 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Medium format / July 2006Negative print film vs. Slide film differences at current/present time?
I know this is a medium format forum, but my question has to do with 35mm film, though it may be somewhat applicabe to medium format film. I have read many things about film and its use, but it is quite outdated and I have not found anything up to date/current year. I am now shooting film again after going through many years with digital stuff. I still have my digital for the longer range, but using a rangefinder for the lower range. Before my questions, it should be stated that I will be scanning all of my film with the Minolta 5400 at 5400dpi, and then tweaking in photoshop, and then putting the files onto cds. Therefore the scanner will become my workflow. As an aside, I will be picking up a medium format kit in near future so I'll have some more questions regarding that. But for now, here are my questions: 1) Has negative print film become competitive with slide film at iso50/100/200? It has been said by most in past that slide is better in this range, but these views stem from a few years ago. When I ask if it is competitive, I am asking if it will look similar to and or resolve the amount of information/color/clarity/dynamic range/etc. that has been said as benefits with the use of slide film? 2) If the differences are significant between the two, what specifically are these differences that I will see when I scan both through the 5400dpi scanner and then tweak them in photoshop to be placed onto cds for printing? 3) If there aren't many significant differences when using the workflow I will be using, what would be the current day print films and/or slide films to look for for best results? I am looking to get very sharp and dimensional images, with as little grain as possible. I have used the Superia Reala and find it to be very good, but as I say, I have not shot slide film and I also have only used the cheapest Kodak Gold and Fuji X-tra 400 as the other two films tried at present time. Thanks to all for all the help and input. I have done a ton of net searching so if you do have any links, I hope they are from 2006 to present day. >3) If there aren't many significant differences when using the workflow >I will be using, what would be the current day print films and/or slide [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >searching so if you do have any links, I hope they are from 2006 to >present day. Negative (C41) print films don't get any better than Reala. So, to answer your question, pick up a few rolls of your favorite slide (reversal) film, take some photos, and see what happens. C41 will have better latitude and in general will be easier to scan due to its lower density range. Slide film will yield a lower-noise, lower-grain scan --- IF you can live with the latitude limitations at exposure time and the wider density at scan time. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com So the primary things that differentiate the two are the kind of latitude you get with print film and the lesser grain/cleanliness of slide film, is this right? Is there any other differences, meaning, when shooting with one or the other, given both are correctly exposed, will the scene be very different looking (take color out of the equation since I know many different slide films will have a different look with color rendition)? Will a slide give more detail, resolution, more "transparency"/dimension to the scene, etc. OR should both give the same exact scene, give/take a few minor things one would have to see looking at the slide/negative in small areas and blown up to 100% magnification, etc.? Thanks a lot for your response. I really appreciate it. > So the primary things that differentiate the two are the kind of > latitude you get with print film and the lesser grain/cleanliness of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Thanks a lot for your response. I really appreciate it. Rather than repeating "what I think" about this subject, why not look at real-life examples. Have a look at this page, about halfway down: <http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/> Look for the table labeled "LS-8000 Scans -- "Standard" 0.25 x 0.25 snippets". All the images in that table were taken by yours truly and scanned on a Nikon LS-8000 at 4000 dpi. Each sample is clearly labeled as to the film type. Bear in mind as you look at these, that they are full-resolution film scans representing 0.25" x 0.25" of film -- ie., about 1/24 the area of a 35 mm frame. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com >>So the primary things that differentiate the two are the kind of >>latitude you get with print film and the lesser grain/cleanliness of [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > rafe b > www.terrapinphoto.com I took a quick look, and my first impression is it might help if you could add some scans where you photographed the same scene with two different film types. Comparing a scan of a wooden post on C-41 film with a scan of a flower from E-6 leaves a lot of latitude for nitpickers. > I know this is a medium format forum, but my question has to do with > 35mm film, though it may be somewhat applicabe to medium format film. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > searching so if you do have any links, I hope they are from 2006 to > present day. I have a tip on my web site using a workflow as you describe it. Judge for yourself: http://robertdfeinman.com/tips/tip25.html In general color negative films have gotten much better over the past few years and if you are going to scan the film I think there is no reason to shoot transparencies any more. Another thing to consider is that you can take your 35mm film into the nearest one hour and get the film developed, whereas with E6 you will be limited with the number of places. Develop only (or with a thumbnail card) is less than $5.  SignatureRobert D Feinman Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs http://robertdfeinman.com mail: robert.feinman@gmail.com > I have a tip on my web site using a workflow as you describe it. > Judge for yourself: > http://robertdfeinman.com/tips/tip25.html I have commented on this one before, the crop that is shown at the bottom of the page is simply too small compared to the full frame image at the top of the page to be a 100% crop of a 5400 ppi scan. This is very simple to tell by resizing the full frame image to 36mm and 5400ppi (7653 pixels in width) and then pasting the crop image on top. It is really was a 100 crop from a 5400pp scan it should be the same size, but it is much smaller and therefor a lot less then a 5400 ppi scan. In fact it would appear that it is less then 4000 ppi. Scott Hi Robert, So you do not find there to be enough differences between the end result of slide and negative film working with that Minolta that you do to warrant the use of slide film? Another poster comments on how slide film can be an advantage if you are used to shooting it and can predict the results more easily...also said that you can work with the color of the slide easier. But for me, I'm only seeking the "absolute" end results, that is, the photograph that will eventually be printed when I take the cd of the Minolta scans down to the Frontier lab to have them printed off. In other words, I'm looking for the photo that will yeild whatever the lenses and given light/exposure I am working with will give. It's almost like slide film has been made out to be, in the past, something that will give "more of" the scene, such as the fine details/lines of the scene, better depth/dimensionality/space, cleaner/clearer look, etc... On a side note, what print films in the iso100 range do you recommend mostly? One reason why I think the Fuji Superia Reala may be as good as slide film is by looking at the numbers. I know numbers don't mean much, but from some site I found, it had very low grain number, very high lines that it could resolve (something like 66/120)...whereas slide film like astia or provia are 60/130 and 60/140...Velvia being 80/160). Thanks again for your help and I really like that scene that has been revitalized into a work of art (well, unless people like seeing tilted buildings in their shots often). It makes me consider some wider lenses that would give a longer range of the scene, but able to correct for the warping effect. Have you had any problems, ever, tweeking a warped looking fisheye type image back to a "normal" looking perpective? > Hi Robert, > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Have you had any problems, ever, tweeking a warped looking fisheye type > image back to a "normal" looking perpective? I think your best bet is to buy a roll or two of several of the brands of film you are considering and give them a try. Personally I don't see much difference between pro and amateur versions. I usually shoot 160/200 speed as the best compromise between grain and high enough shutter speed. Even with grainer films there are a few tricks like selecting large smooth areas (sky, clouds) and giving them a slight gaussian blur while at the same time sharpening areas with lots of detail (people's eyes, for example). With the 5400 scanners there doesn't seem to be much need to use the unsharp mask to correct for blur caused by the scanner as is the case with some lower resolution brands (Epson especially). Some of the color negative films are designed for specific uses such as lower contrast ones to use for weddings, but I think most of these customizations were aimed at making regular chemical prints. With scanned negatives one can adjust contrast and color balance to get pretty much any "look" you wish. SignatureRobert D Feinman Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs http://robertdfeinman.com mail: robert.feinman@gmail.com > I know this is a medium format forum, but my question has to do with > 35mm film, though it may be somewhat applicabe to medium format film. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > resolve the amount of information/color/clarity/dynamic range/etc. that > has been said as benefits with the use of slide film? While I tend to use mostly E-6 films, I tried out some Kodak 100UC and was quite impressed. Certainly there are some good ISO 100 choices in C-41 films, though I still feel that there are more choices in ISO 100 E-6 films. Another aspect is push processing, with many places not doing C-41 as push processing. However, it could be argued that you can underexpose C-41 films by a great enough margin to not need push processing. The bigger advantage is when going to ISO 400 or ISO 800 and higher, since there are few good E-6 choices in that realm. > 2) If the differences are significant between the two, what > specifically are these differences that I will see when I scan both > through the 5400dpi scanner and then tweak them in photoshop to be > placed onto cds for printing? One advantage of scanning E-6 is you can see the colours