Join our Premium Membership now and save with Xpres, Listawood, Ink Experts, Ink Express and more! Just £10 per year.....Click the Membership link above.....

User Tag List

Similar Threads

  1. I've spent Weeks trying to find modern mug templates.
    By 2BPrint in forum Graphics & Artwork
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-03-2014, 09:39 PM
  2. Royal mail new shoebox size starting in next few weeks
    By viccar in forum General Dye-Sub Chit Chat
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 25-10-2013, 10:10 AM
  3. I've had better weeks.
    By gorgall2 in forum Take a Break
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 14-01-2013, 04:13 PM
  4. Ricoh / Power Driver for iMac
    By Postcard in forum Printers
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 29-08-2012, 10:08 AM
  5. The "Doing it cheap" scenario
    By Andrew in forum General Dye-Sub Chit Chat
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 24-03-2011, 11:45 AM
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 37 of 37
  1. #31
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Brixham
    Posts
    47
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have worked with panoramic capture/stitching software for the past ten years and would still never recommend using it for copy work - certainly never as a first choice.

    By your own definition you require a space twice the width and twice the height of the original just to be able to slide the subject L-R into place each time. Then you raise the shelf to move the subject into the copy position for the next series of passes. That sounds like you need a special moveable shelf. How do you hold the artwork absolutely parallel to the film plane? Would you describe this as practical for the average Joe in this forum?

    It seems like such a massive amount of work with so many opportunities for error. One single incorrect exposure or something not noticed could result in having to repeat the whole series of images. What if the original is rolled and needs to be held flat with glass? I would equate your method to producing photocopies of different sections of the original and then laying them all together to make one whole. Lots and lost of overlaps and joins to be attended to.

    Ordinary panorama stitching software will not necessarily work either because of the tendency for it to try and introduce or correct perspective by adding barrel or pincushion distortion.

    Of course, whilst it might appear to work well how can one be certain that the software has not tweaked something that you simply do not notice at the time. The software is making the decisions autocratically and that, to me, means you are not - so errors can creep in. Every single 'frame' will bear any lens distortion so this will be present at each and every stitch. A straight line could easily end up as a wavy line under these circumstances and software would be none the wiser. I work every day with images perhaps 16 metres wide by 5 metres high so a straight line has to be straight.

    The sheer amount of time required to then check the image and all its overlaps making sure there are no ghosts or masked elements must make this cripplingly slow and arduous. I suspect most on here would not wish to spend so much time on the task when there are simpler means available.

    In all, this is not a straight forward method for fast copying or for anyone who just needs a good copy with minimal fuss. I was stitching images using your method almost 20 years ago.

    The 105 is indeed a useful focal length and falls within the range I would personally suggest to maintain a flat field. We are talking full frame sensors of course. A genuine test for your method would be a very large checkerboard which would fully challenge the software and the setup.

    But I suspect the majority of people on this forum find copying something of a mystery and are seeking solutions where simplicity will be the key. My method is not 'my' method but one I know to have been used by thousands of professionals preceding me and one I have also handed on to thousands of trainees over the years. It is based simply on the industry standard Process Camera setup - tried and tested by every print studio for decades when lith film was the basic copy material. It does not require the purchase or use of softboxes and can be adapted to cope with images as big as a wall. At a push, two similar domestic lamps could produce reasonable results. You don't even need a tripod because you can rest your camera on a table and cellotape the artwork to the opposite wall!

    It is always of interest to learn how others have adapted and evolved processes for copying so I wish you continued good luck with the results. I did not mean to offend you in any way and I too respect the opinions of others but I still stand by my statement - you do not need to treat your image as a panorama.

  2. #32
    Premium Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Bridgnorth
    Posts
    314
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    No offence taken !. I can only pass on my own experience and leave it for others to decide if it will work for them. The pictures I have been asked to copy ranged from posters to acrylic and were all done on a D200. Unfortunately I could not afford to go full frame which I agree would have given me a higher res file and better quality in the first place. I printed most at A2 on my 4900 and my customers were more than happy.

    "I was stitching images using your method almost 20 years ago" was this for the same application ?.

