The category, "works of art" is a wide one. Using a 4X5 camera with a Better Light scan back I have digitized everything from drawings to murals and large-scale outdoor sculpture. The only requirement is that the subject not move for the duration of the scan, which does rule out Calder mobiles and a few other things.
I have seen the Cruise scanner in operation and it does a good job on flat art of a size that it can accommodate. As flat art I don't include oil paintings with significant texture. Though the Cruse has a mode to render texture by lighting from one side, I found the results rather crude. I haven't seen the Jumboscan in person, and assume it operates similarly but uses tungsten lights instead of fluorescent. Basically these devices are scan backs permanently attached to a camera, movable copy stage and lighting array. If you have a large number of flat artifacts of manageable size, they offer efficient production, automatic alignment, and freedom from lighting decisions. They're also massive and very expensive. I'm a little baffled at the trend to eliminate photographers from the imaging workflow. I know a number of institutions that have installed copy stations with scan backs and instead of a photographer have hired a "camera operator" with no knowledge of lighting. Consequently, I'm developing a nice little sideline as a "lighting consultant." Ben Blackwell Senior Photographer Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive http://www.bampfa.berkeley.edu [email protected] > From: "David Adams" <[email protected]> > Reply-To: [email protected] > Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 08:42:13 +1200 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Digital back photography for works of art > > I would like to throw a question to those involved in the digitisation > of "works of art" (oil paintings, water colours, sketches etc). > > A number of museums, libraries and archives are using digital camera > backs on 4x5 cameras with success. Currently this appears to be an > acceptable 'modem operandi' for digital capture for works of art. > Another process is traditional photography and scanning colour > transparencies made from this process. (This is our process currently) > > Each method has a common thread - a skilled photographer behind the > lens. > > There now appears to be a range of digital technology solutions that > are very high resolution digital cameras with table and lighting and are > packaged as a complete digitisation solution. > > Examples of these coming thru' are: > Cruse scanners > http://www.crusedigital.com/scanners.html > Jumboscan > http://www.jumboscan.com/ > > My questions are; > > Are these appropriate for digitising "works of art"? > and are there any examples (exemplars) of their application in > capturing works of art? > Or are these only applicable to plans, maps rather than "works of > art". (I have seen sample scans from both and I can say one of the systems can > digitise plans very effectively, sharp, colour accurate, and hi resolution - > 270MB RGB 8bit file) > > > David Adams > Team Leader - Copying and Digital Services > National Library of New Zealand > ph +64 4 4743151 > fax +64 4 4743063 > [email protected] > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to mcn_mcn-l as: [email protected] > To unsubscribe send a blank email to > [email protected] --- You are currently subscribed to mcn_mcn-l as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [email protected]
