How critical is slide film exposure?

I just completed my first "event" photo shoot, one of those high
volume jobs with one basic lighting setup, like a school pictures.
I shot C-41for the whole thing. Because of the deliverable, all
the images need to be scanned into the computer. I have learned
the hard way that getting the color balance is anything but easy
with C-41. To top it off, from what I can tell, I cannot figure
out how to get the scanner to give me near the quality from the
C-41 negative that a piece of photographic paper would deliver
from the same negative.

I have profiled my scanner for E-6 and able to get darn good
looking scans from E-6, very consistently. Here is the question,
is there enough latitude in E-6 that I can use it for my next high
volume job? The big catch is that the shoot takes place over a
serious of days, so I am setting up and tearing down everyday. I
do have the Minolta Meter V that is accurate to a 1/10 of a stop.
With light meter alone, can I get consistent exposures from day to
day? I am shooting 35mm, but have a MF with a Polaroid back;
would shooting Polaroid give me the desired consistency?

I am fully aware that the cost will double for shooting E-6 (film
& processing), but considering the hours I have spent trying to
scan in the C-41, the increase in scan time will more then make up
for it!

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 04:06:53 GMT, Nony Buz wrote:

I just completed my first "event" photo shoot, one of those high
volume jobs with one basic lighting setup, like a school pictures.
I shot C-41for the whole thing. Because of the deliverable, all
the images need to be scanned into the computer. I have learned
the hard way that getting the color balance is anything but easy
with C-41. To top it off, from what I can tell, I cannot figure
out how to get the scanner to give me near the quality from the
C-41 negative that a piece of photographic paper would deliver
from the same negative.

I have profiled my scanner for E-6 and able to get darn good
looking scans from E-6, very consistently. Here is the question,
is there enough latitude in E-6 that I can use it for my next high
volume job? The big catch is that the shoot takes place over a
serious of days, so I am setting up and tearing down everyday. I
do have the Minolta Meter V that is accurate to a 1/10 of a stop.
With light meter alone, can I get consistent exposures from day to
day? I am shooting 35mm, but have a MF with a Polaroid back;
would shooting Polaroid give me the desired consistency?

I am fully aware that the cost will double for shooting E-6 (film
& processing), but considering the hours I have spent trying to
scan in the C-41, the increase in scan time will more then make up
for it!

Use the polaroid back to perfect your lighting. Once it's perfect
don't touch it. Shoot your first frames with negative film with a
white, grey and black card. Scan your negatives with no changes in
your scanner software. With Photoshop you should be able to get your
colour perfect with a white card and your eyedropper. Create an
action from this setting and carry it out on all your scans. Negative
film has a much better dynamic range for scanning and should be giving
you much better results than slide film.

Negative film has a much better dynamic range for scanning and
should be giving you much better results than slide film.

I must agree that negative film has a much wider range. You
should see what I get when I do a raw scan from a negative, an
amazingly flat and dark image. It has taken me about three hours
to tweak the settings to get a good scan. Granted the film is
Portra 160 NC, not Portra 160 VC, but the colour is simply flat
and has no life to it. When Portra 160NC is printed, it is very
pretty film. Mind you, once I did achieve a good setting, I saved
the scanner settings and will use these settings for all 6 rolls I
have to scan.

With respect to slide film, I can stick in a slide, scan it
without any adjustment what so ever, stick it into Photoshop,
apply the profile I have for my scanner and the image goes from
looking good to looking GREAT! I have NEVER been able to make a
scan from a negative look as good as I can a scan from a slide.

The issue I have with negative film is the amount of time it has
taken me to get a good scan, and the fact that the scan is not
near as good as I know can be achieved.

Once it's perfect don't touch it.

I don't have a choice, the shoot takes place over a time period of
a few weeks. I cannot leave all my equipment setup the whole
time. I have to break it down when I am done every day and set
back up the next time I shoot.

On 2004-10-13, McLeod wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 04:06:53 GMT, Nony Buz wrote:

I just completed my first "event" photo shoot, one of those high
volume jobs with one basic lighting setup, like a school pictures.
I shot C-41for the whole thing. Because of the deliverable, all
the images need to be scanned into the computer. I have learned
the hard way that getting the color balance is anything but easy
with C-41. To top it off, from what I can tell, I cannot figure
out how to get the scanner to give me near the quality from the
C-41 negative that a piece of photographic paper would deliver
from the same negative.

I have profiled my scanner for E-6 and able to get darn good
looking scans from E-6, very consistently. Here is the question,
is there enough latitude in E-6 that I can use it for my next high
volume job? The big catch is that the shoot takes place over a
serious of days, so I am setting up and tearing down everyday. I
do have the Minolta Meter V that is accurate to a 1/10 of a stop.
With light meter alone, can I get consistent exposures from day to
day? I am shooting 35mm, but have a MF with a Polaroid back;
would shooting Polaroid give me the desired consistency?

I am fully aware that the cost will double for shooting E-6 (film
& processing), but considering the hours I have spent trying to
scan in the C-41, the increase in scan time will more then make up
for it!

Use the polaroid back to perfect your lighting. Once it's perfect
don't touch it. Shoot your first frames with negative film with a
white, grey and black card. Scan your negatives with no changes in
your scanner software. With Photoshop you should be able to get your
colour perfect with a white card and your eyedropper. Create an
action from this setting and carry it out on all your scans. Negative
film has a much better dynamic range for scanning and should be giving
you much better results than slide film.

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:59:11 GMT, Nony Buz wrote:

I must agree that negative film has a much wider range. You
should see what I get when I do a raw scan from a negative, an
amazingly flat and dark image. It has taken me about three hours
to tweak the settings to get a good scan. Granted the film is
Portra 160 NC, not Portra 160 VC, but the colour is simply flat
and has no life to it. When Portra 160NC is printed, it is very
pretty film.
It must be a problem with your software if slide film looks good and
neg film looks flat. Portra 160 NC was designed for a couple of
things: medium contrast for flash and wedding type work, to look the
same as the rest of the Portra family, and scanning. Maybe you should
trial some third party software if you are not already using
something.

I just completed my first "event" photo shoot, one of those high
volume jobs with one basic lighting setup, like a school pictures.
I shot C-41for the whole thing. Because of the deliverable, all
the images need to be scanned into the computer. I have learned
the hard way that getting the color balance is anything but easy
with C-41. To top it off, from what I can tell, I cannot figure
out how to get the scanner to give me near the quality from the
C-41 negative that a piece of photographic paper would deliver
from the same negative.

I have profiled my scanner for E-6 and able to get darn good
looking scans from E-6, very consistently. Here is the question,
is there enough latitude in E-6 that I can use it for my next high
volume job? The big catch is that the shoot takes place over a
serious of days, so I am setting up and tearing down everyday. I
do have the Minolta Meter V that is accurate to a 1/10 of a stop.
With light meter alone, can I get consistent exposures from day to
day? I am shooting 35mm, but have a MF with a Polaroid back;
would shooting Polaroid give me the desired consistency?

I am fully aware that the cost will double for shooting E-6 (film
& processing), but considering the hours I have spent trying to
scan in the C-41, the increase in scan time will more then make up
for it!

depending on how picky you are, a trany is about 1/4 to half a stop,
remember what you see is what you shot.

shoot a test roll with the typical set up, lights, camera, same distance,
f/stop and bracket and see what your working ISO is. your meter should be
able to get you repeatable results from then on. the polaroid from another
system will only be as accurate as the two systems are true to their specs,
F/8 is a standard concept but variances in tolerances in manufactoring as
well as in usage wear and tear can be say a half stop different in fact.

labs don't seem to have much problem with it, AFAIK all pro labs are now
scanning the negs and working with the files. for the maybe a little more
than E6 you can probably have a pro lab have digital files made instead of
proofs.

OTOH, if you are shooting lots then a digital back will pay for itself in
six months to a year.

this reply is echoed to the z-prophoto mailing list at yahoogroups.com

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 04:06:53 GMT, Nony Buz wrote:
I just completed my first "event" photo shoot, one of those high
volume jobs with one basic lighting setup, like a school pictures.
I shot C-41for the whole thing. Because of the deliverable, all
the images need to be scanned into the computer. I have learned
the hard way that getting the color balance is anything but easy
with C-41. To top it off, from what I can tell, I cannot figure
out how to get the scanner to give me near the quality from the
C-41 negative that a piece of photographic paper would deliver
from the same negative.

I have profiled my scanner for E-6 and able to get darn good
looking scans from E-6, very consistently. Here is the question,
is there enough latitude in E-6 that I can use it for my next high
volume job? The big catch is that the shoot takes place over a
serious of days, so I am setting up and tearing down everyday. I
do have the Minolta Meter V that is accurate to a 1/10 of a stop.
With light meter alone, can I get consistent exposures from day to
day? I am shooting 35mm, but have a MF with a Polaroid back;
would shooting Polaroid give me the desired consistency?

I am fully aware that the cost will double for shooting E-6 (film
& processing), but considering the hours I have spent trying to
scan in the C-41, the increase in scan time will more then make up
for it!

This is a digital camera forum so it's hard to say if people will answer you!

But I use a Canon scanner, and I have gotten better results with E6 then any
negatives I've tried to scan. Even with developing my own film, I've had great
results with it. I don't think Polaroid will give you the quality of E6.

Personally, if I had to take more then 10 pictures for a computer - I would use
a digital camera!

On 2004-10-17 01:07:54 -0400, May said:

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 04:06:53 GMT, Nony Buz wrote:
I just completed my first "event" photo shoot, one of those high
volume jobs with one basic lighting setup, like a school pictures.
I shot C-41for the whole thing. Because of the deliverable, all
the images need to be scanned into the computer. I have learned
the hard way that getting the color balance is anything but easy
with C-41. To top it off, from what I can tell, I cannot figure
out how to get the scanner to give me near the quality from the
C-41 negative that a piece of photographic paper would deliver
from the same negative.
I have profiled my scanner for E-6 and able to get darn good
looking scans from E-6, very consistently. Here is the question,
is there enough latitude in E-6 that I can use it for my next high
volume job? The big catch is that the shoot takes place over a
serious of days, so I am setting up and tearing down everyday. I
do have the Minolta Meter V that is accurate to a 1/10 of a stop.
With light meter alone, can I get consistent exposures from day to
day? I am shooting 35mm, but have a MF with a Polaroid back;
would shooting Polaroid give me the desired consistency?
I am fully aware that the cost will double for shooting E-6 (film
& processing), but considering the hours I have spent trying to
scan in the C-41, the increase in scan time will more then make up
for it!

This is a digital camera forum so it's hard to say if people will answer you!

But I use a Canon scanner, and I have gotten better results with E6 then any
negatives I've tried to scan. Even with developing my own film, I've had great
results with it. I don't think Polaroid will give you the quality of E6.

Personally, if I had to take more then 10 pictures for a computer - I would use
a digital camera!

Well, actually this ISN'T a digital camera forum.
--
Michael Weinstein | "Those who cannot remember the
Nashua, NH | past are condemned to repeat it."
-George Santayana

[Nony Buz wrote in rec.photo.technique.people]
I have profiled my scanner for E-6 and able to get darn good
looking scans from E-6, very consistently. Here is the question,
is there enough latitude in E-6 that I can use it for my next high
volume job?

Your exposure has to be pretty much bang on - the difference of
just one stop too much or too little night will ruin your images.

Look at your c-41 developed negatives. Are they all exposed well ?
Or are you pretty much relying on the stop or so of latitude that
low-gamma films buy you ?

If they're punchy, good negs, but your confidence is a little low
regarding tricky exposures, then you can still use transparencies
if you bracket (i.e. take some shots above and below the metered
exposure values).

I'm not surprised you get better results from your slides, you're
not alone.



--
http://fotoserve.com/ - Prints, Slides, Posters, Mugs, T-shirts,,
Calendars, Jigsaws, Tableware, Caricatures, Greetings cards, Picture
bags, Photo Album and Book covers, Canvas Prints, tissues and more
..... from your own digital images.

"Andy Davidson" escribió en el mensaje
...
[Nony Buz wrote in rec.photo.technique.people]
I have profiled my scanner for E-6 and able to get darn good
looking scans from E-6, very consistently. Here is the question,
is there enough latitude in E-6 that I can use it for my next high
volume job?

Your exposure has to be pretty much bang on - the difference of
just one stop too much or too little night will ruin your images.

Look at your c-41 developed negatives. Are they all exposed well ?
Or are you pretty much relying on the stop or so of latitude that
low-gamma films buy you ?

If they're punchy, good negs, but your confidence is a little low
regarding tricky exposures, then you can still use transparencies
if you bracket (i.e. take some shots above and below the metered
exposure values).

I'm not surprised you get better results from your slides, you're
not alone.



--
http://fotoserve.com/ - Prints, Slides, Posters, Mugs, T-shirts,,
Calendars, Jigsaws, Tableware, Caricatures, Greetings cards, Picture
bags, Photo Album and Book covers, Canvas Prints, tissues and more
..... from your own digital images.

"Andy Davidson" escribió en el mensaje
...
[Nony Buz wrote in rec.photo.technique.people]
I have profiled my scanner for E-6 and able to get darn good
looking scans from E-6, very consistently. Here is the question,
is there enough latitude in E-6 that I can use it for my next high
volume job?

Your exposure has to be pretty much bang on - the difference of
just one stop too much or too little night will ruin your images.

Look at your c-41 developed negatives. Are they all exposed well ?
Or are you pretty much relying on the stop or so of latitude that
low-gamma films buy you ?

If they're punchy, good negs, but your confidence is a little low
regarding tricky exposures, then you can still use transparencies
if you bracket (i.e. take some shots above and below the metered
exposure values).

I'm not surprised you get better results from your slides, you're
not alone.



--
http://fotoserve.com/ - Prints, Slides, Posters, Mugs, T-shirts,,
Calendars, Jigsaws, Tableware, Caricatures, Greetings cards, Picture
bags, Photo Album and Book covers, Canvas Prints, tissues and more
..... from your own digital images.