Neverlost99 Loc: Sarasota

You sir are one of the few that listen. You are to be commended.

Bill P

and a 16x20 made from an M4/3 camera is easy to distinguish from a 16x20 made from any larger sensor camera.[/quote]

Several years ago , Mike Johnson offered a print of a shot by Ctein, printed to about a 15x20 image, shot on m4/3. I purchased it. I promise you that it is every bit the equal of your FF camera.

Don't know about the new Fuji, if that's the large sensor you mean.

User ID

Why ? Cuz my artwork differs from yours. Thaz why.

User ID

@chasgroh
Your remarks ignore the advice requested by the OP. You're making
reference photos. The OP wishes to make photo facsimiles of various
originals, suitable for sale as finished product. Quoting from OP:

"The mid size paintings average 16" x 20" to 28" x 40".
I want to offer enlargements up to 36" x 60" without
distortion. I may print some on metal or glass as well."

User ID

Peeps who are very sold on size are not really
likely to acknowledge reality :-(

chasgroh Loc: Buena Park, CA

...sorry, i got caught up in trivia.

Bill P

And people who are sold on large high MP sensors are sadly misinformed.:-(

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

A lot of comments describe macro lenses as flat field, but not fully understanding what flat field really is - and often offering freedom from distortion as evidence of flatness of field. This is not exactly true.

Field curvature is about focus not distortion.

A flat field lens - aka a lens with little field curvature = is one that focuses equally well in the corners as it does in the center. Such lenses are rare, but one can get pretty close with many macro lenses which are often used to photograph flat objects at very short distances. It is possible to have a lens with optical distortion such as pincushion or barrel and still be flat field, just as it is possible to have a lens that has little optical distortion yet suffer from moderate field curvature. One can look at an old school so called "portrait" lenses such as the Nikkor 85mm F1.4 AF-D which was critically sharp in the center but not so much in the corners and short edges. This lens had a 32% drop in resolution at F5.6 between center and corners (3744->2547) indicating moderate to severe curvature, but it had a .39% barrel distortion which would be considered negligible. The Nikkor 60mm F2.8 Macro shows only a 6% drop at F8 (3633->3408) with about .28% pincushion distortion. The Nikkor 50mm F1.8G, which is about the only lens that might work in the OP's budget shows a drop of 13% at F5.6 (3958->3426), and by F8 that difference shrinks to 10% (3765->3380) with only 1.13% barrel distortion, making it very close to the 60mm Macro, and with comparable resolution.

One cannot fix field curvature in post processing, but one can definitely fix barrel, pincushion and/or complex distortion.

Given the OP's request for a camera and lens for under $1000, I stand by my recommendation for a used 36 mp full frame D800 or D800E and a 50mm F1.8G as far as getting the best bang for the buck. One can use smaller sensor cameras and other "stuff" like an RX10 (which I own and love) but the results will not be as good. And someone would have to have a serious case of cognitive dissonance (or be a Kool-Aid drinking fan of Tony Northrup) to claim that the image from a M4/3 camera is equivalent to one from a D800 when printed. Granted, the differences are less profound when viewing on a HD, or 4K display, but keep in mind that a 4K display is only 8.8 mp, so a high res image not seen at full resolution, as it would if it were printed.

These articles explain in greater detail the concept of field curvature:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petzval_field_curvature
https://photographylife.com/what-is-field-curvature
https://petapixel.com/2016/12/21/field-curvature-tricky-problem-photography/

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

This is very important information and should be considered by anyone who is interested in precise copy and reproduction work. As I stated previously, my studio handles a fair volume of this work in art reproduction and copy and restoration work as well. Years ago, we found out about curvature of field and many of the issues that Gene has pointed out- the hard way. We went through a number of lenses before we found the best ones for the job.

Back in the day, we used large format film cameras for this work so when we discovered that our general purposes lenses, that we used for commercial product photography and portraiture, lacked the edge to edge performance as we required for art reproduction, we found that PROCESS LENSES, that were designed for the graphic arts industry, had the flat field capabilities that we needed. These lenses were somewhat problematic as well in that many of them had a maximum aperture of f/9.5 and performed best at around f/22 and therefore required a great volume of light and/or longer exposures. Most of these lenses were supplied in barrels without shutters so large format camera with built-in Packard shutter had to be employed. These lenses, somewhat like current macro formulas, worked best a close distances and 1:1 reproduction ratios. The lenses that were intended for color separation work were also apochromatic and minimized the potential for chromatic aberration.

