Slide copying...Colour temp.

Hi,

I'm about to start copying some old slides and negatives using an old FD bellows and macro rig and a 5D or 50D and would like opinions on WB setting.

Should the colour temperature be set to match the estimated conditions when the slide was taken or should it reflect the light source temperature when doing the copy?

Thanks in anticipation of your thoughts.

Bob

Here's my theory.
As a first approximation, the WB should be set to match the illumination during the copy. That should make the image as close as possible to the slide.
However, there may still be a discrepancy between what you get and the original scene due to any departure of the light colour then from the reference for the film type used.

I'd suggest shooting RAW, and tweaking subjectively, perhaps applying the same settings to all slides taken originally under the same conditions.

Wouldn't a dedicated slide scanner be more accurate and faster and have less noise?

I don't mean to go away from your questions I just don't know that answer.

Also there is a neat program out that takes 3 exposures of a slide (provided you have a scanner) and brings out better detail, unblown highlights and more accurate color.

I have all the info in and old issue of shutterbug if you would like it. Its really just an HDR btw but it comes out as seen and not wild like HDRs edited by hand.

That issue also talked about slide scanning, fluid mt VS dry mt and film pop from heat of the scanner.

I can't remember is this is it or not but I think it was called a cool scanner. It scans slides with an LED so there is no heat to relaxe and pop the film... I think nikon made it....

If you want more info just ask.

Canon Bob wrote in post #6475927
I'm about to start copying some old slides and negatives using an old FD bellows and macro rig and a 5D or 50D and would like opinions on WB setting.

Bob - you'd be FAR better off, in my opinion, to get a dedicated slide/film scanner. There are quite a few reasons for this opinion.

First off, a slide scanner such as my Canon FS4000US (several years old and out of production to the best of my knowledge) comes with software to handle conversion of color negatives into positives.

My scanner has the ability to remove dust spots from images.

The scanner software controls colors, contrast, etc., quite easily during the process of scanning slides or negatives. You have many of the same tools that Photoshop has for controlling the image - but during the scanning phase. You can set the software up and then run a whole series of scans using the same settings.

The scanner's imaging system deals with the not-perfectly-flat slide or negative quite well.

The possible resolution of the scans - up to 4000 DPI for my unit - provides some phenominal results. I can usually see the grain structure in the film in the highest resolution scans.

Bob,, I agree.. Get a dedicated film/slide scanner if this is an on going project.. If not possibly rent one..

I have copied slides with a slide copier which mounts to your camera with varying success during my film days.. I found the most accurate colour rendition is to point the slide copier at the sky on an overcast day..

as others have hinted at, the real issue here is light source color temp. If you consider that slides were made for viewing via a slide projector with about a 3400K color temp, it makes sense that you'd get best results with that temp.

Other than that, the key is to match source color temp with the color temp you use to process the image.

But, as others have also pointed out, it is much better to use a scanner. A big problem with the old optical slide copying setups was both getting uniform illumination of the slide (hard to avoid a hot spot in the middle) and avoiding light fall off at the edges of the lens field. Very tough, as the two are additive.

xarqi wrote in post #6476180
Here's my theory.
As a first approximation, the WB should be set to match the illumination during the copy. That should make the image as close as possible to the slide.
.....
I'd suggest shooting RAW, and tweaking subjectively, perhaps applying the same settings to all slides taken originally under the same conditions.

Thanks Xarqi....that gives me a good starting point.

NeoTokyo wrote in post #6476248
Wouldn't a dedicated slide scanner be more accurate and faster and have less noise?
...
Also there is a neat program out that takes 3 exposures of a slide (provided you have a scanner) and brings out better detail, unblown highlights and more accurate color.

I have all the info in and old issue of shutterbug if you would like it. Its really just an HDR btw but it comes out as seen and not wild like HDRs edited by hand.
.....
I can't remember is this is it or not but I think it was called a cool scanner. It scans slides with an LED so there is no heat to relaxe and pop the film... I think nikon made it....

If you want more info just ask.

Cheers, I'll PM you with an email address.....it would be an interesting route to go down.

SkipD wrote in post #6476278
Bob - you'd be FAR better off, in my opinion, to get a dedicated slide/film scanner. There are quite a few reasons for this opinion.

First off, a slide scanner such as my Canon FS4000US (several years old and out of production to the best of my knowledge) comes with software to handle conversion of color negatives into positives.

I've actually got an old Minolta scanner but it's SCSI based and not easy to support with the changes in PC architecture.
I use an old FD auto bellows and 50mmFD lens on a macro rig and recently picked up a Canon 35 copier attachment for it. I've now found a cold cathode light box for the light source so thought I'd give it all a try.

yogestee wrote in post #6476302
I have copied slides with a slide copier which mounts to your camera with varying success during my film days.. I found the most accurate colour rendition is to point the slide copier at the sky on an overcast day..

I also had one of those back in the seventies but the lens quality left much to be desired. This rig will essentially be the same but with a dedicated macro lens hopefully upping the quality.

klevin wrote in post #6478935
as others have hinted at, the real issue here is light source color temp. If you consider that slides were made for viewing via a slide projector with about a 3400K color temp, it makes sense that you'd get best results with that temp.

Other than that, the key is to match source color temp with the color temp you use to process the image.

That's given me something to try.....I'll compare the temperature of my old projector to the light box and see how far apart they are.

Thanks for the suggestions and info guys. The main object of the exercise is to generate a few prints for older relatives who have desperately faded ones in frames around their houses....the negatives long gone but the subjects immortalised on Ektachrome in the 60's and 70's.

Bob

Hello Bob

I an another one who would recommend a slide/negative type scanner.

I have a Canon FS8000 which will scan 4 35mm slides or 12 35mm negatives or operate as a normal scanner.

I have scanned thousands of slides/negatives for my family (my parents generation seemed to save money by processing film into slides rather than have them printed).

Although the process is reasonably slow, the resolution that these can scan to is much greater than what you would get from taking photo's of the slides/negatives. You can end up with huge file sizes if you go too fine. They also take care of general dust/scratches to an extent.

Probably no need to tell you but gloves &/or tweezers are a must when handling esp. the negatives and cleaning the platen regularly is vital.

PS. When are you heading back to NZ?

Cheers

Mark

Mark,

I'll give it a go and see how it compares with the scanner....nothing ventured, nothing gained.

My last visit down there was earlier this year...I say my last because I retired a couple of months ago

I will be returning with Mrs CB for a holiday....1,000,000 Airmiles in the bank have got to be some use. I'll be in touch when it's all setup.

Bob