-
Is Betterlight Still the Standard?
I want to scan artwork in the most professional way possible. After some research it seems that this old Betterlight Scanback and a 4x5 camera is still 'state of the art'.
Is this true? Are there alternatives? Also what about macro lenses on a Canon 5d? Are the results much worse?
The main question...
If you had no equipment and wanted to start scanning artwork what equipment would you purchase?
-
Re: Is Betterlight Still the Standard?
No sure what your budget is, but I know that Phase One make dedicated Repro systems:
http://www.phaseone.com/en/Camera-Sy...solutions.aspx
I think that the advantages over Betterlight are that the technology is much newer, as well as the fact that you won't have to use hot lights to light your subject. Flicker from these kinds of lights, plus the fact that they heat up a room quickly, can prove annoying.
John
-
Re: Is Betterlight Still the Standard?
How big? is it 2D?
Better light was never a standard for anything...
Linhof was teamed with a company that made digital scan backs, that evolved in to the modern age, with USB and firewire connections and modern software called anagramm, but they seem to be gone now.
In any case depending on the above questions a fixed body SLR might be easier/cheaper and offer better results, especially the newer ones.
But you can use an adapter to connect a digital SLR to a view camera and use the movements and lenses of your favorite 4X5 camera... Those are very cheap.
-
Re: Is Betterlight Still the Standard?
Friends of mine who specialize in high-end studio photography switched from Betterlight to Phase One some time back. But when you speak of "highest-quality" repro,
you'd have to define the intended applications. Art photography can involve very very expensive equip if you are thinking of the forensic end of it. You also need rectilinear lenses. The reproduction of paintings is what drove the price of already scarce Apo El Nikkor lenses thru the roof. What is your budget - fifty grand, a
hundred grand, half a million? Good ole sheet film and a drum scanning might be a lot more realistic if you don't have that kind of money. .... or, like you suggested
yourself, stay with smaller more conventional equip, like a good macro lens on a DLSR.
-
Re: Is Betterlight Still the Standard?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Drew Wiley
fifty grand, a
hundred grand, half a million? Good ole sheet film and a drum scanning might be a lot more realistic if you don't have that kind of money. .... or, like you suggested
yourself, stay with smaller more conventional equip, like a good macro lens on a DLSR.
The question is how much different will a print look, standing 3 feet away, when shot with a DSLR or a Betterlight or Phase One?
From the photos posted on the web the Betterlight always seems to do the best job by a wide margin.
No color aberrations and plenty of details in the shadows while a Canon 5d looked awful.
So no, I don't need it for forensic work but rather for making art prints that people would want to hang on their wall.
-
Re: Is Betterlight Still the Standard?
I'd also consider sheet film and a drum scanner...4x5 should do it, 5x7 or 8x10 would be even better.
Quite affordable (the hassle with lighting is the same for all), and you can have an exprienced drum scanner operator scan your work. Plus, you got a more or less archival proof solution with the negatives (or slides).
-
Re: Is Betterlight Still the Standard?
Scanning is alot of work, since it requires re touching and many man hours to do.
Recently at SPE i saw several MF digital cameras which would blow your mind away. I was saying to the reps that 50K is not relevant for most users, they said at 10K you get top of the line gear, including the camera and normal lens.
True, some are more expensive then others - but you just cannot compare a small sensor to a large one.
If you can, go and play with the new pentax 645D (take your own card to shoot on) and look at other phaseone and hassy cameras.
In a nut shell it would be cheaper then a negative/scanner solution and much higher quality to start out with, but with out the man hours needed, and would not be much more expensive then a DSLR... you will not be able to shoot video, but you will get 200MB files with more detail then you knew existed.
We just sold our imacon, and will be going this route.
-
Re: Is Betterlight Still the Standard?
