Leaf Q's for repro work

[Ben Rubinstein]

Hi folks!

Never thought I'd be posting a thread on this board, I'm way too poor!

I've been doing work for an organistation which privately owns a huge collection of handwritten Jewish literature spanning back 500 years and beyond. They are interested in photographing this work, page by page (they have around 10,000 books and documents!) and as I'm their resident photographer they contacted me. It's well timed for me as this would be a perfect job for me as my wedding business dries up to around the Death Valley level. The budget is about $35K including lights, copy stands, computer setup and enough memory and backup for 2 years of work.

I contacted Yair Shachar who put me in touch with Yad Vashem the Holocaust museum in Jerusalem where they have a reproduction studio using a Leaf back on an AFI camera. I visited them and they were incredibly nice people only too happy to show and demonstrate everything. I went back again yesterday and they photographed a sample I'd brought of the material which we would be shooting so I could get an idea of the workflow and quality.

I've written to Yair about my conclusions but as he's out of the office for another week I thought I'd pick some minds here if that's ok. Firstly I'm going Leaf due to the support network in this country, there are apparently only some 3 Hasselblad's in the entire country and Phase is only starting now to trickle in since they bought Leaf. As such it makes sense to buy Leaf.

Secondly the back they were using, a 22 megapixel back, isn't enough. Oh it's sharp enough and beats the daylights out of a 1DsIII for example however these documents are very old, the writing very faded and there is an incredible amount of damage with a high percentage of them, they had not been archively kept until the past 20 years and there is serious woodworm damage and generally many are falling to peices. Although the 22 megapixels was a lot and very sharp, I think the 28 or 33 megapixel back would be a better bet and the photographer in Yad Vashem agreed with me.

Speed is not an issue, even 2 seconds between shots doesn't bother me. Ditto crop factor, the camera will be on a repro stand and a big one. Cameras are an issue. Leaf still sell the AFI apparently but the photographer there told me that they are limited to using a single 80mm lens because the cost of the 55mm he would love could buy a new back! Yair suggested a Mamiya RZ and having seen the setup in Yad Vashem I'd agree that a WLF is essential for copy work when you are recomposing and refocusing every time you change the book or document size on the copy table or even every 20 pages or so when photographing through an entire book. I thought about Hasselblad, the older bodies are very cheap these days and the lenses are the same vintage as the RZ. Although I realise a P1 camera gives more modern lens options but without a WLF they are not in the running. I can buy a lightly used RZ with spare, motor drive, 3 lenses, etc for the price of a single AFI lens methinks. I have to check though whether the back would need to be shimmed to an RZ, it's a pain in the neck I'd prefer not to have to bother with.

Lighting. The studio there just changed from continuous lighting banks to Profoto D1's. The continuous light wasn't accurate enough between banks and were causing colour shifts. The D1's are nice lights, should I look any further keeping in mind perfect shot to shot accuracy and balance?

Backs. As neither the speed or the crop bother me, would I be gaining much by spending the extra for the 33 megapixels over the 28? Seems rather moot to me to be honest. Another question is with a fixed studio setup shooting tethered at iso 50, why not get the previous generation 33 megapixel back, the 75s and save a fortune which could be better spent on superior lighting or a better copy table or a faster computer? I've read of center fold issues with that back but I've no idea if it was just history with more modern software.

Software. Leaf seems to be upgrading their software though locking out older backs. With a setup like this I don't see a huge need for anything over complicated though. In their studio they were shooting tethered with an old version of Leaf Capture, applying a default, cropping then sending to their workstation and doing the rest in lightroom with the tiff's and I can see why.

Having compared the files from Leaf Capture and the raw files processed in C1 6.2 that I downloaded for the occasion (I don't have 6 yet myself) there is no doubt in my mind that Leaf Capture does a far superior job with micro contrast. I know C1 quite well and the sharpening just doesn't quite get there in side by side images. Colour isn't quite as accurate either. I'm surprised actually as P1 now own Leaf and support their backs and tethering (though interestingly they don't allow you to work with Leaf files without a license though you can do that with P1 files). Seems to me that with a setup where the lighting is fixed, low contrast and static, it won't make any difference which software I use to tether, if Leaf Capture gives superior results then I'll stick to it.

In any case while I wait for Yair to give me the number of the local dealer, thoughts please people?

 

[Geoff]

Ben -
An interesting post for many reasons. You seem to have done much of your homework already. The AFI and 80 is a fine combination, and yes, the 33 mp back may give you more, especially if its more up to date. The newer software is nice, but by no means necessary. The older software works just fine and has for years.

