I'm looking around in my local area for a photographer or studio to shoot a number of artwork originals (paintings in oil, acrylic etc) and have posted here a few times and received some great responses, gone and done some more research and now have a better idea of what I need to do. my long term goal is to save up for a (BetterLight) scan back system, learn the process, and be able to do my own captures for art repro. this comes about after learning that there is a likeliness that no one in my area shoots with a scanning back such as the betterlight, the closest being in Sydney Australia which is thousands of kilometres from my home in Perth Australia. getting the artwork across the other side of the country, finding the time to do it and so on doesn't seem very likely. for an investment of A$17500 along with a view camera, lenses and lights say all up $25,000 I can do it myself eventually.

for now however my needs are immediate and I am in collaboration with an artist friend who has artwork originals he is going to sell shortly and I want to capture these before they are gone. As I mention before my enquiries for local services has not shown anyone working with scanning backs (the best for repro I believe) but some in film and one person using a medium format back on a Hasselblad. He says using this (Hasselblad medium format back) system that stitching is not required, but I am not so sure.

Many of the originals I have waiting are 1 x 1.5 metres and from my research I feel that they are too large to be taken in a single capture with sufficient image fidelity for printing, which I want to print at the original size and smaller (so a 44 inch max print width approx). maybe someone could help me here. Is this medium format digital back system up to the task? is the guy incorrect in saying that I don't need to stitch. I would imagine the job would be more involved for him if a 1 x 1.5 m original needs to be taken in several shots and would cost more for me as well, but it's a question of what is necessary.

from what I have seen of film it is competitive but the fine details get undermined by the film grain and that even a high end DSLR produces a better result but this is from limited research and I refer to the article on this website: "A Visit with Better Light: 4x5" Film, A Digital Scanning Back, and a DSLR Vie for Honours" - by Richard Sexton. I have had many people tell me to use the large format, but the medium format service offered to me locally is available now, and I have not any large format digital service offerings yet.

I will do what I have to in order to get the image captures, but there are a number of restrictions so far and I may have to compromise. however I still want a high image quality because otherwise it's not worth the time and expense.

I do art work photography here in New York and use a Phase One P 25 22mp digital back (Mamiya flavor). But, my clients are probably different than yours because they use the images for making postcards, web, catalog and to send them to magazines. They seldom reproduce the art like you described, so most of the time they are happy with file sizes of about 50MB (mines are 63MB/8bit) Scanning backs are good if you do the photography in your studio. One of the challenging aspects of scanning backs is the lighting requirements. They need a lot of output of a special and expensive quality. Some museums are now not using their scanning backs after they purchased one shot ones. I have a friend that is well established, works for the top galleries here and uses a 1DsMk2 (he has a scanning back that is mostly left home as a back up for being "cumbersome") You could use one of this and stitch with a shift lens, like an 85mm PC. I used to do that when I had a commercial studio and could only afford the Fujifilm S2 I had the Nikkor 85 Micro Perspective Correction lens and could do 24mp files in seconds I did an entire catalog this way and at the time. Quality was similar to MF...

I agree with Leonardo.

In my opinion, file size is the key. If you're printing at 300ppi, you only have to ask yourself, is the file size big enough for the print size you require?

I shoot artwork for a living and what I use is mostly client dependent. i.e. some of them only want 4x5, no matter what the end use is, while others (usually younger and tech-savvy) can be persuaded that my 5D will more than cover their needs.

Colour-wise, we've never had it so good. The HSL tab in ACR4, in conjunction with a Gretag CC permits total colour control.

If you're going to shoot with a Betterlight, you will find that it dictates your studio set-up rather than the other way round. Wouldn't be for me, I have to say.

Interestingly, most of the white papers on the Betterlight site are dated 2000-2002. That is light years in digital photography development. Things have moved on. You should look at the multi-shot backs out there too. A second-hand Sinar 54-H might be a better investment. You could use flash with it and use it for a lot of other things too, not just art repro.

Just my tuppence worth.

D.

In addition to file size .. I find that a good lens with an even distribution of light is an absolute must.. for this reason I would be careful of stitching files with camera movements as you are going to the edge of most lenses in this way. I have used my Aptus 75 with a hasselblad v system very succesfully for this type of work .. and would imagine that even if the file produced doesn't come half-way at 300 dpi ... it would be worth a test run with your printer.