OK. I get it. You just want to make visual reproductions. 50% of the battle will be in the lighting, regardless of your camera gear. Copied painting rarely look like
the real thing because of the way the light reflects off the pigments. You have to learn to use cross-polarized light in a way that doesn't overdo things, and it can
be a real challenge when the painting has impasto build-up. Buy the best polarizing filter you can find. The scanning back approach of the Betterlight required some
expensive HMI lighting, or else hot lights. You'll have easier options with newer technology. But some post-editing of the curves will be inevitable. No big deal. Just
don't expect things to ever look exactly like the original. If you don't have view camera corrections, you'll need a very solid tall tripod or preferably, a studio stand,
to get squarely in front of the painting. Or you could make a king-sized copystand like I did, if the originals aren't huge, which makes life a lot easier. Having an MF
system will give you a lot more usable range and detail than a DLSR, obviously. Just study the tech specs on potential lenses first, for rectilinearity and MTF.
Longer focal lengths generally have less distortion, etc.
-
Re: Is Betterlight Still the Standard?
When I started this thread I was convinced that the Betterlight was the way to go. Wow was I wrong! Then I was going to go the route of large format film and drum scan. That was until I re-visited the idea of Phase One. I got thrown originally after reading an old article that Betterlight was better than Phase One. I now see that is not true. Phase One delivers really great images.
I love the 'look' of large format film but I don't know how accurate the color reproduction is.
I have to rethink my main objective. Is it to make artwork look good or accurately reproduce the image?
http://bugraergil.blogspot.com/2013/...al-vs-5x4.html
I see that the Nikon D800 can mimic a MF camera by shooting twice and stitching the image
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ni..._quality.shtml
But this Hassleblad image in my opinion blew away the D800
http://www.photigy.com/nikon-d800e-t...medium-format/
So I think I will end up going in the Phase One direction but I will play around with a Nikon D800s as well (it should be available soon)
and yes...lighting, polarizing filter, copy stand or hang it on the wall?
You guys were an enormous help! Thank you!
-
Re: Is Betterlight Still the Standard?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
koh303
play with the new pentax 645D
Why does Pentax call every new version of its camera by the same name?
If I want to go with a MF camera is this Pentax the one to buy?
-
Re: Is Betterlight Still the Standard?
Oh I see the new Pentax 645D II is about to come out any day now.
-
Re: Is Betterlight Still the Standard?
The new pentax is only appealing because it is DIRT cheap. Its not the best camera our there, but for the price of D800 you get almost 4X the sensor size, and some of the best lenses out there (they are also stupidly cheap for some reason).
The pentax does not compare well with the newer hasselblad, which is about 10X more expensive or with the 2-4X more expensive phaseone/mamiya system with the later backs.
Another redeaming feature of the pentax is a very good user interface (including a tripod socket on both the vertical AND horizontal planes).
There are really only these three options... and in all cases you pay for what you get. IMHO - the 645D is more then plenty for any repro work, but then again testing for the specific use should confirm this first.
-
Re: Is Betterlight Still the Standard?
You don't want to scan because it seems like to much work, but are willing to stitch??? You can't just pan the camera for this kind of stitch like someone might in
a landscape panorama. You'd need some very precise equip to keep everything on the same plane, for rectilinearity, unless you've got endless PS correction patience. Arca makes some nice MF equip for this kind of thing, but be prepared for a serious investment. ... But don't underestimate the quality of Pentax lenses, even if Hassy
might offer a superior system overall. A P645 would still maul any DLSR in terms of final image quality, esp with a macro lens.
-
Re: Is Betterlight Still the Standard?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
koh303
The new pentax is only appealing because it is DIRT cheap. Its not the best camera our there, but for the price of D800 you get almost 4X the sensor size, and some of the best lenses out there.
Isnt the D800 about 3k USD? Is the Pentax around the same minus lens? (I'm assuming it's integrated back)
-
Re: Is Betterlight Still the Standard?
I believe the 645D is about $6500 without a lens and the 645D ii will be a couple of thousand more so it is considerably more expensive than a D800e.
-
Re: Is Betterlight Still the Standard?
I don't think I said that scanning was too much work... i wouldn't mind doing that if the results were great.
It just seems that the MF cameras actually outdo the LF film cameras.
Stitching didn't appear that difficult. I've lived on photoshop for the last 15 years so I don't think it would be a problem. I would also mount the camera on a slider to keep it parallel to the art piece.
