• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Digital Large Format

Jack_Flesher

New member
My experience is that there are two main types of art repro customers. The first is museums that want to display a dupe to protect the original. The second -- which usually pays more -- is an artist who is well enough recognised they can sell copies of an original work and here is where the problems start. They tend to compare the copy directly with their original before they sign it and send it off. Ususally this is done in studio and if the deep blue and blue-greens in their seascape don't look right in the copy they are not going to be satisfied...

And for sure, HID lights are not cheap -- nor are they small! But they are freaking incredible lights. Someday I'd like to land a job that justified their use and purchase :)

FWIW, in addition to Profoto strobes, I have a pair of older CCT (cold-cathode-tube) lights made by WestLight. I bought them used from an art-repro guy who bought a set of NorthLight HID 900's.
 
Last edited:

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Jack_Flesher said:
My experience is that there are two main types of art repro customers. The first is museums that want to display a dupe to protect the original. The second -- which usually pays more -- is an artist who is well enough recognised they can sell copies of an original work and here is where the problems start. They tend to compare the copy directly with their original before they sign it and send it off. Ususally this is done in studio and if the deep blue and blue-greens in their seascape don't look right in the copy they are not going to be satisfied...
I found one artist who had paid handsomely for her 10ft by 8ft oil painting of a path through fields and to dark woods, She had a 4x5 tranny made and printed by a most famous atelier.

The colors are different. She says that the limited editon of 5 is a new work of art and has to be viewed as such.

After all, it is not the magnificent size of the original, it is not in oil and you can't walk in to it in the same way.

The small one, however, is a special window to this world with an entirely different presence and esthetic.

To me, in fact, it is like cloning a dog, and expecting it to have the same tricks.

Not!

Asher
 
Thank you for the feedback, I think that when I get to NY next mont I have to go talk to potential clients and try to evaluate what exactly they want to do with the photos. When I used to do it they where in SOHO, now that is a shopping center and they almost all moved to West Chelsea. I have a friend that will rent me a desk in the 29th st on the west side, so I can walk and get to know the art community there (I think that there are more than 150 galleries)

This is contemporary art, not a lot of museums, just galleries, and I don't think that they want the images to make copies and sell them because is not popular art at all. They use the transparencies to mail to prospective buyer, to publish catalogs of shows and for insurance.

What I'm doing here is approximating what the situation may be, and because it is such a competitive city, I want to be ready for any potential challenge, and for that, as a secret weapon I have your knowledge and kind advice.

I have learned much that will be useful later, for example, that you need about 3,000 watts of tungsten lights to cover a small painting and that the situation with a scanning back may be hard on location.

So now I continue to research MF backs, if they work with flash better than tungsten (quartz or halogen) or the contrary.

I know that if you need 3k watts to make a Betterlight work on location then other photographers will face the same problem and either they found the solution or they have to be using a digital back.

so thanks again
Leonardo
 
D

Doug Kerr

Guest
Hi, Leonardo,

This "scanning backs" are insertsall most the size of a 4 x 5 Polaroid back that has a set of tree sensor with color filters for Red Green and Blue and scan the film plane to capture the image.
Thanks. That's what I might have thought, but I was not sure.

Best regards,

Doug
 
New information (for me at least)

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/p45-long.shtml

Digital capture is here to stay, but everything is so new and changing that information is hard to find. For example, I asked in this thread if digital backs are as good with tungsten (or any other "hot" continuos source) and nobody here objected to the notion, even some stated that "Sure, no problem." ( Don Lashier www.lashier.com)

But... there seams to be a problem with digital backs and continuos light source photography. That is the reason I's posting and scanning a few forums (DPReview.com, LL, PhaseOne owner's and here) and that is to make the best decision on the direction of my approach BEFORE i even begin my reinsertion to the field.

There is also this interesting real life anecdote that I want to CC here because it may be relevant to the thread

""Hi all,

I just bid on an architectural contract to shoot some images of properties for a moderately high end property sales client. They were for publication up to B4 size (25cmx35.3cm).

After consulting their (in my opinion rather excessive) requirements I proposed hiring a P45 digital back setup for the 2 days. However, I lost the job to another photographer. The reason for this I was told was because of the superior quality and resolution of his images as he was using a Betterlight 8K-HS back.

I'm not sure that this makes sense really as a scanning back seems very unwieldy. Could this just be because they are used to people shooting 4x5 rather than any real understanding of the image quality they actually need ?

Would be interested to hear the views of other architectural photographers ... Thanks :)

Mark. """

The way I'm thinking now is:

-- I know that I will work on location and alternate from 4x5 and 8x10 transparency work shot with hot lights/tungsten film
-- Bringing a separate flash system may not be the most efficient way to work considering the time to set up for tungsten, rap up that and set up strobe lights etc.

-- Only the newer $30k models of backs are good for longer exposures, and my budget requires under-$10k solutions--

Conclusion (so far) would be to consider AGAIN a scanning back.

This would be a perfect companion to 4x5 film, with the same lenses, tripod, camera etc and 4 Norman Allure 1,000 watts each (this cost $100 each) and start the business with a $6,500k plus $400 solution.


Leonardo

ps: advice please
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Leonardo,

A lot depends on the market you are in. How much was being paid for each picture taken where the Betterlight took the client?

I just spent an evening with a serious art collector who gets his 4x5 tannies from an old timer downtown. Apparently the photographer does just fine art photography using film and is busy all day at $28 per transparency.

Now I realize that getting a file is one stop more, but that price from an expert would be tough to beat!

I'll try to visit his studio and tell him to raise his prices!

I have no doubt that other photographers charge much more, but at least this example shows that competition might effect your commercial model.

I like the idea of working with what you now own plus, rented equipment, before putting down hard cash.

Of course, if you know really your market, then there's no problem in what you buy.

Asher
 
I'm going to star with transparencies, I think that this particular field is has not gone digital yet, I promise not to buy anything before a few months in NY, but what I can do and I'm doing is to learn everything there is to know in terms of the present and future alternatives to 4x5 and 8x10 transparency art work photography.

The economic side of the equation is an important one, same also applies to work flow. for example: it is not un common for photographers doing this type of work to use tungsten, so in order of being able to shoot film and digital, the scanning back is more productive because it can use the same tungsten set up.

I think that offering clients 4x5 AND digital files of high resolution at an affordable price may be more attractive than just one or the other.

They could use the digital immediately, save on scanning cost/time/effort, and the quality of direct capture may be better than the scanned transparency.

The 4x5, on the other hand could be FedExed to a client that is used to considering art acquisition with a good loupe, and a light-box. Also the 4x5 could be stored for long term inventory and/or insurance purposes.

thanks, leonardo

ps: coffe=postaholism
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
So Leonardo,

Can you share the price ranges you see out there? Further, there must be personal knowledge of the photographer that overcomes price differences.

I'll try to get more information for Los Angeles!

Asher
 
Asher, I'm not sure I understand your question, but my experience as an assistant to a $200k/year art work photo exclusive photographer is that he shot a lot of 8x10 and is was more than $100 per click. When I went on my own I was doing more 4x5's, and charging a lot less, but, as I said, I have to see how the market is now and charge accordingly. But if you want to check prices, there is http://www.thesohophotographer.com/rates.html

One 4x5 on location of a 2d $82.50 and 8x10 is only $145 or if installation, sculpture $190
... the best part is this "*A minimum of $600.00 of work needs to be photographed per location in Manhattan. Contact us for quotes on locations outside of Manhattan. There will be an additional charge for transportation."

There is no digital option other than "Rates for scanning"...


Asher Kelman said:
So Leonardo,

Can you share the price ranges you see out there? Further, there must be personal knowledge of the photographer that overcomes price differences.

I'll try to get more information for Los Angeles!

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I certainly should visit the guy in L.A. and invite him into the new millenium!

I feel better already!

Asher
 

Jack_Flesher

New member
FWIW, I have heard that going rates for Betterlight scans of flat artwork run in the $100 - $150 range, more for 3D work.

Incidentally, one of the big issues seems to be the ability to capture the texture of the brush or palette knife strokes in a believable fashion. This usually requires a broad directional light-source and then you have falloff across the image to deal with. Obviously somebody shooting film will not deal with this but perhaps the scanning service will -- and I'd suspect at additional cost :)

PS: Once you've seen a Betterlight true-color scan compared directly to a Bayer-color single capture, you will be hard-pressed to accept the Bayer image. And since artwork does not move and can be photographed in a controlled environment, the Betterlight becomes an ideal capture device for this application -- so I am not surprised the P45 shooter lost the job to the Betterlight shooter.

Cheers,
 
Thank you Jack for your reply

I like the idea of $100/shot, so, so far so good.
Also your description of the color differences from scanning to one shot methods is very convincing and makes sense.

The problem that made me consider the MF backs and was the potential problem with location work and required light.

Art work now a days tend to be large, and I wold have to be ready for any and all requirement by the gallery.

In other words, how many 1000watts Norman Allure laps can I bring alone to an unspecified assignment of scanning 2d and 3d?

Thanks, Leonardo
 

ADam_Brown

New member
I have 4 BUHL HID Copy Lights For Sale

I am selling 4 BUHL Soft Cube HID Copy Lights. These lights are in excellent condition and have been lightly used in our studio for photographing and reproducing 2D art work. They are the same design as the Northlight HID lights. Please email me at adam@osiobrown.com for more information.
 

Jack_Flesher

New member
I cannot speak to the Normans since I have never used them, but I can tell you I could do a pretty decent repro job up to a 40" x 50" print on location with my two 1000-watt Westlights. You could do it with one 900 Watt Northlight HID, but they are *NOT* a portable solution!

FWIW, lets discuss lighting needs with the Betterlight for a minute:

My 'normal' working ISO with the Betterlight super 6K in the field is around 1200 in low light. I have used ISO 2000 with very little visible noise (see the sink crops earlier in this thread -- they were taken at ISO 2000 and about a three-minute scan time). It will go up to ISO 3200, though that gets a bit noisy. With the BL, your line-time determines your total scan time, so even if you have to drop down to a line time of 1/40th sec, your total scan time is still only about 3 minutes (in standard 6000x8000 capture mode). Flat art does not require a lot of DoF and copy lenses tend to work best just a few stops down from their maximum apertures, so your wider apertures are usually fine; say f8 -- f11 with a good copy lens. 1/40th @ f11 and ISO 1200 does not require a huge amount of light so 2000 watts should be adequate. However, to connect this back to the earlier discussion, if you end up having to filter your tungsten-halogens with 80B gels, you will effectively knock out a full stop of output taking 2000 watts down to 1000. (FTR the Betterlight scanning back comes with both a daylight IR block filter and a Tungsten IR block filter suitable for tungsten lighting.)

Cheers,
 
Last edited:
Norman Allure 1000c

This could be good, it is very portable and affordable. I could use them with tungsten film and may be the Better Light. To keep the location not to hot I could compose and focus using the 350 watt and then ad the other 650 watt halogen bulb at scan time.

Is a crazy idea or could work?



http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/largeimages/245489.jpg

The Allure C1000 is a constant light source that is great for video and still imaging. Variable output at a constant color temperature makes it the right choice for digital applications. The Allure C1000 system is also available in convenient kits.

The Allure effectively "dims" the light without changing color temperature by putting two bulbs inside one diffusion globe. This fixture includes a 350 watt, and a 650 watt, glass base, bi-pin halogen bulb. When lit at the same time, the Allure provides 1000 total watts.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Jack_Flesher said:
However, to connect this back to the earlier discussion, if you end up having to filter your tungsten-halogens with 80B gels, you will effectively knock out a full stop of output taking 2000 watts down to 1000. (FTR the Betterlight scanning back comes with both a daylight IR block filter and a Tungsten IR block filter suitable for tungsten lighting.)
Cheers,
So, Jack, for the Tungsten IR block filter, how much light is lost?

Asher
 

Jack_Flesher

New member
Under tungsten, that filter loses about 1/2 stop more than the regular IR cutoff filter. By itself, it is about a 1-1/3 stop loss over no filter.
 

Jack_Flesher

New member
leonardobarreto.com said:
This could be good, it is very portable and affordable. I could use them with tungsten film and may be the Better Light. To keep the location not to hot I could compose and focus using the 350 watt and then ad the other 650 watt halogen bulb at scan time.

Is a crazy idea or could work?

I think you need to first do some research and see if the typical gallery owner will allow you to use hot lights on their artwork. Second, you should ask what they think of a 4x5 film transparency versus a digital file. If you get a thumbs-up on both, then the above kit may work fine...
 
I worked as an assistant to a busy art-repro-only photographer (in the film era) and I never saw him use anything other than 4 Lowel-Totas. He worked for midtown and downtown, including the top galleries there are. So I never thought that there could be a problem with hot lights.

With digital or not, I think that I should be able to offer transparencies, but help them to transition to digital where it will all end up sooner or later.

So the debate on going all the way digital for galleries would be this...

Cons of digital:

-- Issues of cataloguing and archiving digital images for 10 - 20 or more years.
-- Custom of sending 8 x 10 transparency of expensive painting to prospective collectors as "is done"
Pros..
-- You can make transparencies out of digital files -- i think -- and archive that on top of dig. file?
-- Same with 8 x 10...
-- An original scan is always better than a scan of film because is one less loose step.
-- You can make slides out of digital files, as many copies as needed and send them with out worry of not coming back.
-- Integration with other processes and media like web content, etc

So the idea is going to the client and telling them: you can do it the old fashion way or accept change and go digital, and I can do that for you.

so lets see what they say...

by the way, has anyone made a LF transparency out of a Betterlight scan??

thanks, leonardo
 
just thinking aloud ..

Asher, this is strictly window shopping.

I am not convinced in which way to go for digital capture of art repro

Scanning back solutio is about $10k (about 500/month 2 years to pay), this include 4 second hand BHULs and the cheapest entry level Betterlight -- I have trypod, stands, Sinar, color meter, light meter etc)
The downside here is that this equipment is good for this an architecture, and I want to have options in case I want to do other type of photography.

The MF DB solution is attractive: I have 645 AF system with 3 AF lenses. I think that have to start with at least a 22 MP like a PhaseOne P 25. I have checked, and a 1 year warranty P 25 Mamiya mount goes for $14,500. The other alternative is the RZ that could cost new about $11,000 but the best would be a ZD back so that I could use with a Sinar adaptor and some digital view camera optics for architectural and interior.

The problem with the one shot back is that they may have difficulty doing long exposures w/out generating noise.

The good thing is that it is a much more dynamic and versatile solution. I could shoot with flash plus available light i case of installations and sculpture. I could also photograph people or rent the camera to a paparazzo friend that does fashion every now an then to help pay for the back (and may be to upgrade later to a P 45)

So this is what I'm thinking now a days ... a lot of thinking and not much photographing ... I'm packing my things here in Mexico City and getting ready to be in New York City....



Asher Kelman said:
Leonardo,

Look up Sinar too!

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Leonardo,

These problems are overcome with the first hige deal. However, for now, why not rent a back for your Contax and try different lighting. Just walk into a gallery and offer them 10 free pictures as your are testing your system.

I made up a motto for myself, years ago, "Don't think! Try!" Too many photographers suffer from digitalism, at the inteface between different technology and price ranges. The cure is to be practical and just start using from the least expensive up.

Asher
 
Top