Color Negative or Transparancy

[rufis6]

Now that I am comfortable back in the film media and have forgotten about my erroneous foray into digital, I have a question from one of you experts: What do you think is better, color negative or transparancy - and why? Film latitude, gradation, color span and other factors I would like to consider.

[sparker1]

I really can't imagine going back to film. I shot both negatives and slides, made enlargements from both, kept well organized albums, etc. Digital restored my enthusiasm for photography because it overcame all the limitations of film that had bothered me.

[rufis6]

Great photos, you have a good eye. You also confirm my decision to return to film; all of your great photos seem soft as far as focus is concerned. I just got tired of all the USM, high-speed sharpening and other tweakning involved in a effort to duplicate the sharp images you get from film, without all the post-processing mentioned above. Additionally, digital will never have the wide latitude of film or the gradation, color dimension and other qualities that will only be obtained with film without much time devoted to post-processing..

[sparker1]

Glad I could help.

[Hatem Eldoronki]

Glad I could help.
:lol: :lol:

Seriously though, your pics are awesome!

Rufis, what digital camera did you previously use? And what film camera do you use now?

[rufis6]

I owned a Canon 20D and a Cano 10D. I dumped them on Ebay and now own a Canon 1v and a Leica r8.

[Vita Rara]

Additionally, digital will never have the wide latitude of film or the gradation, color dimension and other qualities that will only be obtained with film.

I'd be very careful saying "never." A lot of people have gotten into problems using that word.

Mark

[primoz]

Since all answers sounded again (and as usual when it comes to this) digital vs. film thing but there was no answer to your question I will try to answer.
First it's impossible to choose one film for all purposes. I still shoot lot of film (afterall all 1d's and 1dmk2's which I use are owned by agency and not me) but I don't have one film only. Yeah if I could make it I would choose Velvia for everything but it just doesn't go :)
Personally I preffer slides since there's just no way you can compare color and grain of any other media with slides. Even iso400 slides feel almost grainless. On other side slides don't have that wide exposure latitude which means you won't have really great photos when there will be lot of contrast in photo. No idea if this sounds right, since my english is hmm... :) I mean to say if you have lot of bright objects on one side and lot of shadows on other, you won't get usable photo with slides, while negative will do much better job in moments like that.
So I suggest you to get pack of film and experiment a bit. On the end you will see which one you like best for your type of shooting. Afterall it's not that expensive to buy few rolls of film and try :) And that will be best thing to do for sure, since noone can really tell you what's best for you.

[ssim]

To say that digital does not have the range of film or transparency is not entirely true. First of all it depends on the shooting conditions. One will may be better than the other in certain conditions but neither may prevail in all situations.

I would like to know what you base your opinion on. I have printed my 1DMKII up to 20X30 and they rival any 35mm film print. This of course depends on the ISO speed and the make of the film that you are using. Are they relative comparisons.

Check out this link. http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/...l.summary1.html (http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html)

The following is quoted from that site.

Quote:
There seems to be an urban legend that says digital cameras have less dynamic range than film. The legend is wrong. The above plot shows the comparison of a DSLR with print and slide film. The slide film records only about 5 photographic stops of information (a stop is a factor of 2, so 5 stops is 32). The print film shows about 7 stops of information. The digital camera shows at least 10 stops of information (this test was limited to 10 stops). Other tests show the Canon 1D Mark II camera has about 11.6 stops of information (a range of 3100 in intensity). Other DSLR cameras, like the Canon 10D have around 11 stops. Point and shoot digital cameras, somewhat less


There is a further link on this site that deals specifically with the dynamic range. Or you can go to here. http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2/

Your statement really intriqued me so I went and did alot of reading on the subject. The majority of the sites that I visited put the latest generation cameras (in our case the 1DsMKII) equal to or above film. In many cases the 1DMKII is even rated higher than film depending on what you are shooting. Case in point, if you are shooting with Velvia 50 and try to compare that to digital it may very well come out slightly ahead. If you are shooting wildlife or sports where you need the shutter speeds to stop the action, noise management in the newer cameras far outweigh the quality of the high speed films.

I am pretty confident that I can take my MKII images even larger than what I have and still have the quality equal to 35mm film.

You don't like the time that you had spend on post processing your digital films. Now you are letting someone else do that for you at a lab. They just don't slap your film through without doing some adjustments to each negative.

I really don't think that you can make a blanket statement that film is that much better than film. I still own several film cameras from a few medium format units to several 35mm bodies. They very rarely get used as I find the digital medium to be the one where the photographer becomes a total photograher, taking the image from beginning to final production themselves without having to rely on a third party, such as a color lab.

Your comments that some of the web images you have looked at appear soft. Have you considered the fact that many of us reduce the quality intentionally for web display.

[rufis6]

First I would like to thank you for your exhaustive response, even though it did not address the question posed: Negative color film vs. color transparancies. However I would point out that comparing the top-of-the-line digital to a film camera is hardly a vaild comparison; this is particularly true when you fail to mention which unnamed film camera you considered. Also, you only mention comparing digital to film negatives, again unresponsive; what about color transparancies? Inasmuch as you seem to have quite a bit of data at your disposal I look forward to seeing your response to the issue posed.

You said"

"You don't like the time that you had spend on post processing your digital requires. Now you are letting someone else do that for you at a lab. They just don't slap your film through without doing some adjustments to each negative."

The above quote assumes you are a mind-reader; you are not. I do my own film developing and have done so for years. Whatever post-processing required I do and prefer to do myself. But I NEVER have to do as much as I had to do with digital: USM, high-pass sharpening, etc."

Thank you in advance

Leica M7, Canon 1V and a whole slew of lenses

[mbze430]

I still use both Print film, and transparency. It just depends what I am shooting. however I would have to say slides is still currently my favorite. Just the month of March I counted 10 rolls of 135-36, 3 of which are print film (Agfa Ultra 100, 2x Kodak HD 400). The rest were Velvia 50 (5), Provia 100F (1), Provia 400F (1).

Everytime I decide to go in to digital (3rd time now), I always ended up going back to film. I currently have a 1DMKII, and in the month of March, I shot 27 frames with it.

As stated above, I feel I have to play with the color and contrast and whatever else to get the same film feel colors way too much, and it is never really the same.

Back to the point, I prefer Fuji slides, as it seems much more straight forward. Velvia 50, 100F seems to be the "Over the Top" color rendition. Provia 100F, and 400F general purpose. Astia 100F portraits. Can't wait for the NEW Velvia 100, the ones they had in Japan since 2003, to be release this Summer.

[robertwgross]

I'm not aware of many publications that want color negatives. They want either color transparencies or else digital files.

I just went through the work of working with some rolls of Velvia, Provia, and Elite Chrome slide film. I figure that it took me around eight hours of work per roll to scan, de-spot, noise reduce, and sharpen those slides. Too much. Back to digital.

---Bob Gross---

[PhotosGuy]

Can you spell 'troll'? Is that the noun or the verb, Bob?

[mbze430]

Since we are on the subject of film. Has anyone ever try the Agfa Scala? I found a place that actually develop them, but haven't gotten a chance to shoot them. Any samples?

[robertwgross]

Is that the noun or the verb, Bob?

To whom do you address your inquiry? Try the venerable Mister Dog.

---Bob Gross---

[rufis6]

I always find humor in those with too much time on their hands who take the time to reply to statements that only exists in their minds.. It reminds me of Pavlov's dog. Anytime they perceive someone is attacking the equipment they use or like, they take it as some kind of personal attack. If they are so smug with their new digital cameras why do they use their valuable time to in an attempt to denigrate others. Is is jealousy?

I think there are many of you with too much time on your hands.

Take a deep breath, kiss your digital camera and tell yourself how lucky you are!

[ssim]

Take a deep breath, kiss your digital camera and tell yourself how lucky you are!

That'll get you some positive responses on this forum.

http://www.pbase.com/ssim/image/41170247.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/ssim/image/41170247.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/ssim/image/41170247.jpg

[KennyG]

Rufis, you come on this board and spend 100% of your time telling everyone how you dislike digital and then expect a group hug? Get real, you are trolling plain and simple and you should accept all the vitriolic comments heading your way.

[PhotosGuy]

I do my own film developing and have done so for years. Whatever post-processing required I do and prefer to do myself. Me too, with B&W film. Color film processing was a PITA - labs could do it much faster & better when I came in with 80 rolls of Ektachrome. Kodachrome was a non-starter, timewise. The industry standard in transparency films is still Kodachrome I think. How long between the time you shoot it 'till you see it? Or do you use a lesser "quality" film so you could process it yourself & get faster results?
How many dye-transfer prints have you made? Those were the industry standard too, and required contrast masking & making three B&W negs for each color print? But they would knock your eyes out when you saw them. Or did you again use a lesser quality work flow so you could process it yourself & get easier/faster results?
But I NEVER have to do as much as I had to do with digital: USM, high-pass sharpening, etc." Pooooor guy! Clicking a mouse is SO much more difficult than wet processing! Give us a break! Anyone here who has done wet processing will have no sympathy for you on that score!
OK, you trolled & managed to hook me. Now I'm outta here!

Afterthought: How much time per 16X20" color print do you spend on spotting?

[Jon]

BTDT. Transparency film's decidedly better than colour neg for purposes of reproduction, but unless you let someone else do your processing and printing, it's a whole 7734 lot more trouble to post-process your film than it is your digital. Lessee, E-6/C-41 100.4+/- 0.2 deg. F for the duration. Yeah, piece of cake. My computers cost a whole lot less than a small auto-processor, if I didn't want to face that. Plus the cleaning of the equipment between batches, maintaining the dust-free environment so nothing gets embedded in that nice, soft, sticky, and vulnerable wet emulsion (oh yeah, and keeping from getting too much fluid pressure on it and stripping it off, and avoiding temp. shock and reticulation). And we haven't even started on colour balancing on the daylight or tungsten (no tolerance, either!) balance film so you get passable reproductions in the non-standard lighting you were in. I'll take CWB any day!

Oh, yeah, you wanted prints, too . . . Sorry, I just ran out of time . . .

[rufis6]

BLOO DOG:

To put "the turkey on ingnore" means to not even recognise their existence. By making any comment you contradict yourself as uneducated "turkeys" usually do. Get a life!

To Jon & PhotoGuy:

I don't know what you people have been smoking but all I do is develope my own colour negatives and scan them into Photoshop with my Nikon Cooolscan 5000 scanner. Really, it's a lot simpler than you would have others believe. But I guess you have to find some way to defend your own complicated post-processing: USM, High-Pass sharpening and the other tweaking gyrations you go through to approach the quality of my scanned images. Oh, as for prints; it takes about 90 seconds to produce an 8 X 10 dry, laminated print on my Kodak 8500 dye sub printer.

[cactusclay]

It's been a few years now, but I alway shot chromes, 35mm,6x7 and 4x5, just because I liked the look of Cibachrome and Fujichrome prints.

[VesselinG]

Rufis, dont get this wrong.
We *REALLY* care if you process your own colour negatives and scan them into Potoshop with your Nokin Cooolscan 5000 scanner. I mean it.

[cactusclay]

How much quality loss is there in the scan?

[rufis6]

CactusClay

The quality I achieve is awesome; thanks for asking. Because the scanner is a dedicated scanner without glass I don't even recognise a lose in quality at all.
So far I have only scanned colour negatives but tomorrow I will scan my first roll of transparencies.



VesslinG:

I'm sure you and most of the other REALLY do care. I can tell by the amount of unnecessary and unresponsive verbiage engendered by a simple inquiry.

Thank for caring.

[mbze430]

Rufis6 hey, don't get all worked up here. This is a digital forum, so these guys shoot their digitals. There are plenty of film shooters out there. You are just getting caught up with the film vs digital debate. You'll lose here, because the audience here are primary digital users.

photo.net, and probably other forum will give you a more balanced attitude on film and digital.

If you really get down to it, it's all about personal preference. You have yours, and they have theres. Take it as a grain of salt.

[rdenney]

Now that I am comfortable back in the film media and have forgotten about my erroneous foray into digital, I have a question from one of you experts: What do you think is better, color negative or transparancy - and why? Film latitude, gradation, color span and other factors I would like to consider.

I'm going to answer the question, heh, heh.

Slide film takes about five or six stops of scenery range and spreads it out to about 11 or 12 stops of density gradation (density of near 0 to about 3.3 or 3.6 on a log scale). Some films are less, and others more in terms of scenery value. But all aim for the same visible range on the film. After all, they are designed for direct viewing. That magazines prefer slide film is for two reasons: 1.) they've calibrated their work flow to deal with it, and 2.) all slide films try to provide directly viewable results, meaning that the magazine staff have both a reference and a consistant starting point with a slide. For subjects where the contrast can be managed, slide film works well. Those who use it a lot carry lots of grad filters, and are adept at various difficult contrast control tricks if they make prints (i.e. constrast masks, etc.). Been there; done that.

Negative films take about 9 or 10 stops of scenery range and compress them into about seven stops of density values on film (density of about .6 to perhaps 2.7). They preserve shadow detail better than slides with highlights printed to the same density. They are not as dynamic to look at, because they have less contrast to get all that extra scenery range onto a print. Magazines don't like them because they also have to have a reference print to know what the photographer wants, and because they weren't set up for it. And that was because pros typically didn't use it for magazine work from the days when print film was too grainy and too narrow of color gamut (no longer true, by the way, thanks to Fuji).

If you want to scan your images, negatives are easier to fit within the dynamic range of scanners mortals can afford.

Bob is right that magazines either want slides or digital files. I usually shoot on negatives, scan, and provide digital files after I've made all the necessary corrections on my calibrated monitor.

So, whether you use slide film or negative film depends on how you intend to use the result.

On the question of whether film has more or less tonal information than digital, I am convinced that it is similar or even a bit greater than negative film in terms of dynamic range, more than tonally dense enough to allow major manipulations when making prints, and with a higher signal/noise ratio than any film. This assumes a large enough sensor so that the photosites get enough light to read accurately.

To second what Bob also said, I work with both routinely: Negative film in medium format and digital in APS format. I scan the negative film in a Minolta Multi film scanner, and correct the images for subsequent printing and display. I spend about 30-60 minutes on each image to scan, remove dust, and make corrections (including "artistic" manipulations such as dodging and burning in), but not including targeting for a printer or printing. It requires just as much application of USM, etc., as working with digital images from the camera. Images from the digital camera, including the raw conversion and all of the above, take half the time.

If you love the darkroom experience, then blessings upon your house. I hated doing color work because it was too cookbook and too hard to manipulate without looking obviously unrealistic, and I didn't much like smelling like fixer all the time. I'm much happier in the field with the camera. I certainly spent more time in the darkroom on each image than I do now in the computer.

Finally, it's not fair to compare film to digital directly in any case. Digital is as different from film as slide film is from negative film. It must stand on its own, not in comparison with others. It took me a while to understand to work with it in its own terms and not try to make it look like film. As a result, it looks better than film and prints made in a darkroom, because I have much greater control over the final tonality of the print.

Rick "who would be nearly all digital if someone made a practical and affordable digital insert for his Pentax 645" Denney

[rufis6]

rdenney:

Thank you for the very thoughtful, exhaustive and informative reply you provided concerning my inquiry re: color negative vs. transparency; it is very much appreciated. Based on your personal, and apparently lengthy, experience with both media it is quite evident that the end result desired should determine the medium utilised.

Inasmuch as film vs. digital was not the thrust of my inquiry, that is not a subject that interests me; I have already made my own choice in the matter, i.e., I prefer film. I have no quarrel with those who prefer digital. I regret that some of them assume my inquiry is an attack on their own personal choice; seems like a knee-jerk defensive reaction to me. I find these responses humourous but I wish them well.

Again, thank you for your reply.

P.S. I have printed out your very informative reply for future reference.

[J Rabin]

Rufis. I shoot digital now, only because I spent about a year conquering the frustrating learning curve. As to film choices, I have a question for you:
1. WHAT'S THE END OUTPUT? Do you intend to SCAN the negatives or slides, PROJECT the slides in projector (I still have not found anything for public presentations that compares with the luster of a sharp slide projected), or make PRINTS?
If you intend to scan, Velvia can be pretty tough because of the emulsion density. With my Nikon Scanner, using the Nikon Wide Gamut compensated color space profile (it can capture just about everything E-6 slide processing captures, and is similar to digital Canon RAW converted with ProPhoto RGB) The old stand by Kodachrome 64 scans good, Provia scans nicely, and Fuji Astia is a nice film in high contrast situations. There's not a bad one in the bunch. Everyone likes Velvia for the very reason that it is exagerated color and not true real world. Like a model's PhotoShopped skin, super attractive, but nothing is real with Velvia.
If you intend to print only, then choose any good negative "flavor" film to suit your taste with ISO appropriate to the situation. There are so many good ones.
And the capture-able contrast range between slides, digital, negative is a silly argument. They've all got enough, most of the time. In my slide film days, we just metered for the most important elements, and let the rest of the image lie where it may. No one criticised. No one pixel peeped. In journalism, no one even cared about "blown-out highlights." We just saw a few "hotspots." No comment and moved on.
I imagine you're a thoughtful smart guy who got frustrated and gave up on digital too soon. I was frustrated for 8+ months. Then I separated good learning web site wheat from chaff. Norman Koran's web site and Steve Hoffman's web site and many other good one''s to help film people participate in the digital domain. Enjoy. Jack