Remember too, that process lenses were also used to photograph documents and line copy where any kind of distortion of focus issue would be unacceptable.

Strangely enough, the 135mmm Press Xenotar that we used on a 4x5 Technika for general work, seemed to have flat field attributes. I don't know if the folks at Schneider incorporated some of the process-lens engineering that lens? We used it for large groups of people and everything was tack sharp- edge to edge and we did use it successfully large paintings.

When we started to shoot some of the art, mainly paintings, in museums and galleries, in some cases, for portability and ease of setup, we went to medium format. We found that a 140mm macro lens for our Mamiya RZ system worked incredibly well in that it had an adjustable floating element that could be set for various working distances that somewhat corrected for field curvature. We still use that combination with a Phase I digital back.

We had had an artist/client who painted on glass and made monetary pieces. For this work, we adapted enlarging lenses to a bellows and shot on a DSLR. These lenses are known for there flatness of field and work nicely a close distances.

For our Canon DSLR, a few years ago, we purchased a Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro Planar T*ZE and are extremely pleased with its performance in art reproduction. This, of course, will not accommodate a low budget so the OP should take Gene's advice and try to find some good used glass as per his recommendations.

I realize that the OP in this thread is probably not going to go through all of this experimentation and adaptation but my experience goes to prove that finds a good lens with flat filed and macro attributes are important in this kind of work. A full frame body with a fine macro lens is essential.

As for lighting and polarization: There are always the folks who insist that the can photograph paintings and other artwork without polarization or cross polarization and with a wide variety of light sources such as speedlights without modeling lamps and even available light. Of course, anything is possible if the lighting is set at the exact angle of incidence to avoid glare and reflections and the surface of the artwork is non-problematic. If you are photographing a large painting, for example, displayed on a wall, you can not move the piece around to accommodate the existing light and even if you move a softbox or two int position you may not have precise control of glare, color saturation and rendition of texture. You can't move the camera off center to alter the angle of reflection or linear distortion will result. The system I have outlined gives the photographer total control over the angle of incidence, camera position, evenness of lighting and rendition of texture without glare or unwanted reflections.

The type, condition and surface finish of the artwork has to be considered as well. There are very old painting where the artists have employed a method called underpainting, that is, layers of paints used to incrementally build up color and depth- this effect can be difficult to render without total control over light and careful application of various degrees of polarization. Many paintings are varnished with many coats of Damar Varnish- some of which has become cracked, checked or burnished with age. Some of these surfaces should be recorded for authenticity and some need to be "penetrated" for better reproduction. Some of the coatings develop a kind of dichroic fog-like coloration, and various type of paintings behind glass develop Newton's rings, mold, and morie or other interference patterns. A basic 2 light polarized setup can address most of these requirements and issues and will enable the reproduction of many kinds of flat artwork.

A one light method can be used to render surface texture in pallet kine and bas relief paintings. The polarization can be incorporated at many incremental levels or removed of not effective for any given artwork- most of the t the time it proves to be extremely helpful.

Paintings, in most cases, should not be placed in a scanner, even if they are small enough to fit. Even watercolor works, sketches, and art that is done in other mediums should not be sandwiched against the glass. Obviously, large pieces will not fit in a flatbed or drum scanner so good photography is essential.

To many photographers, art reproduction, copy, and restoration work may seem boring and not creative. It, however, can be challenging and requires a number of important skill sets and technical savvy. The artistic satisfaction is in achieving good, accurate and authentic renditions and near replication of the originals bring out the artist's skill, talents, and techniques.

PaleoMan Loc: Hartland, WI

Rookie question: How does image rotation damage an image in PP? I always thought this could be detrimental but would like to better understand the impact of rotation on IQ. Appreciate your expertise.

"Try to keep the edges of the painting square to the edges of the viewfinder. This reduce the need for rotation in post that may damage the resulting image."

Steve

frangeo Loc: Texas

If you have a good lens and a camera with good pixel rate, it'll will work fine. Lighting is more important as well as white balance.