Ros

As was mentioned above, a multishot back might be a better option as it gives true uninterpolated colour. It would be easier to use if needed on location as flash could be used.

Fair point, though ACR4's lens correction feature is astonishing.

A good tip if you are shooting against an evenly coloured wall is to shoot an extra frame with no artwork in front of the camera. Open that frame in ACR and, using the Colour Sampler Tool, take readings in the centre and near the edges of the frame - not at the edges. Now, in the lens tab, adjust until you've got the edge readings as near to the centre reading as possible. Then, apply those adjustments to the shots of the artworks. The difference is fantastic. They really come alive. Another reason for using digital and not tranny! NOTE: The adjustments must only be applied to shots taken at the SAME aperture.

D.

We purchased a BetterLight Super6k in September last year and really love it.

I went to the USA for training in the factory and picked up a lot of information that has helpd our set up. We are still finding ourselves struggling getting lenses and lighting perfect, we are producing, but want to fine tune.

With Gretag Macbeth colour management software, you can get very close most of the time, but because we also print, we find ourselves putting more into the match than you would if you were just supplying files.

It is an amazing system, and the support from BetterLight is great. let me know if you need any help.

I do a lot of art and archeological stuff and I only switch completely to digital (P25) about 2 years ago.
I never came back to 4x5 film, and rarely I had to stitch 2 22mp capture. I admit (but don't tell anybody) that I even sometimes use my D2x on location with a 85mm pc or 60mm macro lens.

If you have a possibilty to get a cheap scanback (I'm amazed at how cheap they go away) it is probably to way to go. Maybe some studios trade them in, so maybe you should ask some of the bigger DB dealers. If you want to get a DB anyway, there's probably a possibilty to negociate a used scanback for a great (i mean great!) price too.
If artists begin receiving better files of their work, other artists will probably want to get their stuff done as well. IMHO there is a market for this kind of work.

Tom

Art repro is definately one area where the results must speak for themselves. Get some samples shot and printed.

The 'best' answer depends in part on how many pieces of art are to be recorded, their value, and the size, number and type of final repro. If the number of artworks is relatively small (10's) 4x5 or even 8x10 film, scanned, is fine; good enough for the vast majority of art institutions worldwide. It's cost is modest and scalable - $15 - $45 per image for materials.

Digital single shot MF is OK; multi-shot MF or scanback better. As others have noted, a well operated, high quality DSLR is appropriate much of the time.

If you are prepared to consider $25,000 (plus a whole lot of time learning to use it) to document your art, then getting a sample shot and printed for your own comparison should be cost effective.

If your goal is 'the best quality' then the answer will change each year or so as prices change and equipment improves. But the best equipment gives superior results only if operated expertly.

Best

Wollom

Wollom,

What is you say is true! I'd like to add 3 extra parameters and that is work load and market and what is one's ambition for oneself in that market.

If you are starting doing high end art reproduction as an adjunct to existing work, I'd still consider large format with film! That's the least expensive for low volume and still high quality. Here one one can get all the resolution and color with little cost. I'd try a run with a bunch of one's own art work first and see if it might work for you as the cost of LF is very low and if you have a good lab, then you can quickly get help for a great workflow.

If however, there's really a lot of potential business here for high end work then I'd start of and get the various competing MF representatives to demo the camera for you and get to use it on a shoot, again with your own artwork. Then, get to use the camera (renting if needed) over a weekend. Rent the services of a tech at this stage as they will help you work through the nuances of the system and getting the files to the computer, naming and so forth.

Now you have to sit back and look at the numbers. Leonardo did and took the plunge and invested in a Mamiya and the Phase One back. This is now how he earns a living. With the camera, one can hopefully get the work! That in turn justifies the expense and you earn a living! Without the gear, you are just deaming.

At some point one has to decide how much art repro is important and what part of the market interests you.

If the market is good enough, you can work the camera and you want to make it your work, the rest is just a matter of taking the plunge!

Asher

I have a Betterlight that I use for architecture/interiors/landscape. I will also be doing some repro work in the next couple of months for a small museum. Color fidelity has nothing to do with sensor size or artwork size. MFDBs interpolate color due to the Bayer pattern they have on the chip. The multishot backs overcome this problem by moving the pixels in microsteps. MFDBs can use any kind of lighting, which is a big plus. The caveats about stability and lighting consistency apply whether you use a scanback or multishot back. You must of course learn to operate the system, which you will have to do whether you buy a scanback or an MFDB. It is not as difficult as it seems.

I don't see much mention of a great program to equalize lighting across the image - Robin Myers' Equalight.
http://rmimaging.com/products/equalight/equalight_index.html

I am sure you must have read the articles on Betterlight's website. As others have also commented, Betterlight's support is legendary.

If your primary business is going to be art repro, I think a used Betterlight is your best bet. But before you buy into any system, read Asher's comments carefully.

I will be buying an MFDB to use when the Betterlight is not a good choice - in windy or low light conditions.

If you have any questions, PM me.

Cheers,
Kumar

The Betterlight is excellent, as is the support and for me, who made the pilgrimage to their factory, the training be Jerry Kuska was very useful. One thing I did find was that I immediately began wrestling with three problems:

1.Lenses - I though I had an amazing array of APO lenses, they were not new, but they were used in very demanding situations with film and repro work, and yet not one was good enough for the Betterlight. I had to go and buy a new Rodenstock.

2.Lighting - You need a heap of light. The backs are not fast. I was not prepared to spend the money on NorthLights, and wanted better than tungsten (tungsten variability throws the colour management about in my experience), so we built our own fluro banks with 12 full spectrum tubes in each, and whilst it competes with the sun, I could do with more.

3.Stability - A no brainer, but you need an industrial strength camera, not Toyos or cheap Cambos
We have a modified 10x8inch DeVeer enlarger that is doing the trick, but the rails it glides on skew it just enough to knock the camera out of perfect alignment with the wall when moved back, and adjusting the back and front standard is an allen key job.

So to sum up; these excellent digital backs are very challenging to your system, so if you want the best results, you need more than the best digital back. As if this needs to be said :huh: !

Best wishes!

Paul

Paul,

Have you taken a look at the Fotoman 4x5 BL that was specially made for the Betterlight? Used Sinar Ps are now very affordable.
I went to the Betterlight conference in 2006, and it really was a great help.

Cheers,
Kumar

No I have not used any of these solutions, but thank you Kumar, I will look into them. We are settled in now with it all getting the results we want, I am guilty of "McGuiver-style" solutions rather than off the shelf, I will look closer into your recommendations!

Thank you!

Paul

Hey, I guess all of us do that I have a couple of ideas for a travel kit for the Betterlight and a lens adapter system that I hope to get done in the next few months!

Cheers,
Kumar

Very true. I bought a Super 6K-HS at the beginning of this year, thinking my existing 4x5 setup would be more than enough. It turned out to be just enough to get decent shots but now I'm already planning on spending even more money upgrading everything else to be on par with the quality of the Betterlight.

For instance I have a Cambo Legend on a Manfrotto tripod, which is a great studio camera, but now I realize having geared everything without zero indents is better suited for aligning the Betterlight. Likewise my fluoro light banks give decent results for most images but certain colors are difficult to reproduce, so now the North Lights have moved very high on my wish list.

depends on the model you pick up.
I have a betterlight, been doing Giclee for artists galleries and publishers for years now. started off with a Phase One scanback that died shortly after the warranty was up

The back i have now is the 6000 and can shoot 36x48 easily (i have gone as big as 7ft. without stitching, though i recommend stitching anything over 6ft w/ this particular model) coupled up with genuine fractals the image is more than sufficiant for HIGH quality output that my clients expect.




skip film... thats a 2 step process creating a 2nd gen copy of the original..
betterlight software makes sure the exposure is dialed and I built a profile that when sync'd up with the printer produces prints 80%-90% accurate right off the bat.

sure large format would be nice but for the price and quality I am getting from my current med format setup there really is no reason for anything more.
built a solid rep. with this setup. I def recommend betterlight to anyone looking to get into art reproduction/archiving.