Sinar p2 4x5 or a4x5 Arca-Swiss F or FC.

I second the recommendation of a Better Light scanning back. There are many reasons for this instead of using film but better color fidelity larger contrast range and more detail, along with instant near real time feedback are the prime ones. The digital file you shoot wil be a first generation color corrected image not a second generation scan.

look at the new Rololight Fluorescent lights for lighting .

[Savanna]

Just to bounce a couple thoughts back.
A couple of you have suggested digital and the Better Light scanning back (I admit I don’t know what that is and I’ll look it up today).

I did try the digital “piecing” option twice this last year, for lack of better options here, and with professional photographers. The first was a total unusable disaster and the second photographer assured me he could do it better, it still wasn’t up to par, the piecing was far from seamless. Their digital could not yet match the 4 x 5 film (even scanned) when it came to clarity for the larger re-prints. They were using what I thought were the most current digital systems… Have things changed that much in a year, where I need to consider it? For the simplicity I would love to cut out the whole middle process, but I don’t want to trade quality for it.

I did look up the software for piecing photos, that may have been a huge help…

Looking forward to your advice,
Savanna

[Ralph Barker]

Although I'm certainly not an expert in the area, I'd think that stitching together multiple digital images, while attractive from a theoretical perspective, would have numerous practical problems to resolve. Aside from the issue of joining the individul digital images, consistency in exposure and color balance between the images would need to be maintained. Thus, even minor fluctuations in line voltage to the light sources, and slight variations in shutter speed accuracy would produce variations between the images that would require correction prior to stitching.

[David Karp]

Savanna,

I think you can find excellent cameras used. I recommend looking at used Toyos, Cambos, and Sinars. If you can find a used Sinar P or P2 in good shape, they are going for a fraction of their former value and are just wonderful cameras. They are the ultimate in studio LF cameras. There are also lots of used Toyo and Cambo cameras out there that will be even less expensive and will serve your needs very well. In addition, so many of these cameras appear to have been sold over the years that there are many many relatively inexpensive accessories available for these cameras. Toyo C and G cameras and Cambo Legend cameras may be good alternatives. Arca Swiss makes great cameras, but they seem to still be in demand and command higher prices than the Sinar cameras. An alternative might be an older model Arca, but beware, not all current accessories work with the older Arcas.

For a great used LF camera dealer, call Jim Andracki at Midwest Photo Exchange in Columbus, OH. Look for the number at www.mpex.com. Tell him you heard about him on the LF Forum. He will treat you right and give you good advice. Tell him what you want to do. He will be able to set you up with the right equipment, including a used lens.

Good luck. Let us know what you do.

[Savanna]

Sorry for the delay,
I was away on business and had to put the learning and searching on hold... I'm back at it.
Thank you all again for your advice. It is a small world, I contacted Chromatics to solve a problem of getting a 4 x 5' piece (that is on canvas) shot asap, and the owner Mike is here in the V.I., I'm meeting up with him and his wife tomorrow.
You all have taken some of the fear out of the process of diving in the deep end with the big kids. I know I will have more questions as I start to search, (I'll be searching the used market places this week). my books have not arrived but then I just received my September Bank statement...

Sincere thanks and good wishes for all of your artistic projects,
Savanna

[ppisczak]

Savanna

I've done a little bit of copy work and they were of paintings. The way I was taught was to get a heavy tripod make sure the camera is normal or orthoganal to the plane of the painting. I use the daylight blue bulbs as they give an approximation of sunlight. Place two of them at the same level of the painting, 90 degrees from each other or 45 degrees from the center axis of the camera lens and at approximately the same distance as the camera. I then take a gray card approximately the same size as the painting and take spot meter readings in nine places across the entire surface of the gray card to make sure the illumination is even. If not I adjust the flood lights until it is. I use a polarizing filter to eliminate any glare from the paint surface. I focus and take the shot. Also another hint, do not leave the lights on too long for two reasons: first, is that we do not want to heat up the painting; second, the bulbs lifespan is only about an hour or two, then they go poof. The good news is that they are relatively inexpensive, about $4 a piece. Always replace them in pairs. They do not change color much with use, but light output will slowly degrade over that hour. Good luck and let us know how you make out.

PJ

[MJSfoto1956]

I scan artwork for a living using a modified 11' tall animation stand together with a BetterLight 6K-2.

If you can afford it, I would recommend the following as providing the ulitmate in quality:

Schenieder Makro Symmar HM 120mm + any solid 4x5 camera + any solid tripod + BetterLight 8K-2 + any decent laptop (Mac or Windows) + ColorChecker card + decent lights (the latter item is probably the most important single item and cannot be under-estimated, but often is).

I would also suggest you attend next year's BetterLight user forum to rub shoulders with expert users like Bill Atkinson. The attendees are amazingly free with their experience and techniques -- particularly with regard to museum-quality copying using the BetterLight technology.

There is a wealth of information on the BetterLight site @ www.betterlight.com

J Michael Sullivan
MAGNAchrom...

[Bill_1856]

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.

[David Luttmann]

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.

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?

That is not an acceptable recommendation.

[Bill_1856]

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?

That is not an acceptable recommendation.

Sorry, David, but you're way behind the times.

[Greg Lockrey]

Sorry, David, but you're way behind the times.
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.

[Capocheny]

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

[Robert Payne]

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.

One of the funniest things I've read in a long time.

[JW Dewdney]

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.

[Jack Flesher]

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.

[Bill_1856]

One of the funniest things I've read in a long time.

Robert Payne, you have a lot to learn, as I did until I saw it for myself.

[David Luttmann]

Sorry, David, but you're way behind the times.


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!

[David Luttmann]

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.


Greg, first, don't get me started with Qimage. It's pyramid interpolation is a disaster when it comes to artifacts and maintaining detail in an image. The Photoshop routine mentioned at the DIgital Outback photography site does a superior job. As does the SAR software package using Backprojected Jensen Xin Li.

And just because you can interpolate to 49 feet and have an 8 dpi image to print (yes, I'm still laughing here) doesn't mean you should. Maybe it's fine for a bulletin board viewed from a mile a way, but we are talking about art reproductions here. I shoot a little such work with the 1Ds and stitch multiple frames using panorama tools. This gets me per pixel stitching accuracy. I stitch four wide to give me an image 15000 pixels wide. Enough for a 300 dpi 50" print. A straight 1DS MK2 image of this would only be 99dpi. Anyone who is satisfied with that has a pretty low threshold for quality!

Anyone stating that 1Ds MK2 can do a sharp 6 foot print would also try to sell us on stating that a 6MP DSLR gives sharp 30" prints....which we know they can't.....as the rez would be the same! 30" prints from a 6mp DSLR look like Cr@p....as does a 6 foot print from the MK2.

Let's geck back to quality reproduction discussion like the Betterlight or 4x5 scanned film.

[Bill_1856]

Apparently there are people who know how to print very large digital images, and people who dont. Since I have personally seen several such prints by Steven Katzman which are that big, (donated to the North Sarasota Library), and sharper UP CLOSE than my 16x20 prints by St. Ansel, I am here to tell you that it can be, and is being, done. I have no objection to anyone stating that he can't do it, but that doesn't mean that no one does, and I humbly suggest making room for the possibility of being wrong.

[David Luttmann]

Apparently there are people who know how to print very large digital images, and people who dont. Since I have personally seen several such prints by Steven Katzman which are that big, (donated to the North Sarasota Library), and sharper UP CLOSE than my 16x20 prints by St. Ansel, I am here to tell you that it can be, and is being, done. I have no objection to anyone stating that he can't do it, but that doesn't mean that no one does, and I humbly suggest making room for the possibility of being wrong.

69 dpi may have sharp edges because of digital's superior accutance, but it will lack the detail of 4x5 film.

If you think that a 6 foot 1Ds Mk2 images carries more detail than a 16x20 4x5 sheet film print....then I think you've pretty much summed things up for the rest of us. And as I run about a thousand prints a year in excess of 30", then I'd say I've probably figured it out. I'll just wait for everyone else who thinks that a 6 foot DSLR image is as sharp and detailed as a 4x5 16x20 to chime in to your defense. Let the floodgates open!

Good day Bill.

[Ted Harris]

One more point, there are a lot of museums and government archives out there spending hundfeds of thousands on purpose built scanning equipment to scan film of all sorts. It is very much a niche industry that we never her about but it exists and is flourishing.

[Greg Lockrey]

[/QUOTE] Let's geck back to quality reproduction discussion like the Betterlight or 4x5 scanned film.[/QUOTE]


David, you missed the fact that I "scan" up 9 times and stictch in PS. 9 x 12 mp is the equivilent to 108 mp. Since you like calculating dpi, calculate that against your 45 mp Better Light and at 1/10 th the cost ;)

[David Luttmann]

Greg, I was referring more to the fellow thinking you can do it in one shot....which of course is ridiculous. Stitching is another matter altogether. I can stitch a number of shots from my old 3MP D30 and end up with a file that would slaughter 8x10 sheet film....but that doesn't mean the D30 could do it in one pass either.

[Greg Lockrey]

Greg, I was referring more to the fellow thinking you can do it in one shot....which of course is ridiculous. Stitching is another matter altogether. I can stitch a number of shots from my old 3MP D30 and end up with a file that would slaughter 8x10 sheet film....but that doesn't mean the D30 could do it in one pass either.


It's just a matter of how you use your "tools", David, and how much resolution the final really needs to be.