Newbie. 4x5 body and lenses for fine art copy work?

[mdarnton]

That was essentially what I used for the violin work I mentioned above, with a 150 for the work at close to 1:1, and a 210mm for everything else. Something like an 180mm or would be the most comfortable if you have the space. 300mm is probably too long, and would limit your ability to copy small things if that was needed.

Choose a tripod for its stability, not size, and you will probably never use it with the center post extended more than about five inches, but it's nice (absolutely necessary?) to have one for fine tuning the camera position. Copy work is particularly demanding in this regard.

[Michael E]

I know this is a LF forum, and I sure love to shoot LF film. But for art reproduction, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. My opinion.

First, the camera is not the crucial part here. The light is. Get a good studio strobe outfit plus a good digital flash meter (1/10 stop accuracy) and learn how to use it properly.

Second, the chain of film, processing, and scanning is a nightmare. As well as from time, color control or financial perspectives. Nobody will pay you for the additional time and materials. A digital camera gives you a lot of control over white balance, contrast, saturation (for individual colors), etc.. Any good DSLR has enough resolution for portfolio sized prints. Use a good lens, work with precision, and you're fine.

Third, the post production work (Photoshop) is very important. Don't underestimate that part.

I used to do art reproduction with slide film (Hasselblad and 4x5"), went digital years ago and would never go back. For reproductions, that is. For my own artwork I use mainly 4x5" and bigger film...

Best,

Michael

[mdarnton]

That's true--my comments were definitely living in in the past, and I shouldn't have let the OP's film enthusiasm carry me away. The firm that I did the violin work for switched to Hasselblad digital quite a while ago, and I'm using digital for it, too. One nice thing about digital is that with film the problem of precise color reproduction was . . . impossible. With digital it's a snap.

In fact, this work is currently the ONLY thing I do digitally. My D300 easily replicates what we used to do with the Mamiya RB67, and at some point I'll upgrade that and be totally satisfied, but for now, even that is OK.

[petermichaux]

There are so many conflicting opinions on this. As far as I know, every 35 mm DSLR image I've seen printed at 30" looks quite poor. I imagine improvements could be made but the would need to be dramatic to start getting. Close to acceptable.

Two photographers I've spoken with in person who do copy work both swear by film. One runs a photo lab and says all the digital work (scanning, color correcting) and test proofs are part of the price of making a print. He said just bring in a 4x5 on Provia and let him do the rest.

> Any good DSLR has enough resolution for portfolio sized prints.

How big do you consider "portfolio sized"?

[Tin Can]

Well can we argue format all day, but everything will get pushed through Photoshop and that is where the work is.

I would not use any tripod for this. I used to use a converted Polaroid MP3, see Glennview.com, I copied his mounting solution.

Now I use an Arkay Studio Stand as it can handle any camera I put on it and can shoot from 9' down onto floor or table. Way easier than any tripod and cheap on the secondary market.

Gettings things square in camera is a great idea, but some lenses balloon and PS will be needed. I also shoot 'white' paper drawings against black matted board with a grid for alignment. I include a black border for PS purposes, but eliminate it for final product.

Lighting is a big challenge and my latest method actually seems best, but I need to check it against my upcoming copy work. Now I am bouncing 2 strobes in small softboxes off my white ceiling. Surround lighting is looking good.

I like my wireless tether with D750, gets wires out of the way.

Since you are new to this, the advice is overwhelming, each needs to find their own way, there is no correct answer.

Good luck!

[petermichaux]

Thanks, Randy.

I think I'm getting an idea of what I want to at least try to see if it works. (The Toyo GII is looking like a better option than the Cambo SC.)

This is hobby time so some lost time is not the end of the world. The cost of entry doesn't seem enormous. If I don't get it right with the first combination of equipment, I can take a loss and try a different camera (e.g. digital.) If the strobes, light meter, tripod purchased for the first try can all be used with another camera that is a lot of expense spent in the right direction for the second try.

[Peter De Smidt]

Toyo stuff is very good. (My field camera is a Toyo.) But make sure to check prices versus a Sinar P. These are incredibly easy to use, and they aren't all that expensive.

[Rod Klukas]

Any decent camera will work.
However, I must interject taht a lens such as the Rodenstock Apo-Ronar or the Schneider G Claron would be your best choice for this type of work.
The reason is that these optics have a flatter field. The standard type lenses have curvature of filed and the corners are never quite as sharp as the center due the curved projection of the image.
The G Claron or Apo-Ronar, are process lenses originally designed to shoot copy for printing such as maps, news papers etc.
So the image had to be extremely even across the entire field and so they were deigned to project a flat image.

You should have a sturdy rigid body with a bellows draw at least equal to twice the focal length of the lens you get.
This means you could copy any flat art from a 4x5 miniature, to a life size copy, to something quite large.

Hope this helps you.
Rod

[Larry Kellogg]

I'm interested in doing copy work with my soon to arrive Durst 138S. I purchased the copy light cassette and the lights. I'm thinking to try with 4x5 TMAX 100 as 5x7 TMAX is unavailable. Can you give me any advice?

[lfpf]

I'm investigating cameras to photograph fine art paintings from about 30 x 30 cm to 2 x 2 m.

Thanks.

Process lenses are designed for copy work and feature low-low distortion and also keep chromatic aberrations at a minimum. Which one is hard to say. Focal length, film format and lighting method need consideration and you'll have many successful options from which to choose. Apo Ronars have been mentioned, Apo Nikkors and many others are also in the running. With all your options available, narrow-down by reading, pick a format, plan your workspace and lighting method, run trials with any format and adapt to an available format and process lens designed for the task . . . 4/5, 8/10 format, camera of your choosing (sturdy, long process lenses are heavy), look at process cameras, track-down a process camera operator.