Medium format for A1/A2 Fine Art Reproductions

[sibley]

I need a MF film camera for photographing paintings. I will then scan

the Transparencies and print them using an A1 inkjet. I have not used

MF before. The FUJI GW690III seems like a good option. Most of the

paintings will be landscapes. I think the 6x9 format would capture

the most detail and allow me to use a flatbed scanner. I am a little

concerned about the lens (90mm f3.5) its the equivalent of a 39mm

lens in 35mm photography, will the lens curve the paintings? If it

works out I would scan the negatives using a flatbed, I have a

1200dpi scanner at the moment. Canon offer a 2400 dpi flatbed

scanner, should I upgrade? I will be printing upto A1. From basic

calculations my 1200 dpi scanner and a 9x6 negative= approx

(1200*3.5")*(1200*2.5")= 4200x3000= 13 Megapixels

or with the Canon Scanner (2400*3.5")*(2400*2.5")=8400*6000= 50

Megapixels, where am I calculating wrong?

 

Any thoughts on whether this camera is a good option for large format

prints would be appreciated

 

thanks,

 

Jason

[brian yarvin]

I believe that the Fuji cameras (which I own and love) are poor choices for art reproduction. Instead you need something with groundglass focusing and the ability to take a scanning back. (instead of shooting film and then scanning the film)

 

A camera like a Mamiya RB would be perfect for something like this, as would a small view camera.

 

BTW...your scanner calculations are faulty because they don't take color quality into consideration. You also assume that you will get perfect, maximum performance from these devices at all times - roughly the same as assuming that a car can be driven at top speed all the time.

 

Combine the camera with something like a PhaseOne Studiokit (often available on the auction sites for a tiny fraction of the new price) and you will get amazing files with incredible color fidelity.

 

My plan costs more, but I think you'll save in the end because you won't need any film or processing...

[douglas_cummings]

A used Pentax 6x7 w/ a135mm macro. I'll bet you don't do so

many as to have a digital back pay for itself. Put the money into a

high quality scanner instead or pay for each scan. Cheapo

scanners- rated at 1200 or 2400 dpi- will give cheapo results.

Your original negs will be top notch with either the Pentax or the

more expensive RB-RZ.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Our volume is currently not high enough to bankroll/break even/ positive rate of return with a super high res digital back for 4x5 or MF. We shoot either 4x5 or 120/MF and scan the negative or slide/transparency. This method requires alot more labor; but has low capital equipment costs.

[allan_jamieson2]

I don't think that the Fuji would focus closely enough to adequately cover

small paintings. Of course, if you're talking about huge paintings, it might be

possible, assuming that you have plenty of space in your studio to move the

camera and tripod into the optimum positions. I'd recommend something like

the Pentax 67/67II, with a few lenses, including the 135mm macro lens,

mentioned above.

 

As per my other posting above, re the Robert White Anniversary Sale, they

currently have a few used Pentax 67II cameras at specially reduced prices for

today only. They also have used 90mm and 135mm Pentax lenses; might be

a good option for you.

[henry_a]

Unless you want the camera for some other purpose, don't buy one for this project. The Fuji is very poorly suited to this task. A SLR camera would be better, but you can get lots better reproduction by scanning the originals. I assume they are too large to fit on your flatbed scanner or you would have tried that already. The highest quality reprodution will be with a special scanning camera set up just for this particular job. One in particular is the Cruse camera. I think it will copy flat art up to about 5X6 feet. Check with professional photo labs in your area. If you must photograph the paintings I suggest you have the film drum scanned for best results. I think scanning the film on a flat bed is not going to work very well for the A1 (23X33 inches) repro size you mention unless the paintings are very soft and without fine detail.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Width x height DIN format

<br>118.90 x 84.10 cm A0

<br>84.10 x 59.40 cm A1

<br>59.40 cm x 42.00 cm A2

<br>42.00 cm x 29.70 cm A3

<br>29.70 cm x 21.00 cm A4

<br>21.00 cm x 14.80 cm A5

<br>14.80 cm x 10.50 cm A6

<br>10.5 cm x 7.40 cm A7

<br>7.40 cm x 5.20 cm A8

<br>5.20 cm x 3.70 cm A9

<br>3.70 cm x 2.60 cm A10

[kelly_flanigan1]

We shot some artwork with a 6x9cm roll film folding camera. The artwork was 28x40 inches which is 71x102 cm. The negatives were scanned in with a 2400 dpi Epson Flatbed scanner. The inkjet output was the same size as the original; 28x40 inches. Our customer was very happy with the results. We "got away" with only using a 6x9cm negative because the artwork was NOT super detailed. The turn around time for 120 roll film for us is short; while the turnaround time for 120 slide film is several days; it depends on the labs workload. With any camera; one must watch out for barrel distortion at close distances. Chrome/slide film is less work to scan; but the cost and turnaround time for your situation is longer. <BR><BR>An enlarging lens makes a fine copy lens for flat artwork. Our 135mm F5.6 Schneider Componon on my Speed Graphic 4x5 yields fantastic sharp negatives or chromes. A 2400 scan in color is 290 Megas! This is a huge file size. A 6x9 roll film back on a 4x5 Speed Graphic is our next goal. There are film flatness issues with rollfilm backs. Another pitfall is that certain artworks have weird paints that do not photograph well. PERFECT color matching is not possible with some weird paints.