posting ULF to this forum..??

[Steve M Hostetter]

anyone know the best way,,,,??? use a digital camera to copy prints maybe..??

thanks
steve

[Ed Richards]

> use a digital camera to copy prints maybe.

The gods of ULF would strike you dead.:-)

[vinny]

If it's any bigger than large format you can't post it here. You'll have to start he ultralargeformatphotography.info/forum:)

[evan clarke]

If it's any bigger than large format you can't post it here. You'll have to start he ultralargeformatphotography.info/forum:)

HeeHee, now we can argue about cameras that are too big to be Large Format:D ..EC

[Steve M Hostetter]

ok,,

techniclly all the images you see on this forum are made with digital :X

[BrianShaw]

One could get burned at the steak for revealing that unfortunate (or is it 'inconvenient'?) truth! :D

[rdenney]

anyone know the best way,,,,??? use a digital camera to copy prints maybe..??

Not much alternative, actually. Not many have a scanner large enough for film greater than 8x10.

But there is a right way and a wrong way, if at least some of the essence is to be captured. The wrong way is just to point the cell-phone camera at a frame picture on the wall and post it direct.

A cheapie copy stand will allow one to properly square the camera. And a real macro lens will avoid distortion and field curvature which will undermine the result. The copy can never be as beautifully resolved as the original, but it should at least be as well resolved as the digital camera can make it. It should not be that hard--the target resolution for web display is about 700 or 800 pixels in the long dimension, while even a 6-MP DSLR from six or seven years ago will make three or four times that. Last time I made copy photos, I used a Canon 10D (6MP) and a 50mm macro lens. It worked quite well for web display.

Reflections have to be avoided, of course. For ferrotyped (or RC) glossies, regular copy-stand lights are probably fine. But for glossy paper left with a pebble finish, the idea of using cross-polarized stand lights is a good one, and not really that difficult.

I set the exposure with an incident meter or gray card, but I still usually have to run it through a curves adjustment to restore the original's tonal look.

Making a good digital reproduction of a print requires all the same care as we ever exercised when doing copy work. But if we can set up a copy stand, it isn't particularly difficult.

Rick "whose new office remodel should allow space for a copy stand" Denney

[Steve M Hostetter]

Thank you Denney,,

Very helpful information :)

[sanking]

This subject came up on the hybrid forum not long ago and it was pointed out that most people who print with alternative processes with digital negatives simply make a fascimile image from the digital file that looks like the alternative print. I would wager that most of the prints you see reproduced in magazines were made this way. When you are making large prints, whatever the process, making a fascimile print or making a image of the print with a digital file are about all you can do because not many folks have scanners capable of handling prints larger than 12X20.

I generally prefer the image file made with a digital camera simply because it is easier for me to make than a fascimile print where I have go match color. But in the end it does not make a lot of difference one way or the other because whatever method you use it is still a digital copy, not the real thing.

Sandy

[Oren Grad]

A cheapie copy stand will allow one to properly square the camera. And a real macro lens will avoid distortion and field curvature which will undermine the result. The copy can never be as beautifully resolved as the original, but it should at least be as well resolved as the digital camera can make it. It should not be that hard--the target resolution for web display is about 700 or 800 pixels in the long dimension, while even a 6-MP DSLR from six or seven years ago will make three or four times that. Last time I made copy photos, I used a Canon 10D (6MP) and a 50mm macro lens. It worked quite well for web display.

Reflections have to be avoided, of course. For ferrotyped (or RC) glossies, regular copy-stand lights are probably fine. But for glossy paper left with a pebble finish, the idea of using cross-polarized stand lights is a good one, and not really that difficult.

As it happens, I spent my toy time this past weekend setting up a new copystand, complete with a set of polarized copy lights. For now I have my Pentax K110D - a 6MP DSLR :) - mounted on it, and I'll be swapping the kit zoom for my old 50/4 SMCP-M Macro. As Rick mentions, that will be ample for web purposes, though I'll likely upgrade to a camera with more pixels for some copy projects that will involve making reproduction prints. Of course, I can also put a film camera on the stand when I want a copy negative for darkroom use.

The baseboard of the one I bought is large enough to accommodate prints up to 16x20, though larger stands are available if you have the room. I ended up investing in a stand rather than a tabloid-size scanner because it's a better fit overall to the range of projects I have in mind, which includes copying of prints with a variety of surface textures, some of which are fragile and many of which are bound into albums with spines that won't take kindly to being smashed on a flatbed.

EDIT: The obvious thing to do for a camera is to put a 50mm macro on an inexpensive crop-frame DSLR. One thing you need to watch out for, though, especially if your intended use is to copy ULF prints, is whether the column on your copy stand is long enough to let you frame the entire subject. Bear in mind that a 50 on an APS-C DSLR gives you a field of view comparable to a 75mm on full-frame 35. For those 35mm systems where the "standard" macro lens was 55 or 60 (e.g., Nikon), or those DSLRs where the crop factor is greater (Canon's 1.6x versus 1.5x for the other APS-C systems), the problem is worse.

Tokina, Pentax and Sony now offer shorter macros in the 30-35mm range for APS-C cameras. For web purposes, you also might be able to get away with a decent quality wide zoom, set for the wide-ish focal length that minimizes linear distortion.

Yes, you can copy in pieces and stitch if you have to, but one of the benefits of a properly configured copystand setup is to be able to avoid that.

[Drew Bedo]

Why not put the neg on a light box and shoot with a (GASP) DSLR, then photoshop it (sharp intake of breath) into a format that willbe easy topost here. We all understand the difficulties and limitations involved.

The most important thing is that you share your images and experiences.

[Brian Bullen]

11x14 taken with a dslr, works ok for viewing on the web. I have a few 11x14 images on my website that I did the same way except a little more care was taken to get the lighting better, more even.