Best Camera for Photographing your Art?
Dr. Slick
A friend suggested this one:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2946972718&category=3350
<http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2946972718&category=3350>
I don't think i need a 4"x5", so the 6cm by 6cm would be enough resolution.
And i was told i can do slides with this camera too, right?
Any advice appreciated.
Slick
Erik A. Mattila
Slick, an optimum set-up would be a Nikon F3 HP body w/ a Nikkor 55mm
1:2.8 lens. You can't beat this for photographing flat art. The
Bronica is a terrrific camer - I used one in Viet Nam...really an
incredible machine. But there are two important things to consider.
The lens, of course. (there are two on ebay right now - one for nine
bucks which needs a professional cleaning job (expensive and a pain in
the ass) and the other for One fiddy that looks pristine) The above
lens isn't made anymore, but it was ideal for photographing art work,
much more than the 50mm Nikkor that replaced it. The second thing is
the view-finder. The F3 HP (high-point eyepiece) for some reason is the
most accurate view finder in any camera, in terms of wysiwyg. That's
important for photographing paintings. Other view finders just
approximate the image that will record on film, so it's easy to get a
slide with too wide borders or one with the edge of your art spilling
out of the frame.
The other thing to note is that the F3 doesn't support autofocus,
although it can use AF lens in the manual mode. You don't need AF for
photographing paintings, so the other pluses offset that.
And I don't think you need a medium format camera either. Yes, the 2x2
can shoot pro-grade ektachrome slide film, but the slides will be 2x2
which galleries aren't especially fond of. 35mm professional grade
film, coupled with Nikkor lens, will give you more detail than you need
(it's good enough to go to press, actually.)
Anyway, that's my two cents worth. I paid a grand (500 body/500 lens)
for the same set-up when it was brand new in 1986. A brand new F4 (they
still sell them) now is about 1300 bucks - body only, no lense. And you
can't get the 55mm lens now, except used. That's a testimony to the
quality of the camera, I think. They've increased almost 300% in value
in 17 years. Not bad, eh?
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/micronikkor/55mmmicro.htm
Gud E. Nuff
>And I don't think you need a medium format camera either. Yes, the 2x2
>can shoot pro-grade ektachrome slide film, but the slides will be 2x2
>which galleries aren't especially fond of. 35mm professional grade
>film, coupled with Nikkor lens, will give you more detail than you need
>(it's good enough to go to press, actually.)
I'm a Minolta user myself, but haven't touched either
of my camera bodies since buying a digital camera.
And along with the difficulty of finding a good
photo process lab these days, there is the difficulty
of finding 35mm slide film, of any kind! I have
one source that I buy from - a camera store in
El Paso, TX - where I can still buy refrigerated
professional grade Kodachrome 64 - my preference
since I shoot in open shade when I do shoot with
slide film.
OTOH, one can still send off digital files to
a number of mail order film processors and have
slides printed from digital, assuming one has a
high-rez digital. You can even email digital
files to these mail-order places. I've not done
so since I'm no longer interested in competitive
shows or galleries that require slides. Most of
the galleries of any repute today have access to
web material and can view an artist's works there,
assuming said artist has posted work to a web
site.
Dr. Slick
>
> And I don't think you need a medium format camera either. Yes, the 2x2
> can shoot pro-grade ektachrome slide film, but the slides will be 2x2
> which galleries aren't especially fond of. 35mm professional grade
> film, coupled with Nikkor lens, will give you more detail than you need
> (it's good enough to go to press, actually.)
>
Yeah, I've heard this from others too, in the sense that it will
be a duplicate to go from medium format to 35mm slides, which is one
generation more away from the original. So some have suggested
getting a 35mm for the slides, to go directly to slides.
But, if you many duplications of the original slides anyways (to
send to galleries), maybe it doesn't matter?
Slick
Erik A. Mattila
I'm sure everyone has their own ideas on this, but I did kibbutz on a
couple of professional shoots by a photographer up at UC Davis, who was
photographing George Longfish's paintings (in fact, he's the one who
told me about getting the Nikon F3 etc. I wish I could remember his
name.) At any rate, he just shot several frames of each. He would do
10 or so at one setting, and 10 or so at another. This guy could change
film pretty rapidly.)
BTW, the proper name for that lens is "Micro Nikkor" not just "Nikkor."
Eirk
>
>
>
> Slick
Argon3
add some thoughts.
What will the use of the photos be?
If you are submitting photos to competitions or galleries then go with the 35mm
option. While Nikon offers a huge system of bodies and lenses (including the
famous 55mm macro and it's brother the 105 micro) any legitimate camera system
will provide alomost identical results (canon, minolta, pentax, etc.); just get
a system that you are comfrotable with AND A STABLE TRIPOD. Galleries and
juried shows and the like usually throw the 35mm slides into a projector and
screen them for a director or a panel...some of them might be doing this
digitally now for all I know and are looking for images burned on a CD...the
world changes so quickly nowadays.
If you are going to reproduction or are documenting a work for a collection
(museum or private) then large format (4X5 or 8X10) is the way to go...the
bigger the better...more detail. Again, this application is going digital but
the cost of a digital back for even a 4X5 is prohibitive. The good news is
that large format equipment is rentable in most major urban centers.
There are article on how to photograph art all over...I think that there is
even a citation in the old Ansel Adams photo series (back when it was five
volumes rather than three) which you might find in a library somewhere.
It is important to put color reference in the shot so that the color accuracy
of the photo can be judged and adjusted if necessary. There are cards
available from Kodak that will provide the necessary color reference.
Medium format (6X7) is okay...doesn't fit in a conventional slide projector but
is viewable on a light box.