While a big fan of the AFI system and the 80 mm lens is a killer lens, perhaps consider another option a higher res back on a less expensive platform. As much of your work is tech'l and studio based, could you get away with a tech camera and a single lens and a higher res back?

Not sure its cheaper, as the precise tech'l cameras and their lenses are not budget items either, but maybe to check out?

Good luck with your project. Have you confirmed Leaf Capture vs. C1 in print, or on screen?

Geoff

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

On screen where it's pretty apparent actually, the output for this work is not print at least not for 99% of the work, it's screen viewing. The idea is to have maximum quality for transcription of these ancient and much damages scripts by multiple people. That and being able to archieve these documents and books but given the amount print is very much on the backburner.

AFI would be nice but I'd have to look at the pricing as we'd need both the 80mm and the 50mm. Having a look on ebay at RZ stuff I could get two lenses and two bodies for 2/3 of the price of just that 50mm...

Yair just emailed me to tell me that he's back in Israel and gave me his cell phone number to call him on Sunday to make a meeting with the local leaf dealer. That guy is dedicated!

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

Hmmm, didn't realise that Leaf backs have live view when tethered. That technically opens up the camera side of things, I won't necessarily need WLF. Though to be honest the RZ solution is still the cheapest by a long stretch.

 

[Graham Mitchell]

As much as I like the AFi camera and lenses, for the work you are doing you might be better off with a view camera because the lenses are even better and you will not need all the features of an SLR. I imagine you will be setting up something like a copy stand, with the pages lying flat on the horizontal surface. In fact, if all the pages are approximately similar size, you might only need one lens too. If my assumptions are correct, go for a the highest resolution back and best lens you can afford. The Leaf Aptus II 12 would be ideal if you can afford it. Any form of live view could be very useful. (The Phase IQ series are much more expensive due to various extra features which you would not be using.)

If, on the other hand, you do need an SLR-style camera, the AFi seems like a great bet. See if you can get some samples taken with the 90mm macro lens - it is very highly regarded.

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

If I can't afford the 50mm from Rollei then I'm hardly likely to be able to afford the lenses from a view camera setup .

It isn't just pages of similar size, the books are all different sizes and as you work through the pages the focus changes as pages go from left to right or visa versa and the depth changes. I watched the photographer yesterday having to climb on a ladder to focus through his WLF as we shot an A3 sized document, he begged me to buy a system where I could afford more than one lens as he would have given his right arm for a wider angle lens, with a view camera you would have had to be spiderman to have used the GG! A view camera had until now sounded like a nightmare though that is of course not true if you have live view, however the price difference is still very true.

 

[Graham Mitchell]

If I can't afford the 50mm from Rollei then I'm hardly likely to be able to afford the lenses from a view camera setup .

The difference is that the view camera itself can be bought used and just needs to be simple and well-built. You won't need any movements so you won't have to pay for the highest quality gear controls, etc. You won't even need a sliding back or any viewfinder options. You don't even need lenses with a large image circle (as you won't be using movements) or fast lenses. It's worth looking into.

 

[Shashin]

I do reproduction work for an archive. I recently finished an exhibition catalog of illustrated books from the 16th century on.

For flat single pages, a scanner is going to do a better job than a camera. We use an Epson XL10000 which has an A3 size bed.

For books, we have a Linhof M679 view camera, 55mm and 90mm Rodenstock lenses, and a Phase One P25+ back. I agree there is no practical difference between 28MP and 33MP. For this project I did not using standard copy lighting as we were making the books look like objects--I was also designing the catalog and had specific spread designs in mind. Because of the thickness of the books, everything was shot at f/22. and no, diffraction was not an issue. At f/16, the books were just not sharp from page to spine. Smaller books were shot with the 90mm, larger books with the 55mm, as in the example. Our camera is mounted on a studio stand. You can also save height issues by having the book on the floor rather than a table. View camera movements were nice when photographing a single page in a bound book as it was easier to adjust the camera rather than the book. I only had 40 or so books and so I could take time with movements and such. I don't think I would want them for the volume you are doing.

The book is of Ovid's stories and from the Bates College Muskie Archives and Special Collections

 

[cunim]

Ben, I think nothing will make as much difference to extracting subtle detail from damaged documents as multishot. Have you considered renting a 39MS setup for a month or so and attacking the pile?