So it looks like you are also in agreement that the Pentax is the reasonably priced camera that yields the best value to achieve acceptable results.
-
Re: Is Betterlight Still the Standard?
OK.. here we go again.... and again... and again... and again. Take the most expensive MF back you can find and sloppiest view camera work on the planet and make a comparison. Sounds you've been spending too much time surfing web hearsay. But the pros and cons have been endless debated elsewhere, and seem to be more a matter of voodoo religion than objective fact. Take the approach you feel comfortable with. Either way will work. But there are real advantages to having some kind
of lens movements, esp rise. And I really don't know how well these little "shift" lenses actually work for high-resolution applications - remember, you want a somewhat long focal length relative to format, to avoid iillumination falloff and corner distortion. Maybe someone else can comment on that, cause I have no personal
interest in those 'lil things.
-
Re: Is Betterlight Still the Standard?
... but I should have clarified that I know nothing about DLSR shift lenses for such applications. Others would. The Pentax MF shift lenses are basically custom
super-angulon designs and would probably not compete in a fine detail sense with either the latest large format or top-end DLSR lenses. There were basically designed as a poor man's architectural lens, and I'd be pretty surprised if they can compete with Pentax's basic lens formulas, which can be pretty good in some
focal lengths - but remember that the wide-angle ones will not be corrected for potential color-fringing with digital backs (versus film). One more reason to stick
with somewhat longer focal lengths. They have introduced a couple of re-engineered lenses specifically for digital capture, but they're damn pricey.
-
Re: Is Betterlight Still the Standard?
Thanks Drew, someone had to say it.
-
Re: Is Betterlight Still the Standard?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
analoguey
Isnt the D800 about 3k USD? Is the Pentax around the same minus lens? (I'm assuming it's integrated back)
There is some promotional on the 645D making it close to 4800$ (i think).
In any case as my old professor Kenny Lester used to say:
You can't compare small pixels to large pixels" (comparing full frame 35mm slr to MF digital backs of equal or even lesser MP count)
-
Re: Is Betterlight Still the Standard?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
astroanalyst
I want to scan artwork in the most professional way possible. After some research it seems that this old Betterlight Scanback and a 4x5 camera is still 'state of the art'.
Is this true? Are there alternatives? Also what about macro lenses on a Canon 5d? Are the results much worse?
The main question...
If you had no equipment and wanted to start scanning artwork what equipment would you purchase?
I do a lot of stitching, which in general is not that much work and generates very high quality results. But for someone who wants to "scan artwork in the most professional way possible", I will agree with Drew and state that this is not a good way to go. Even if you are shifting horizontally and vertically (as opposed to rotating), your rig would have to be exactly parallel to the artwork, be exactly level, have a perfectly linear lens with zero barrel/pincushion distortion, and shift exactly parallel to the artwork to avoid awkward overlaps of adjacent images which would create the need for creative PS work to correct. thereby destroying any semblance of faithfulness to the artwork.
Additionally, I have a D800e, which generates files of about 7320 pixels on the long side. If you want to print at 300 dpi, and not interpolate, you will be limited to artwork no larger than 24" on the long side (unless you resort to stitching). A 5D would mean even smaller art work.
-
Re: Is Betterlight Still the Standard?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Greg Miller
Additionally, I have a D800e, which generates files of about 7320 pixels on the long side. If you want to print at 300 dpi, and not interpolate, you will be limited to artwork no larger than 24" on the long side (unless you resort to stitching). A 5D would mean even smaller art work.
That is interesting thank you....it seems the unanimous decision is to go MF.
-
Re: Is Betterlight Still the Standard?
a review of the pentax 645 was just posted on DPreview.
I also go some pricing for various lenses the other day, not bad, but not that cheap either.
-
Re: Is Betterlight Still the Standard?
-
Re: Is Betterlight Still the Standard?
Odd that no one has mentioned the most productive and cost effective solution: Hire a professional photographer.
-
Re: Is Betterlight Still the Standard?
The other relatively cost efficient scheme for the DIYer would be a home-built copy easel with built-in restriction on camera sensor movement off parallel wrt the easel plane, providing orthogonal-to-artwork x y z axes but no tilt/yaw/roll.
