Camera for photographing artwork
Has anyone here use the foveon sensor cameras from Sigma? How hard is it to process files?
I’m painter primarily more than a photographer, so I probably should just stick with something simple.
Sigma SD Quattro with 30mm art lens is $1000 used on eBay.
This tutorial below uses Oly micro 4/3 with zoom.
Found this article on the Sigma DP2x which talks about pros and cons of foveon.
https://cameraderie.org/threads/sigma-dp2x-review-a-field-report.3618/
@paintsalot and @kamerabrand I was referring to the higher MP sensor as Matthew said he went to pro with medium format cameras to take pictures where he wanted large prints. This is why I suggested the A7RII, as it's probably the best value entry into higher MP right now for fringe cases like wanting larger prints. I think the other suggestions here are fine but why repeat what everyone else says, no harm in suggesting a different point of view. Especially as I've several family and friends in arts and film photography that use a similar setup to the one I've suggested.
For my own photography I personally see higher MP as a con usually due to the high storage requirements, so much so that I turned down a mint A7RIII (a colleague offered me one for 60,000PHP or around 1100USD approx, SC was <1500) and bought a Sony A7C instead for slightly more money earlier this year. Maybe if I wanted large prints or I took up large format film photography (where I'd scan my own images) then I'd consider a 36-42mp camera, but until then 10-24MP is fine by me for general, street and family photos.
Quote from Matthew Lee on October 20, 2024, 6:21 pmHas anyone here use the foveon sensor cameras from Sigma? How hard is it to process files?
I have in the past used Foveons. They aren't mechanically any more difficult to use, in fact I think Sigma does a great job with UI and button layout. But the native raw files can be difficult to work with. You cannot push the raw files around like more typical digital cameras, in my unscientific opinion, they have probably about 2 stops of shadow flexibility and about 1 in the highlights. The colors can be extremely difficult to correct if they come out wrong and it's extremely easy to blow the highlights and blow colors lower in frequency like red, orange and yellow. Now that's just the Sigma raw files which HAVE to be processed in their own proprietary (but free) software. The Quattro can also output DNGs, which you can use in any editor, but I never did that because the files drop from 14bit to 12bit. But it may be easier to manipulate them, I'm not sure.
Quote from Matthew Lee on October 20, 2024, 6:21 pm
Sigma SD Quattro with 30mm art lens is $1000 used on eBay.
That seems expensive. Are you sure it's not a Quattro H? You can find SD Quattros on MPB in "Like New" condition for $625 right now. The 30mm f/1.4 is a nice lens, but it's not worth the $375 dollars that would work out too.
Quote from Cory Maben on October 22, 2024, 1:48 amQuote from Matthew Lee on October 20, 2024, 6:21 pmHas anyone here use the foveon sensor cameras from Sigma? How hard is it to process files?
I have in the past used Foveons. They aren't mechanically any more difficult to use, in fact I think Sigma does a great job with UI and button layout. But the native raw files can be difficult to work with. You cannot push the raw files around like more typical digital cameras, in my unscientific opinion, they have probably about 2 stops of shadow flexibility and about 1 in the highlights. The colors can be extremely difficult to correct if they come out wrong and it's extremely easy to blow the highlights and blow colors lower in frequency like red, orange and yellow. Now that's just the Sigma raw files which HAVE to be processed in their own proprietary (but free) software. The Quattro can also output DNGs, which you can use in any editor, but I never did that because the files drop from 14bit to 12bit. But it may be easier to manipulate them, I'm not sure.
Quote from Matthew Lee on October 20, 2024, 6:21 pm
Sigma SD Quattro with 30mm art lens is $1000 used on eBay.
That seems expensive. Are you sure it's not a Quattro H? You can find SD Quattros on MPB in "Like New" condition for $625 right now. The 30mm f/1.4 is a nice lens, but it's not worth the $375 dollars that would work out too.
Thanks Cory for your input. I remember the SD Quattro being $699 with the 30mm included direct from Sigma when I first heard about that camera. Here’s the one I saw on ebay
I got my Tota lights out today and photographed some paintings before they go to an auction that I’m participating in… I used my Olympus EM5 ii with 12-32 Panasonic. Not sure how they turned out yet- slow computer.
I’d like to learn more about working with raw files.
Quote from Matthew Lee on October 22, 2024, 3:22 amQuote from Cory Maben on October 22, 2024, 1:48 amQuote from Matthew Lee on October 20, 2024, 6:21 pmHas anyone here use the foveon sensor cameras from Sigma? How hard is it to process files?
I have in the past used Foveons. They aren't mechanically any more difficult to use, in fact I think Sigma does a great job with UI and button layout. But the native raw files can be difficult to work with. You cannot push the raw files around like more typical digital cameras, in my unscientific opinion, they have probably about 2 stops of shadow flexibility and about 1 in the highlights. The colors can be extremely difficult to correct if they come out wrong and it's extremely easy to blow the highlights and blow colors lower in frequency like red, orange and yellow. Now that's just the Sigma raw files which HAVE to be processed in their own proprietary (but free) software. The Quattro can also output DNGs, which you can use in any editor, but I never did that because the files drop from 14bit to 12bit. But it may be easier to manipulate them, I'm not sure.
Quote from Matthew Lee on October 20, 2024, 6:21 pm
Sigma SD Quattro with 30mm art lens is $1000 used on eBay.
That seems expensive. Are you sure it's not a Quattro H? You can find SD Quattros on MPB in "Like New" condition for $625 right now. The 30mm f/1.4 is a nice lens, but it's not worth the $375 dollars that would work out too.
Thanks Cory for your input. I remember the SD Quattro being $699 with the 30mm included direct from Sigma when I first heard about that camera. Here’s the one I saw on ebay
I got my Tota lights out today and photographed some paintings before they go to an auction that I’m participating in… I used my Olympus EM5 ii with 12-32 Panasonic. Not sure how they turned out yet- slow computer.
I’d like to learn more about working with raw files.
In that case, I would probably recommend that you go with another camera besides the Quattro. I think it would be a bad experience to learn raw editing with, and perhaps return to it later once you have a good grasp on the concepts and want something different to experiment with.
That's quite the setup! Your lighting looks great, nice and flat. Is that black backing with the lines on it in order to get the piece centered and level?
I am now recalling a video someone sent me once of someone who used a macro lens and scanned his art across multiple photos and stitched them together in software, sort of like doing a panoramic, and he achieved some very impressive results doing that. You could probably do that with your existing gear, especially the em5-ii, which has a pixel shift mode. If you got a sharp macro lens and stitched the pixel-shifted files together I think you would more than pleased and you wouldn't have to buy a whole new body.
Another thing you might eventually want to look into for the highest possible quality results is a 'tilt-shift' lens. which can help you correct distortions in perspective.
Hi, I'm late to the party...
So how did the colors turn out in the last setup?
I think it is promising, because you have a more controlled light source. I don't think the camera is your problem (or the solution). The setup in your video had at least 3 different light colors: Direct Sunlight, greenish light through the leaves of the trees and whatever reflected light from your surroundings. Camera whitebalance can only correct 1 source, so the others will introduce a color cast. It is hard to see by eye, because our brains are capable of correcting the "wrong" colors. Unfortunatly it is not correctable in camera or in post if it was wrong at capture time.
A good book on the topic would be "Fil Hunter: Light - science and magic. An Introduction to photographic lighting"
Not a cheap book, but worth it IMO. You may find a used deal or get access through a library, though.
Regards, Christian
Quote from Christian K. on October 28, 2024, 9:54 amHi, I'm late to the party...
So how did the colors turn out in the last setup?
I think it is promising, because you have a more controlled light source. I don't think the camera is your problem (or the solution). The setup in your video had at least 3 different light colors: Direct Sunlight, greenish light through the leaves of the trees and whatever reflected light from your surroundings. Camera whitebalance can only correct 1 source, so the others will introduce a color cast. It is hard to see by eye, because our brains are capable of correcting the "wrong" colors. Unfortunatly it is not correctable in camera or in post if it was wrong at capture time.
A good book on the topic would be "Fil Hunter: Light - science and magic. An Introduction to photographic lighting"
Not a cheap book, but worth it IMO. You may find a used deal or get access through a library, though.
Regards, Christian
Thanks Christian. The photos came out OK my last photo shoot. I did a custom white balance, and set up lights per article above. Still using jpegs. Here’s one without any corrections attached. Jpeg straight from camera.
I have the book you suggested. It’s ok- very technical and to me not so practical.
The lights with umbrellas take a lot of space to set up. I’m thinking of trying a light box or a copy stand for my small paintings. Something that would only take up 3x3 feet or so. I have an old copy stand but lights are fluorescent… not great.
Best,
Matthew
Uploaded files:
Quote from Cory Maben on October 24, 2024, 8:49 amQuote from Matthew Lee on October 22, 2024, 3:22 amQuote from Cory Maben on October 22, 2024, 1:48 amQuote from Matthew Lee on October 20, 2024, 6:21 pmHas anyone here use the foveon sensor cameras from Sigma? How hard is it to process files?
I have in the past used Foveons. They aren't mechanically any more difficult to use, in fact I think Sigma does a great job with UI and button layout. But the native raw files can be difficult to work with. You cannot push the raw files around like more typical digital cameras, in my unscientific opinion, they have probably about 2 stops of shadow flexibility and about 1 in the highlights. The colors can be extremely difficult to correct if they come out wrong and it's extremely easy to blow the highlights and blow colors lower in frequency like red, orange and yellow. Now that's just the Sigma raw files which HAVE to be processed in their own proprietary (but free) software. The Quattro can also output DNGs, which you can use in any editor, but I never did that because the files drop from 14bit to 12bit. But it may be easier to manipulate them, I'm not sure.
Quote from Matthew Lee on October 20, 2024, 6:21 pm
Sigma SD Quattro with 30mm art lens is $1000 used on eBay.
That seems expensive. Are you sure it's not a Quattro H? You can find SD Quattros on MPB in "Like New" condition for $625 right now. The 30mm f/1.4 is a nice lens, but it's not worth the $375 dollars that would work out too.
Thanks Cory for your input. I remember the SD Quattro being $699 with the 30mm included direct from Sigma when I first heard about that camera. Here’s the one I saw on ebay
I got my Tota lights out today and photographed some paintings before they go to an auction that I’m participating in… I used my Olympus EM5 ii with 12-32 Panasonic. Not sure how they turned out yet- slow computer.
I’d like to learn more about working with raw files.
In that case, I would probably recommend that you go with another camera besides the Quattro. I think it would be a bad experience to learn raw editing with, and perhaps return to it later once you have a good grasp on the concepts and want something different to experiment with.
That's quite the setup! Your lighting looks great, nice and flat. Is that black backing with the lines on it in order to get the piece centered and level?
I am now recalling a video someone sent me once of someone who used a macro lens and scanned his art across multiple photos and stitched them together in software, sort of like doing a panoramic, and he achieved some very impressive results doing that. You could probably do that with your existing gear, especially the em5-ii, which has a pixel shift mode. If you got a sharp macro lens and stitched the pixel-shifted files together I think you would more than pleased and you wouldn't have to buy a whole new body.
Another thing you might eventually want to look into for the highest possible quality results is a 'tilt-shift' lens. which can help you correct distortions in perspective.
Quote from Cory Maben on October 24, 2024, 8:49 amQuote from Matthew Lee on October 22, 2024, 3:22 amQuote from Cory Maben on October 22, 2024, 1:48 amQuote from Matthew Lee on October 20, 2024, 6:21 pmHas anyone here use the foveon sensor cameras from Sigma? How hard is it to process files?
I have in the past used Foveons. They aren't mechanically any more difficult to use, in fact I think Sigma does a great job with UI and button layout. But the native raw files can be difficult to work with. You cannot push the raw files around like more typical digital cameras, in my unscientific opinion, they have probably about 2 stops of shadow flexibility and about 1 in the highlights. The colors can be extremely difficult to correct if they come out wrong and it's extremely easy to blow the highlights and blow colors lower in frequency like red, orange and yellow. Now that's just the Sigma raw files which HAVE to be processed in their own proprietary (but free) software. The Quattro can also output DNGs, which you can use in any editor, but I never did that because the files drop from 14bit to 12bit. But it may be easier to manipulate them, I'm not sure.
Quote from Matthew Lee on October 20, 2024, 6:21 pm
Sigma SD Quattro with 30mm art lens is $1000 used on eBay.
That seems expensive. Are you sure it's not a Quattro H? You can find SD Quattros on MPB in "Like New" condition for $625 right now. The 30mm f/1.4 is a nice lens, but it's not worth the $375 dollars that would work out too.
Thanks Cory for your input. I remember the SD Quattro being $699 with the 30mm included direct from Sigma when I first heard about that camera. Here’s the one I saw on ebay
I got my Tota lights out today and photographed some paintings before they go to an auction that I’m participating in… I used my Olympus EM5 ii with 12-32 Panasonic. Not sure how they turned out yet- slow computer.
I’d like to learn more about working with raw files.
In that case, I would probably recommend that you go with another camera besides the Quattro. I think it would be a bad experience to learn raw editing with, and perhaps return to it later once you have a good grasp on the concepts and want something different to experiment with.
That's quite the setup! Your lighting looks great, nice and flat. Is that black backing with the lines on it in order to get the piece centered and level?
I am now recalling a video someone sent me once of someone who used a macro lens and scanned his art across multiple photos and stitched them together in software, sort of like doing a panoramic, and he achieved some very impressive results doing that. You could probably do that with your existing gear, especially the em5-ii, which has a pixel shift mode. If you got a sharp macro lens and stitched the pixel-shifted files together I think you would more than pleased and you wouldn't have to buy a whole new body.
Another thing you might eventually want to look into for the highest possible quality results is a 'tilt-shift' lens. which can help you correct distortions in perspective.
Cory- yes the grid lines are for aligning art. I made it myself. There’s a mirror in the center of the blackboard, when I set up my camera and tripod. As long as I can see my camera in the middle of the mirror I know that I’m fairly close to parallel to the lens plane. So less distortion or parallax.
And there are two bars on the board that adjust up and down with carriage bolt in slot to carry art. Works great.
Thanks.
I was fortunate to spend a week studying landscape painting in France with Marc Dalessio. He’s a very accomplished painter.
He has quite a nice system for photographing art. It uses polarized gels/filters. Here: https://youtu.be/Qk4tO7wd-tA?si=JYd0UzaRIDAgMe3f
-sometimes I think I need to just do exactly the same thing. But I haven’t had much luck using polarization. So far I like the technique in the article above better.