on a light table. With C-41 films, the colour on a print might be different than what you could scan from the negative. That can leave more interpretation up to you on how the colours should be represented. Also, not all scanner software works that great with negatives, and some software is easier to use with positives (slides) . . . though given enough practice you should be able to overcome most differences. > 3) If there aren't many significant differences when using the workflow > I will be using, what would be the current day print films and/or slide [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > searching so if you do have any links, I hope they are from 2006 to > present day. One thing I have found for scanning films is that it can be easier to reduce colour saturation in the post processing. In other words, starting with more saturated scans can sometimes be easier than using lower saturation films. Obviously, this depends upon the subject matter, and there are some obvious exceptions. When doing people photography, especially close in facial shots, highly saturated films can be quite unnatural. In those situations of people photography, you could tone down the saturation in post, but you would likely find it easier to have started with a less saturated film for your scans. Without knowing what subjects/scenes you intend to photograph, it would be difficult to recommend films. Also, I tend to not use consumer films, since I like the predictability and consistency of professional (refrigerated) films. Many people do fine with consumer films, though due to a few problems in the past I now avoid them. This is more my personal choice than a recommendation. Best I could tell you is when you find a film that meets your needs, then stick with that film. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> Thanks a lot Gordon and thank you to the others as well. Another question for you: Aside from the predictability of working with something you are familiar with (a type of slide film), do you happen to find "the look" or any more information/detail/color/etc. from a slide than with negative print film or is the primary difference between the two for you the color rendition? What is the pricing nowadays to have only the slides developed (no printing...just slides into the mounts) and do you think there is a difference between places that process the slides? > Thanks a lot Gordon and thank you to the others as well. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > printing...just slides into the mounts) and do you think there is a > difference between places that process the slides? If you are going to scan the film why have it mounted? I use to just have the slide film developed and then cut into strips of 6 frames, which matches my scan's film holder. For me it was easier to deal with the film as a strip rather then mounted. Scott > > Thanks a lot Gordon and thank you to the others as well. > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Scott Call me stupid, but even though I thought this was possible, but am so accustomed to seeing slide film holders meant for having them in their mounts (which people have done in the past)...but I don't care to have that done since as you know I'm willing to work with either negative or slide film right from the real and into the processor. I cannot imagine it costs anymore for them to develop and cut like they do with print film and given the prices of "anything" but Velvia, slide film in ISO100 isn't much differently priced than what is considered to be the best print film=Fuji Superia Reala. Just to let you know my aim with slide film. I want to get the most out of my lenses (the Contax G series). I know many have used these and they have gone on to other stuff, but I have viewed a TON of photos on the net and I have not seen anything sharper than the Contax G/Konica Hexar/Leica M. So I want a film that will get me what these lenses can provide in terms of resolution power, and color (I use the Contax G and the color is quite bold/stunning). But this is the 35mm of stuff (includes all digital photos I have seen from every camera I can think of). But then viewing Medium or large format Rollei/Zeiss/Hasslebad/etc. is almost surreal. It takes what I find to be surreal in 35mm format (Contax G system) and makes that superreal! Some of these landscapes, cityscapes, etc. that I have seen with the medium/large format cameras are simply breathtaking. If I could have it all, I'd have the rangefinder for my street/candid/nature/travel camera (though I'd have to pack in a MF camera/lenses), an SLR just for Macro work, and the medium/large format for all landscape, cityscape, model type work, etc. I'd rather not think about MF or LF at this time because I know what effect/affect it has on me and how I cannot afford it. > Thanks a lot Gordon and thank you to the others as well. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > negative print film or is the primary difference between the two for > you the color rendition? Negative film actually has better resolution and acutance than chromes. But you have to weigh that against the increased noise and grain of negative film as compared to chromes. Chromes will give better tonality *IF* the latitude and density range aren't a problem. In other words, if your image and exposure are within the latitude of the film, and if the density range of the film is within the DR of the scanner, you'll get better tonality from the chrome. > What is the pricing nowadays to have only the slides developed (no > printing...just slides into the mounts) and do you think there is a > difference between places that process the slides? I think you'll find E-6 processing somewhat harder to find (and thus more expensive) than C41 processing. I can get a 36-exposure roll of C41 processed for $3.50. (no prints, just film processing.) rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com > Thanks a lot Gordon and thank you to the others as well. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > negative print film or is the primary difference between the two for > you the color rendition? Not so much colour differences as contrast differences. I find I have more choices and more control using transparency films. You might notice many high saturation and high contrast images that I do are from using Kodak E100VS; just as a comparison, it is very tough to get that look with colour negative, even using something like Kodak 100UC. On the other ends of things, I have not found as smooth and subtle a film as Fuji Astia 100F in colour negative. The medium contrast and evenness of Kodak E200 is approached by a couple colour negative films, though to me they all seem grainier. > What is the pricing nowadays to have only the slides developed (no > printing...just slides into the mounts) and do you think there is a > difference between places that process the slides? Okay, so two questions. :-) Under $6 for a roll of 120, with pick-up in less than three hours. Push processing gets an additional charge that is fixed up to five stops, though I only use one E-6 film at heavy push of 4 2/3 stops. 120 roll fill is usually not mounted, and not cut. Getting 35mm film processed is a little more expensive, though having it cut and mounted only adds a little. Other choices with 35mm are getting the mounts imprinted, either with my name, or some other information. <http://www.chromedigital.com> This is the primary place for 90% of my work. Doing things as I do might seem chaotic to others. I have a wide variety of films in the fridge. Compare that to some photographers that only use one or two emulsions at all. There is value in picking one film, getting use to it, and sticking with it; I don't suggest lots of films to start off, especially not E-6 choices. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> > [What's the difference between slides and negative film?] Ummm, to point out the obvious, slides are meant for projection and negatives are meant for prints. Put a Kodachrome slide in a projector and blow it up to 4x6 [feet]. Compare with a color print of 4x6 [inches]. Neither film is made for scanning. If the film manufacturers had sense they might make such a film. > Neither film is made for scanning. If the film manufacturers > had sense they might make such a film. I never understood why they didn't do this either. What are they waiting for to produce a "designed to be scanned" film? SignatureStacey >>Neither film is made for scanning. If the film manufacturers >>had sense they might make such a film. > > I never understood why they didn't do this either. What are they waiting for > to produce a "designed to be scanned" film? Some of the transparency films scan quite well. Both Kodak and Fuji sometimes note in their information data about scanning compatibility of films. However, neither company has ever advertised that factor, nor has there been much openness on stating this performance aspect. I think the wide variation of available scanners and software might be more a factor of this apparent silence; if either Kodak or Fuji stated a film scanned well, then someone with a low end scanner had trouble scanning, it just opens up a can-of-worms of negative issues. Probably a better decision to just state nothing, then bury the details in technical documents. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> > > Neither film is made for scanning. If the film manufacturers > > had sense they might make such a film. > > I never understood why they didn't do this either. What are they waiting for > to produce a "designed to be scanned" film? What would the target market be? There is very little MF or LF film being sold compared to 35mm and what would be the point for a 35mm film that was made to be scanned. Scott > > Neither film is made for scanning. If the film manufacturers > > had sense they might make such a film. > > I never understood why they didn't do this either. What are they waiting for > to produce a "designed to be scanned" film? Fuji and Kodak have made changes to their films over the past few years to make scanning better. This included making the film base more uniform and removing the texture on the surface of some films that was meant for retouching. I don't know if this was done to larger formats, but was done for 35mm film. SignatureRobert D Feinman Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs http://robertdfeinman.com mail: robert.feinman@gmail.com > > [What's the difference between slides and negative film?] > > Ummm, to point out the obvious, slides are meant for projection > and negatives are meant for prints. go tell it to peole who make cibachrome prints. and then there are interpositives. > Put a Kodachrome slide in a projector and blow it up to > 4x6 [feet]. Compare with a color print of 4x6 [inches]. You can enlarge the negative to whatever size you want essentially just as easily and make a print. SignatureSander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.