-
Re: Is Betterlight Still the Standard?
Nobody mentioned multishot digital backs. People using both MS backs and standard MF digital backs claim that MS gives much better results. Even the older and realtivly cheap one Hasselblad H3D 39MS. Newrer Hasselblads are H4D 50MS and 200MS and H5D.These backs make four exposures and the most professional ones like Sinar Exact 16 exposures. Here is a good explanation
http://fstoppers.com/sinars-new-medium-format-back
Also, keep an eye on Leaf Aptus and Credo backs, especially Credo, which are cheaper version of Phase One backs.
In my opinion you don't need any camera movements ability here. If the artwork is yours, I'm sure you can take it down from the wall and put it in desired position that exzcludes need for movements. If you intend to use MF I recommend 120mm macro whatever brand you choose.
-
Re: Is Betterlight Still the Standard?
I have a Betterlight Super 6KHS, a D800, a D800e and I am currently testing a Phase One.
I capture artwork for a living. What I can say is that the Betterlight still produces better images. One needs to light the original with HID copy lights and pola filters, zigalign, shoot a SG colour chart, shoot an oversized white card, map out all the brightness levels of every pixel with Equalight software, apply that math to both the image file as well as the SG chart, and finally build a colour profile.
I compare files from each of these cameras carefully using All the above steps.
For a painter the Betterlight still has the best colour, tonal gradations and sharpness.
The best lens happens not to be enlarging lenses or apo ronar type copy lenses but the Apo Sironar S.
BTW Rencay took over Anagram.
-
Re: Is Betterlight Still the Standard?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Adamphotoman
The best lens happens not to be enlarging lenses or apo ronar type copy lenses but the Apo Sironar S.
BTW Rencay took over Anagram.
Could have told you that without the scanback. Thanks for the rencay note.
-
Re: Is Betterlight Still the Standard?
Ha..Film is the standard.
-
Re: Is Betterlight Still the Standard?
For copying art work the standard way was to cross polarise, e.g. polarising filters over the lights and circular polariser over the lens, rotate till all the flare goes.
On the digital front a second hand P45 with a v hasselblad is probably the best and most cost effective solution, I did shoot with the phase one scanning back it was perfectly fine, but the problems outweighed the benefits
-
Re: Is Betterlight Still the Standard?
The new Pentax is the 645Z.
-
Re: Is Betterlight Still the Standard?
We use LEAF Medium Format Digital Backs mounted on Sinar P2's to photograph paintings: http://www.rauantiques.com/fine-art/paintings/
One thing to think about if you are thinking of shooting film is that Polaroid and Fuji quit making 4x5 instant film so having a quick preview is no longer an option with film. I would say the way to go for any level of commercial copy work would be with MFDB's; either Phase, LEAF, etc., on a view camera. The benefit is that you get Live View with which you can easily assess your polarization, composition, etc. The Live View screen on my computer is about 8x10 and, even though it is in black & white, one can easily see the effects of the lighting.
-
Re: Is Betterlight Still the Standard?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Thom Bennett
....Polaroid and Fuji quit making 4x5 instant film
I guess i should tell the fuji rep to not sell or market any FP100c...
How could anyone calibrate anything with polaroid instant material is beyond me, but the fuji stuff which is really accurate, is alive and well.
Regardless of the above - you are correct, there is no comparing digital capture with any film capture in this day and age.
-
Re: Is Betterlight Still the Standard?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
koh303
I guess i should tell the fuji rep to not sell or market any FP100c...
How could anyone calibrate anything with polaroid instant material is beyond me, but the fuji stuff which is really accurate, is alive and well.
Regardless of the above - you are correct, there is no comparing digital capture with any film capture in this day and age.
Get the rope!! :)
-
Re: Is Betterlight Still the Standard?
"How could anyone calibrate anything with polaroid instant material is beyond me, but the fuji stuff which is really accurate, is alive and well."
Oh, not talking about color calibration, just checking the lighting. I thought the 4x5 was gone and only the 3.25x4.25 was available.
