Negative 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outdated and I have not found anything up to date/current year.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.

On 4 Jul 2006 23:52:39 -0700, "Progressiveabsolution"
wrote:


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.


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

In article . com,
says...
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.


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.

--
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail:

Progressiveabsolution wrote:
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?



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
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.


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?

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.

Progressiveabsolution wrote:
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?
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

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?

Scott W wrote:
Progressiveabsolution wrote:
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?
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

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.

"Progressiveabsolution" wrote in message
oups.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?


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