 

[Shashin]

BTW, I would not be that fixated about the MP count. The difference in resolution between 24MP and 28MP is only 8%. I would focus on the quality of the optics. If you are looking for more resolution, how about a scanning back?

 

[routlaw]

Ben

Have you considered the Betterlight scan back and LF solution to your project? I use this system almost daily to copy works of art and other things. If used correctly it has no peers in image quality. I did consider the H3D II MS also at the time I purchased the Betterlight system, but still felt the scan back produced a more natural looking image. The MS cameras as good as they are still exhibit a tad bit of artifacts. Nothing wrong with the MFD solution but understand it is interpolated color which will also exhibit a certain amount of artifacting around text and similar situations, the scan back not so.

You can get a system like this, LF camera, lens, scan back and lights (depending upon which ones) for under $20 grand USD.

Just a thought.

Rob

 

[Shelby Lewis]

If you do decide to go leaf and mamiya... the proIID shares a similar mount as the AFD series cameras (and DF). Just know that the RZ (non-D) takes a V-mount back via adapter... so going with an RZ-IID leaves the option of using the same back on a 645 camera available as well. Food for thought if you are trying to get maximum utility out of the back.

I'm a leaf guy, now (28mp)... and love the back. In my limited experience, I agree that LC has some sort of special sauce that I've not been able to replicate in C1 yet... BUT I'm a total newbie with C1.

The Hassie CF Backs (I think) also use those clever iAdapters that allow for using the same back on almost any platform (given the purchase of the very affordable i adapters).

Lights... Broncolor and Elinchrom come to mind when I think of accuracy, but the D1's are no slouch either. Elinchrom could be a less expensive solution (than Profoto) that would still provide great accuracy.

Good luck!

 

[fotografz]

Ben, I've worked with most all of this stuff, including for copying art work and shooting fabric samples with very subtile details that had to be dead-on accurate in color.

I had a 22 meg Leaf back that I upgraded to a 33 meg Aptus 75S ... which I used on a Mamiya RZ Pro-II. Because of moiré issues, I then moved to a Hasselblad CF39 MultiShot (which cost me about $15K two years ago, and I suspect can be had for less now). I was able to also use the Multi-Shot on the RZ. Unlike the previous posts, I never had any issues with MS artifacts or anything like that. Clean as a whistle files.

Mamiya makes a Pro-IID kit with the 33 meg Leaf back branded Mamiya already set up as a package. This D version eliminates the need for any sync cords and is preferable. The same kit can be assembled using a Leaf branded back. The best lens in the RZ line-up for this kind of critical detail work is the 210 APO, which is probably to long for your applications. The rotating back of the RZ is a critical feature for this kind of application and if you look at a Rollei make sure it can be equipped with a rotating back or get the Leaf back with the rotating sensor.

Be sure to get a demo of the live view feature to determine if it is accurate enough for your work. If you use strobes, remember that live view will depend on the modeling lights for viewing. I found Live view okay for composition but with manual focus lenses you'll need to look through the viewfinder anyway. My H cameras using Phocus software allows me to use the software focus assist graph with audio feedback so I could hear it from the camera position when using manual focus lenses ... with AF lenses I can focus at the computer using +/- buttons on screen for micro adjustments of the AF lenses.

BTW, scan backs need continuous lighting, and really good HMI lighting for reasonable consistency for your critical application is very expensive.

Profoto strobes are very consistent shot to shot, which was critical for using my 4 shot MS back.

PM me with any questions,

-Marc

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

Firstly thanks everyone!

Although I agree a Betterlight or MS back would be ideal there is zero support for me at all here in this country from either company so that counts that out.

Colour accuracy is actually not that important but what is important is colour consistency shot to shot so I can shoot an entire book page by page and batch the lot under one setting.

I have a budget of approx $35K to include camera, lenses, back, high end copy table (Kaiser rePRO), lighting, computer & software and 2 years worth of data storage including backup. As the back is about $15K of that I'm having to save money where I can, the data storage is worrying me somewhat.

The Leaf people in the UK told me that for colour consistency Bron are far better than Profoto however if I'm happy with the Kaiser strip lights then the Kaiser plus LCC in C1 or indeed LCC in camera which is now supported with the new GUI for Leaf would provide an admirable solution.

Here is a sample of the material which I will be working with though the vast majority will be books or pamphlets. This is from the Leaf with no sharpening added.

crop of same:

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

Here is a book, quite big (over A4 size), this one was processed through C1 then sharpened in LR.

crop:

 

[Geoff]

This was a shot of a vintage full size blueprint (not much contrast) from about 8' away with AFI II 7 (33 mp) and 80 mm lens with 1.4 tele-extender. Minor color correction in PP.