-
Re: Is Betterlight Still the Standard?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Thom Bennett
"How could anyone calibrate anything with polaroid instant material is beyond me, but the fuji stuff which is really accurate, is alive and well."
Oh, not talking about color calibration, just checking the lighting. I thought the 4x5 was gone and only the 3.25x4.25 was available.
It's available for import from japan (the 4x5) but still the 3.25x4.25 is big enough that you can see what's happening.
-
Re: Is Betterlight Still the Standard?
after months researching this subject,my studio is full of art being prepared for shipment .It will be reproduced in house on a better light scan back.The agencies I have talked two still consider the better light back to be state of the art.Their second choice is a drum scanned 4x5 e-6.Thay do not want any other type of file for fine art reproduction. I think it also depends on what you are going to do with the art, that is what are the clients expectations .Since I want my work reproduced on the highest level in preparation for on line sales I had to resist the urge to use my 4x5.
-
Re: Is Betterlight Still the Standard?
Used Leica S2's are down to about $7,000. I think I'd go that way, but of course, that's me. Different tools for different people...
-
Re: Is Betterlight Still the Standard?
The Betterlight will still give the best results. Most other systems will flavour your files somewhat - kind of like a colour cast from film and / or processing. Sadly, some clients are insisting on faster cheaper solutions. So stitching DSLR and medium format files has become common place.
-
Re: Is Betterlight Still the Standard?
If you want to know what is the best you can currently get, then it is multi-shot MF. I've worked for many years with Eyelike multi-shot backs, made by Jenoptik (Carl Zeiss Jena of old). They no longer sell to the general public, but still make backs for Sinar. A 50 megapixel, 16-shot back from Sinar will beat anything else you have. We're talking a 200 megapixel *non-interpolated* file, in pure RGGB, just like a drum scan. The software will correct uneven lighting and will make the most accurate colour currently possible. Sinar even make a dedicated motorised repro camera these days.
-
Re: Is Betterlight Still the Standard?
For current availability Rencay scan backs are still being made ... at many many times the price of Betterlight's - Super 8K HS. Note: I believe that they use the same Kodak sensors as the Betterlight. Betterlight has stopped manufacturing although Mike Collette still provides service.
The MF workflow can make more economical sense today especially as they have come down in price.
10 years back it was way too expensive to go with a MF solution at $50 K plus.
Betterlights require a lot of light. They are light pigs. The Northlight 900 units that I use deliver all the light that I need without too much heat and no flicker issues. UV filters protect the art. Polarizers can be fitted to the lights. The process is time consuming at 10-18 minutes a scan but I can still capture 20 similar paintings in a day. I have a handy Polarizer Alignment Card which helps with cross polarizing. A colour profile needs to be made for the crossed polarizer at it's exact same setting to tame contrast. For this an SG card is much better than the classic version which only has matte patches.
For lightweight long pieces of artwork or for imaging panoramic images I use the camera in pano mode. I pull the artwork across a long aluminum framework using the pano - adapter's motor and software interface keeping the camera and sensor stationary. Kind of a poor mans Cruze scanner.
I still get more accurate results with the Betterlight than with the iQ250 that I have finished testing. The Phase is a joy to use and I would choose it in a heartbeat if I were doing product, architecture, and lowlight shots. For artwork at a fraction of the cost I still choose the Betterlight.
-
Re: Is Betterlight Still the Standard?
I read the thread, but still don't know why you are doing this.
I do a lot of copy work of pencil and paper drawings for a very good emerging artist. He really only needs high quality small jpegs for submission online. I do my best to make it all square, color correct and he and his galleries are very happy with what I do.
But, I keep warning him not to let full resolution images loose on the Internet. His stuff looks digital, but is all one off, hand made. His market is selling his signed originals.
If you are scanning for reproduction sales, yes you need the best these other posters have described. If not, you are wasting time, money and possibly creating a copyright nightmare for the artist. I use a DSLR on an enlarger copy stand with polarized lighting. I printed one of his images so he could see what danger he was in. I have also produced two high end small sample books for him to carry with him. He and his customers love the sample books and he doesn't need to lug giant paper drawings around.
We shoot another 50 next week.
-
Re: Is Betterlight Still the Standard?
Randy,
I am in the business of making full sized prints. These could be printed as large as 7 foot by 12 foot, So I do need resolution. I downsize images for them for the web.
My artists that only need images for web get work generated from a D800. They get folders with raw files, full sized tiffs, card sized tiffs with colour corrected hard copies and web sized jpegs.
Even when I image with a DSLR I zigalign, I shoot a white card, I equalize, and I profile.
Grant
-
Re: Is Betterlight Still the Standard?
Hi Grant,
Now, I understand your needs better, I like to get the whole story.
Thank you!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Adamphotoman
Randy,
I am in the business of making full sized prints. These could be printed as large as 7 foot by 12 foot, So I do need resolution. I downsize images for them for the web.
My artists that only need images for web get work generated from a D800. They get folders with raw files, full sized tiffs, card sized tiffs with colour corrected hard copies and web sized jpegs.
Even when I image with a DSLR I zigalign, I shoot a white card, I equalize, and I profile.
Grant
-
Re: Is Betterlight Still the Standard?
grant-your are close to home. What is the name of your business-web sight.pm me if necessary, I would like to see your rates and type of reproductions you are doing. thanks alan
-
Re: Is Betterlight Still the Standard?
Hi Alan,
www.akphotos@shaw.ca
phone me
1 250 732 2296
If you are close we can absolutely work something out, but know that my prices can vary depending upon the art. So I prefer to talk to the artist and find out a bit about the art before I put my foot in my mouth.
What I mean...An artist recently emailed me. I gave them a range of prices. Then they brought in a glass mosaic with dark shiny irregular surfaces including an iridescent element and gold leaf. Well that meant a whole lot more work than and a different approach than imaging watercolours, or pencil drawings, or an impasto -pallet knife oil painting. Although time is money I had to stick to my original figures but spend extra time. A lot of questions need to be asked...such as does the artist need the paint texture to show up or do they want it to be diminished.
Note: that even with the Betterlight I have had to stitch a number of captures together to get a giga-pixel sized file.
In the end it is all about the right piece of equipment for the application. Mike Collette inventor and owner of Betterlight recently told me that anyone can purchase equipment. He then went on to say that I had something better behind my lens. I thought he was referring to the Super 6 K HS, but he was talking about the operator.
Grant
-
Re: Is Betterlight Still the Standard?
I sent Grant a very difficult piece of art to reproduce. many layers of color including metallic and fluorescents, plus a lot of texture created by several different methods. His reproductions were flawless and he is a stand up person to do business with. next month I will commit 7 more pieces into his very capable hands. I chose this route after months of research. At first my intention was to photograph the art with a 4x5.but I realized that would in tale a steep learning curve and I was not willing to commit the time required. After speaking with several people that reproduce art, their concusses was that the work should be done with a betterlight scan back. I am very pleased to have found a operator that knows how to get the most out of the equipment-Alan
-
Re: Is Betterlight Still the Standard?
Thank you Alan so much for the kind words,
I will always bring my experience, equipment and knowledge to bear on any project that you throw at me. I aspire to be world class always.
Grant
-
Re: Is Betterlight Still the Standard?
Has anyone tried the current generation of linear scanners like the Uberscan?
http://colourgenics.com/?category/Uberscan
I did a lot of "archival" scanning years ago and area detectors never could get around the dynamic range limitations imposed by lens flare, adjacent area sensor interactions, etc. I always found that spot scanners (e.g. drum) are best, followed by linear and then area. Within area scanners, there are all sorts of issues with DSLR or MF acquisition if stitching is involved. Never seen those solved completely. Here's another vote for MS tech, by the way. It was hard to give that up when I went to the Phase back.
Of course, drum mounting art work is problematic so compromises must be made. If time and convenience are not the major factors, linear scanners are probably the starting point there.
Have not worked with the latest gen Phase equipment but, unless they do something strange with masking I would think the fundamental physics still apply. You are just not going to get a 4D range out of an area device. That may not matter in most cases but the archival applications care.
Again, I have no direct experience with the latest camera vs scanner equipment and would be interested in comments from people who have made those comparisons.