  3. #33
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Brixham
    Posts
    47
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by GoonerGary View Post
    No offence, but using rulers to check shadows sounds very 40 years ago.
    It might sound "very 40 years ago" but you are speaking on a forum where the vast majority of people have little or no experience and even less expensive equipment. It is very much a matter of offering a solution that is available to all. This is a solution and not something mystical and difficult to achieve. Sometimes the simplest things are the best solutions and we don't need to turn to the very latest tech.

    The use of polarising filters was implied by the writer as being used with the 50mm prime lens by the way. Use of cross polarising filters on lamps and another on the camera lens is not the exclusive domain of the British Museum either - it is a standard way of improving quality and maintaining saturation when copying subjects that are textured. Not generally needed and would require the lights to be set closer to 30º instead of 45º.

    Nice meter by the way but it costs as much if not more than two lamps so for someone setting out which would you buy first?

    I would love to hear your theories about colour casts from neutral density and other camera filters

  4. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Cambridge
    Posts
    2,369
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    I'd recommend the much cheaper Sekonic 308 light meter for anyone investing in studio lights, a necessary addition to any studio set up and cheaper than a budget mug press. Theory on colour casts, well they exist even amongst the best professional filters, a quick look on the largeformatphoto or maybe APUG forums I'm sure you'll find someone discussing it. I think shifting this thread to a physics debate will suck the life out of everyone in all of Laniakea.
    Last edited by GoonerGary; 18-12-2015 at 01:38 PM.

  5. #35
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Brixham
    Posts
    47
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm not getting drawn into a 'mine is bigger than yours' competition!

    This thread was intended to help those who obviously are not that experienced. I

    Whilst the 308 is a lovely meter and well worth recommending even though it is around 20 years old now, a meter is not necessary for this task nor is copy lighting a 'studio set up'. Horses for courses I say.

    I can get you 100% accurate exposure on any copy set up using a digital camera and three bits of paper. For anyone who does copying once in a blue moon why waste money?

    I know people discuss colour casts in theory. Nuf said on that. I'm more of a practical examples person myself - it's more tangible and less likely to just scare people.

    And Wayupnorth, with great respect, I think you are making a rod for your own back because with things like posters you really do not need to go to all that trouble. I understand the desire to have a large image file and the D200 is not the largest of sensors at 10.2 meg but why not try a single frame passed through your RIP and just see whether the output might still be acceptable for your customer. I know how surprised I have been at just what customers actually expect! Very often it is our own aspirations (mine included) that cause us to create extra work where in fact the end user will never notice anyway.

    I don't intend to comment further - I have described how to achieve perfectly good copies

  6. #36
    Premium Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Bridgnorth
    Posts
    314
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I would still like to know what you were stitching together.

  7. #37
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Ammanford
    Posts
    85
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Wow guys, some great info and taking all comments on board, will take a few photos later / tomorrow to show the image I'm currently shooting and a view of my set up, as they say a picture is worth a thousand words. I will just cover a couple of points though...

    1. Thanks Paul for stating the obvious which I had missed, but with hindsight....... The Canon IPF Printer drivers for OS 10.11 El Capitan have only recently been made available where the windows 7 ones have been around for awhile, so emailing Canon Support with my problem and see what they say.

    2. Thanks Brixhamboy, could do with employing you on site for a couple of days. Will be setting up easle and lights later and will take your advice especially using a ruler.

    3. Polarising filters etc!! - I am photographing 20" x 16" works of fine art created with Unison Chalk Pastels on Canson Mi-Tienes textured pastel paper. (the image I'm currently working on was painted on Black paper) The image appears totally matte so no need for any anti glare interference.

    4. I'm using a Nikon D3200 with Nikon 35mm F1.8 sense, although there is some distortion I am able to correct this in post.... The file size is just shy of a hundred meg and prints high detail on A2 paper and on 17" roll, so I can reproduce 20" x 16" prints but still with this yellow tint.

    As mentioned I'll put up some photos later so you can see what I'm talking about, will also let you know if I get any joy from Canon..

    Thanks again guys for all of the info, it does help and hopefully will help others.

    BTW, printing to my Ricoh SG 3110n produces good colour and good quality prints for sublimation work..... No yellow tint!!!!!

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •