Print Reproduction for High Quality Viewing

[cowanw]

Bob, I am making copies of a hundred portraits that I have collected. using a camera gave better images compared to scanning.
I am using a Sony Alpha 900 with a 70-200 zoom plus or minus a 2x lens, two to three metres away from the print. The zoom allows me to fill the frame. This camera has a preview function and I could set the exposure curve to get sufficient exposure for the darks. I get 40 mega bite raw files, which seem OK
My thinking is to get farther away rather than go macro to minimize wide angle distortion.
I use two floods on either side with soft boxes to spread the light. the room is dark and there are black curtains behind the camera. I wear black and work at night to avoid reflections in glass.
Use the 10 sec timer and tripod.
I found F22 was the best fstop for sharpnesss with Daguerreotypes and cased images. smaller fstop caused more diffraction. larger fstop gave insufficient depth of field. sometimes it was necessary to do two shots, one focussed on the daguerreotype and one on the brass mounting and put them together in Photoshop.
The transilluminated lantern slide had too much dynamic range and I bracketed over a range of exposures (14 fstops) and merged the files in the computer.
You will fill close to one dimension of your camera screen with the print and so you can figure your crop loses and need for file size based on printing size.
Colour will be managed in the raw development.
Textured work may be difficult to find the best lighting or photographic angles. One of my coloured daguerreotypes was polished side to side and coloured with a down stroke, needs to be seen from above on an angle. this results in Keystoneing on reproduction which is fixed in Photoshop.
I expect any current camera and lens will do. File sizes for an ipad or other computer screen are much less than for printing.
The issues are more of a classic photographic copying nature and the solutions will be photographic rather than film/digital.
Using a digital level to measure tilt of the copy stand (I use a music easil) to match to the back of the camera and the sides of the viewing screen (or grid) to keep parallel left to right.
Regards
Bill

[Pere Casals]

I use two floods on either side with soft boxes to spread the light.

Hello Bill,

Floods alone are not right to photograph flat art.

Try this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cp5vRlstpbc

It's the way paints are photographes in museums.

Highly recommended !!!


Regards.

[Taija71A]

... This is the critical part !!!

You have to use cross-polarization. So your illuminators (perhaps a flash system) needs a polarizing filter on it and the lens needs another POL on it, at 90º to eliminate any glare...

Sometimes, you hate to "Give Credit Where It Is Due"...
But, Pere does make an Excellent point here.

For the 'Highest Quality' results... Cross Polarized Light is very important!

-Tim.

[bob carnie]

I would ask that discussion on lighting and such is not what I am looking for, I made my living for about 10 years doing High End reproductions .

What I am really looking for is a used camera that has semi high resolution capablities and the right lens for that camera.. I am a big fan of mirror up and prime lenses.
I have never owned a digital camera only analoque so I would like recomondations on camera and lens if possible.

[Taija71A]

... I do not want to break the bank...

Bob, I use the Sony A7r2 for my commercial work. If you want to spend under 10k, I'd recommend looking into that rig...

Budget?

[bob carnie]

Not sure - I happen to know thousands of photographers via my printing business, so I am sure I can handle a deal that both party's are happy , I suspect like darkroom equipment , three year old digital cameras do not hold value so I am probably thinking between $1500 and $4000 value .

[Ted R]

It is tempting to go down the road to make very high resolution highly color-corrected files, which would be better than is needed for the immediate purpose. One of the temptations might be that high quality prints made from these files might "stand-in" for the originals one day if the need arose. This route involves a lot of careful work with an expensive camera, lighting and digital editing.

The other approach has a different goal, the presentation of images for display on smartphones, laptops and desktop monitors. No need for high resolution, no need for precision color correction, no need for precision digital editing, and the hardware to achieve it might be one tenth the cost of the "high precision" luxury system. It may only take a competent DSLR and mid-priced lens (22MP Canon 5Dmk2 or mk3 can be used with a 100mm macro lens, tethered, and would cost less than US$1000 for both) and give results probably better than necessary. Editing can be done using Canon's software available free online (Digital Photo Professional).

[tgtaylor]

I'd get a real camera and not a juvenile's setup:

http://toyoview.com/Products/VX23D/23D.html

Thomas

[Pere Casals]

Not sure - I happen to know thousands of photographers via my printing business, so I am sure I can handle a deal that both party's are happy , I suspect like darkroom equipment , three year old digital cameras do not hold value so I am probably thinking between $1500 and $4000 value .

Refining my suggestion:

Used Nikon D800E + AF-S Micro Nikkor 105mm f2.8 G VR = $2000. (1500+500) delivers Some Perceptual 21 MPix at distant subjects, still a macro lens

Used Nikon D610 + Micro Nikkor 105mm 2.8 AFD = $1200. (1000+200)


+ $100 for the continous power supply and wifi adapters, that may come with a used camera.



I'd take the VR version, it would work better for unplanned casual shooting.





Another glass option is Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 105mm f/1.4E ED , the sharpest nikon thing under 200mm, delivering some Perceptual 33 MPix on the D810, but €1600 alone.

So D810 + 105mm 1.4 G ED is some $3100, but you also get a rocking portrait setup.

Those 33 Perceptual MPix are not a joke, because killer VR/AF you obtain near that even in very dynamic shootings, just mentioning a potential second use.

[interneg]

One of the AIS Micro Nikkors will do the job nicely - far easier to use in a copying environment than any AF lens in my experience. The classic 55/2.8 is a pretty good bargain - & rather amazingly still available new for USD400-ish I recall. It'll work on the D8xx cameras without any problems - live view is your friend...

Another thought might be an older Phase One/ Leaf back & the relevant camera setup - I recall that the older 30-40mp backs are under USD5k used these days.