These are downsized about from 300 dpi to 72 dpi, the TIFFs are better yet. While more pixels are always nice, the line definition was good enough for me.

 

[FromJapan]

I'm possibly the only Betterlight user in Japan, and there are only a couple of others in India. I've been using it for the past six years. Mike Collette answers emails in great detail, and helps you get going very quickly. There's very little to go wrong with the Betterlight, and if anything does need attention, it is handled very quickly and professionally. A second hand 6K-2 unit runs about 8,000 USD, a rigid camera like the Cambo WDS and an Apo-Macro Sironar 120mm or 180mm another 2,000 USD. With the other items needed, you would be well within your budget.

Kumar

 

[EsbenHR]

Hi Ben.

Lighting. The studio there just changed from continuous lighting banks to Profoto D1's. The continuous light wasn't accurate enough between banks and were causing colour shifts. The D1's are nice lights, should I look any further keeping in mind perfect shot to shot accuracy and balance?

Continuous light is usually very harsh on delicate materials like this. Strobes are much better. However, if you only really care about consistency, and not about color accuracy, LED lights may be an option. Colors can be funky, but hardly anything beats it for consistency.

Software. Leaf seems to be upgrading their software though locking out older backs. With a setup like this I don't see a huge need for anything over complicated though. In their studio they were shooting tethered with an old version of Leaf Capture, applying a default, cropping then sending to their workstation and doing the rest in lightroom with the tiff's and I can see why.

Well, I think the wording "locked out" is too harsh. It is a matter of utilizing the available resources. I think all Leaf customers should be extremely happy about the investment that brought them these upgrades. How many companies would just have shipped the new firmware as a mark-II, Aptus-III or another random-marketing-name, possibly offering a paid upgrade?

I do not think many people realize the cost of an upgrade like this. The opportunity cost to the ecosystem surrounding Leaf is likely to dwarf the cost of developing the firmware and Leaf Capture.

Leaf customers should be happy indeed. They got a big, expensive and unanticipated upgrade for free.

Having compared the files from Leaf Capture and the raw files processed in C1 6.2 that I downloaded for the occasion (I don't have 6 yet myself) there is no doubt in my mind that Leaf Capture does a far superior job with micro contrast. I know C1 quite well and the sharpening just doesn't quite get there in side by side images. Colour isn't quite as accurate either. I'm surprised actually as P1 now own Leaf and support their backs and tethering (though interestingly they don't allow you to work with Leaf files without a license though you can do that with P1 files). Seems to me that with a setup where the lighting is fixed, low contrast and static, it won't make any difference which software I use to tether, if Leaf Capture gives superior results then I'll stick to it.?

Too bad you do not like the files from Capture One. It actually have a few nifty tricks for exactly for this situation.

In Capture One, you can create an LCC of the copy stand directly. That is, you just take a photo of the neutral/white background on the stand and create the LCC without using the opal plate. The LCC will then even out the differences in lighting. This feature was developed as a successor of the Uniform Light Tool in the software for the PowerPhase FX - a system that refuses to die gracefully, primarily because of this feature.

Note: one trick used by some people was to defocus the lens before the shot, but that affects the scale of the image and is not necessary in Capture One. I do not think you can do something similar in Leaf Capture, but you could try .

Also, since books like what you describe can rarely tolerate much handling, it is usually best to take photos of the left and right sides in separate runs. Capture One have a pretty convenient facility to get the a correct counter in the image file in this situation. Of course, a robust rename utility or a bit of scripting can do this as well.

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

The new software for the Leaf can actually do LCC corrections from a file in camera! Yair Shahar wrote an article on LL about it just yesterday.

 

[EsbenHR]

The new software for the Leaf can actually do LCC corrections from a file in camera! Yair Shahar wrote an article on LL about it just yesterday.

Yes, I am aware of that. However, you still need an opal plate to create the LCC if I am not mistaken. This is good for correcting casts resulting from lens/sensor interaction. However, this will not capture differences in lighting the subject itself. Getting a completely flat lighting on a copy stand is an exercise in frustration in my experience.

Disclosure: I am an engineer and not a photographer. I suck at setting up lights.

While I agree that applying an LCC in the back can be a nice feature, I would actually think that your case would be the one least affected by the (admittedly somewhat clumsy) workflow in Capture One. After all, you just need to apply a LCC to a long series of images.