A simple way to do this is to take a photograph (on your slide film of choice) of an x-rite color checker card (using daylight, or flash), then digitize it with raw, then use that raw digitized frame to make a custom camera profile in Lightroom. There's no need to use an IT-8 target, those were for back in the day when people used scanners, not cameras. You can google how to make a profile with the color checker card. It's pretty straightforward.
Thanks for the reply. I understand your point, but isn't that in effect just trying to make your own simplified version of an IT-8? If ultimate accuracy in reproduction of the slides is the goal, isn't my proposed method better? After all, an IT-8 has more patches to measure off and therefore will need less interpolation in the profile. A HutchColor HCT target would be even better, but those are insanely expensive.
I wouldn’t call it simplified. The x-rite color checker puts its patches in key color locations that are specific to how digital cameras see, and those patches are also the brightness and saturation that are specifically for digital cameras.
sure, you can add more patches, and be more accurate on paper, but perceptually, not so much. Also, in my own experience of making scanning profiles for film, more patches and more accuracy doesn’t usually look better, as it tends to introduce perceptual discontinuities in hue and saturation rendering. Less patches and a little more smooth interpolation tends to be more pleasing to the eye.
The problem is with obtaining a high quality transmission target.
I see. Yes, I suppose there will always be a trade-off between colourimetric and perceptual accuracy. Hmmm, something to think about then.
I guess just the one such profile from the checker taken in direct sunlight should be used then, rather than different ones taken under different lighting conditions? Otherwise I assume you would be "correcting" out the white balance of the scene?
The light source certainly can be a contributor to color reproduction issues. But let me state that even when shot with Daylight full spectrum lighting, conversion software for neg-to-positive image conversion can be a real pitfall of the color reproduction and other issues! See this recent Photrio post of mine...
Is DSLR scanning "better" than flatbed scanning?
It should be easy enough to make one that does 6x6 in 4 shots. A square neg carrier, when slid up against the top left corner of the light box would have the lower right portion of the neg in position to be scanned. Sliding the carrier to the top right puts lower left part of the neg in...www.photrio.com
Glad you got something that works for you. That's half the battle.Overall I'm one damn happy camper right now, despite the lighter wallet
So an update on this.
I decided to splurge some more and do this thing properly. Bought the Negative Supply Scanning Light Source Pro 5x7" 99 CRI. Overpriced, but extremely well made and ideal for my existing setup; I discovered by happy chance that my custom-made 4x5" film scanning holder sits perfectly astride the built in plastic mask that the NS Light Source Pro comes with, blocking out all extraneous light.
With the light source sorted, I'd already ordered a 4x5" LaserSoft Provia IT8 hand measured target as I mentioned previously. I established an ideal RAW exposure for this target in the rig, converted the ARW to DNG using Adobe's free tool, and then used that to create a custom profile in Lumariver Profile Designer Pro, on a freshly calibrated monitor.
I've now made test repros of sheets of Provia, Velvia and Ektachrome E100 with the new light and profile. Frankly I'm blown away. A *huge* improvement over what I was getting before. The Provia repro is 99% of the way to how it appears on a lightbox. The Velvia and Ektachrome repros are maybe a hair less faithful, as one would expect, but still 98% I'd say and absolutely good enough as a starting point.
@L Gebhardt you were correct to some degree about the light panel. The base result from the 99 CRI light is a notable improvement over that from the Kaiser, but the custom camera profile is ultimately where the biggest difference was made.
Being about 5 stops brighter than the Kaiser, the NS light also has the added benefit of allowing higher shutter speeds during capture. This appears to have essentially eliminated the edge artifacts that can result at 100% in pixel-shifted captures from the A7RIV due to micro vibrations at lower shutter speeds.
Overall I'm one damn happy camper right now, despite the lighter wallet
Interesting how you got to where you ended up. But to be clear I assume you had the camera set to 5000K to match the Kaiser Plano and not on AWB?
By the way, I can confirm that the LEDs used in the NS light are the 5000K Absolute Series from Waveform Lighting. I had strongly suspected as much, and did consider buying some and cobbling together a box myself. However, the cost saving would not have been that significant and the task likely would not be a trivial one. Also I was just impatient to get things done.
I used my NEC puck used for calibrating my desktop monitor to measure my Kaiser Plano. Don't some cameras have that capability to register the "white" it's seeing and possibly give the reading in K Kelvins?
Yes, the A7RIV can do this. It gave me a reading of 5300K for the Kaiser panel at full power. WB is only one part of the equation though; setting it in-camera (or later in post processing) cannot correct for discontinuities in the light's emission spectrum.
They're referring to the fact that LED emission varies by wavelength. So does halogen. So does sunlight. Generally speaking for LED's the higher the CRI, the closer it resembles solar visible light, although there's frequently a bit of a dip in the "blue" range.
You'll only get actual discontinuity on CFL / fluorescent lights. Most LED's have full continuity at this point.
A simple way to do this is to take a photograph (on your slide film of choice) of an x-rite color checker card (using daylight, or flash), then digitize it with raw, then use that raw digitized frame to make a custom camera profile in Lightroom. There's no need to use an IT-8 target, those were for back in the day when people used scanners, not cameras. You can google how to make a profile with the color checker card. It's pretty straightforward.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?