Hope that this doesn't obscure the issue any more than is necessary.
argon
Dr. Slick
> Having done some of this work for both artists and institutions, I'd like to
> add some thoughts.
> What will the use of the photos be?
> If you are submitting photos to competitions or galleries then go with the 35mm
> option. While Nikon offers a huge system of bodies and lenses (including the
> famous 55mm macro and it's brother the 105 micro) any legitimate camera system
> will provide alomost identical results (canon, minolta, pentax, etc.); just get
> a system that you are comfrotable with AND A STABLE TRIPOD. Galleries and
> juried shows and the like usually throw the 35mm slides into a projector and
> screen them for a director or a panel...some of them might be doing this
> digitally now for all I know and are looking for images burned on a CD...the
> world changes so quickly nowadays.
I've sent some stuff on CD, yes. Most of this will be for slides
for
galleries and competitions. It seems even with all the high tech
stuff, most galleries still want slides.
I also want to use them for a 8.5" x 11" portfolio, for showing
people my work in person.
I'm only planning to do posters with slight enlargement of the
original for certain images, so for these, i have used the services of
a guy with a 4x5 camera. For the other images, it seems that a 6cm by
6cm format would be good enough, with perhaps a digital backup.
Someone mentioned that they take 6x6, digital, and slides all at
the same time, so that they don't have to set up for each one, and
they don't get the degradation of scanning the 6x6, or the degradation
of duplicating the 6x6 to 35mm slide (which would be one more
generation away from the original).
But a 4"x5" would be too expensive for all of them (about $30 a
pop, unless i did it myself), and 6x6 seems good enough for archiving.
Any comments welcome.
Slick
Dr. Slick
> 1:2.8 lens. You can't beat this for photographing flat art. The
> Bronica is a terrrific camer - I used one in Viet Nam...really an
> incredible machine. But there are two important things to consider.
> The lens, of course. (there are two on ebay right now - one for nine
> bucks which needs a professional cleaning job (expensive and a pain in
> the ass) and the other for One fiddy that looks pristine) The above
> lens isn't made anymore, but it was ideal for photographing art work,
> much more than the 50mm Nikkor that replaced it. The second thing is
> the view-finder. The F3 HP (high-point eyepiece) for some reason is the
> most accurate view finder in any camera, in terms of wysiwyg. That's
> important for photographing paintings. Other view finders just
> approximate the image that will record on film, so it's easy to get a
> slide with too wide borders or one with the edge of your art spilling
> out of the frame.
>
photographing people and models?
i suppose for overall photography, i could just change the lens...
Slick
Erik A. Mattila
Yes and no. I've been disappointed with the lens for general shooting,
actually. I think a good zoom lens would be more satisfactory,
personally - even a 70mm-135mm (which I used to use on my old Asahi
Pentax - a really great zoom for photographing people. You can get nice
closeups w/o holding the camera in their faces, something you would have
to do with the 55mm.) But instead of investing in another lens for my
Nikon, I just bought a digital Nikon - 5700.
BTW, Argon's advice is pretty solid, in my opinion. But as I said
originally, one feature the F3 has over other cameras is the 1:1
strength of the view finder. It almost seems like an insignificant
issue, but it is rather important when preparing slides for galleries
etc. You have to tape off the film areas outside the picture edges,
which can be a real pain in the ass, and of course the danger of not
getting you whole artwork in frame is ever present. Argon didn't
address this issue, and I'm not sure if later models have this feature.
I know the 5700 doesn't.
And you're going to face other expenses as well. You'll need two light
set-ups and a good quality hand-held light meter (which are quite
expensive). The camera's light meter won't do the trick, because you
have to get right on the art once the lights are on to check for
regional hot spots, and play around with the light positions until you
eliminate them. I think that's one reason hire photographers for
sessions - they group up until they have 6 or 7 paintings ready and
bring in the photographer to take about twenty shots each. About a 4
hour job. And a level. You have to hang the painting exactly plumb,
align the center on the camera lens exactly on the center of the
painting, @ exactly 90 degrees from the plane of the painting, and
locate two lights exactly 45 degrees to the plane of the painting. The
lights are moved in and out on this 45 degree axis to adjust for hot
spots. The guy I watched layed out the whole area with masking tape on
the floor, relying on Pythagoras for his layout. It took him about two
hours to set up, but of course there was a BS factor there too,
especially all the questions I was firing at him.
But in the end, it's a good skill to have. In my last stint in the
Army, at Ft. Lewis, WA, one of my buddies, Richard Fukuhara, was the
Battalion photographer. The whole Battalion moved to Maryland, but I
had less than 90 days left in service, so I was transferred to a holding
company. Richard was packing up for the move, but regs. said that any
opened carton of supplies had to be discarded, so he called me over and
we loaded up my VW with photographic paper - every kind you could think
of. I'm not kidding...I had rented a room in Tacoma just to stay away
from the fort as much as possible so I wouldn't get assigned to shit
details, and the owner of the house was a college student who had a
complete photo darkroom in his basement. So I paid my rent with photo
paper, and had so much left over that I could do 11x14 "test strips" -
what fun. I had my Pentax and a cheap Yashica 2x2 (what a great camera,
btw, and it sold for 60 bucks brand new.) I spent much of my remaining
time at Mt. Ranier, Point Defiance, Olympus Park etc. clicking away.
But when I got home I soon realized that it was a pretty expensive hobby
to maintain, so my enthusiasm dried up a bit.
Erik
Dr. Slick
I'm looking at the Canon Powershot G3 for about $409, with a
128MB card that will cost another $150 or so.
This should be fine for 8.5"x11" I'm sure.
I'm not so sure if it will be easy or cheap or of good quality if
i want
to transfer these digital images into slides. Would the price/quality
be good?
Thanks for your advice.
Slick