Re: fine art reproduction questions
Re: fine art reproduction questions
- Subject: Re: fine art reproduction questions
- From: Ben Goren <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 1 May 2010 06:13:11 -0700
On 2010 May 1, at 2:48 AM, neil snape wrote:
> I cannot agree with a 50mm for copy work though , the longer the better .
> 180mm macro lenses are also fine for repro.
Well, it depends entirely on subject-to-camera distance and the size of the artwork.
With the 50 compact macro on a 5DII a couple feet from the art, you get about 500 ppi and can capture an entire 9" x 12" watercolor in a single exposure. With the 180 -- a superlative lens, to be sure -- you need a *lot* more subject-to-camera distance or else you'll have to make and stitch together dozens of exposures and wind up with a hundreds-of-megapickles file at a couple thousand PPI. Not only is that ridiculous overkill, but the extra overhead that'll impose in the workflow is a deal-breaker -- for me, at least. I'd only break out my 180 for copy work for the really small stuff, like a 4" x 6" miniature notebook sketch.
The 50 is also great for shooting 3-D works, too. It provides a very natural perspective and reasonable working distances -- about the same working distances, in fact, as the art is generally intended to be viewed from (and thus the natural perspective).
> I do suggest trying and using HDR if you can as you can increase the dynamic
> range in the high lights, where most Dslrs fail first. Also there will be
> less noise in the shadows with HDR.
Well, that's theoretically true, I suppose...but, for art, the dynamic range is very small to begin with. I've never, ever, ever even come remotely close to clipping highlights on artwork when starting from a proper exposure. And I've yet to actually be able to see shadow noise when doing art reproduction, either -- even years ago when using the original Digital Rebel. Then again, I've never tried to reproduce a portrait of Elvis done on black velvet with fluorescent paint and neon lights incorporated into the work.
But how on Earth do you manage to get a good profile out of HDR as a starting point? I can't imagine the workflow nightmare that must be...is it even possible? What kind of colorimetric match do you get out of the final print?
And...well, for that matter, if the art has more dynamic range than the camera can handle, how on Earth are you going to get your printer to reproduce it?
Can you share some of your experiences with HDR for art reproduction? Because the more I think about it, the less sense it makes....
Cheers,
b& _______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden