Slide Film more accurate?
Old 02-23-2017   #1
papo
Registered User
 
papo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 98
Slide Film more accurate?

Can it be said that slide films are more accurate in terms of colors, contrast, depth and sharpness?

While we at it, i keep hearing that slide films are more unforgiving and that you need to have your exposure settings right but i wonder, if i scan them, couldnt i simply adjust all of that in post production (Lightroom, Photoshop, etc) like i would with negatives?
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2017   #2
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 2,107
No, you just can't mess with it more when printing.
No, the information is not recorded.
__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2017   #3
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
 
sevo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Posts: 6,364
No. They remove one entire step (printing). Prior to digital, that made them the medium of choice for every type of professional use where the end medium was no photographic print. While there are well-defined standards for colour calibration of slide film scanning, nothing equivalent exists for colour negatives. But that is not a matter of film quality but rather due to the fact that no equivalent infrastructure ever developed around CN.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2017   #4
dmr
Registered Abuser
 
dmr's Avatar
 
dmr is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Somewhere in Middle America
Posts: 4,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by papo View Post
While we at it, i keep hearing that slide films are more unforgiving and that you need to have your exposure settings right but i wonder, if i scan them, couldnt i simply adjust all of that in post production (Lightroom, Photoshop, etc) like i would with negatives?
Slide films typically do not have the dynamic range of negative films and your exposure does have to be very close. If the highlights are blown out to white or the shadows are down in the mud, no futzing around with the sliders in software will correct it.

Pick any obviously over or under exposed photo from the web and try editing it and you will see what I mean.
__________________
My (NEW) Gallery
My Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2017   #5
aldobonnard
Registered User
 
aldobonnard is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 285
Slides colour accuracy will depend on your film processing, which has to be perfect.
Then it depends on your scanner which has to be of a good quality and calibrated for the type of slide (scanner calibrated + screen calibrated for accurate adjustments).
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2017   #6
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 2,107
Following up on my previous post, what exactly is accurate sharpness?

But back to colour accuracy, slide films are no more accurate than negatives. If they were accurate, then Kodachrome would look exactly like Velvia which would look exactly like the scene. But they don't. All photography is a representation, choices made by hardware and software engineers dictate which version of reality the photograph will depict but none are perfect.
__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2017   #7
Steve M.
Registered User
 
Steve M. is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,382
You can't adjust what you ain't got. If the highlights are blown, no miracle of software is going to bring them back. As for accuracy, every film base has it's own characteristic and look. Nothing is "accurate", people just go for the look that suits them. Yes, shooting slides requires much more accurate exposure than negative film. Pick up a few rolls and shoot it. There is no other way to find out.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2017   #8
HHPhoto
Registered User
 
HHPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by papo View Post
Can it be said that slide films are more accurate in terms of colors, contrast, depth and sharpness?
Reversal (slide) film has finer grain, higher resolution and better sharpness compared to negative films of the same speed.
Velvia 50, Velvia 100, Provia 100F, AgfaPhoto CT Precisa 100 deliver all that. With this better detail rendition compared to Ektar 100, Portra 160 you can make bigger enlargements from reversal films.

Concerning contrast:
A slide on a light box or in projection has a higher Dmax / bigger contrast range (more stops) than a print from a colour negativ.

Concerning accurate colors:
Two aspects are very important:
1. If you want most neutral, natural, precise colours than Provia 100F / AgfaPhoto Precisa are currently the best films on the market.
Followed by Fuji Pro 400H (which is slightly on the warm side).
If natural/neutral colors are needed, you have to exclude all current Kodak negative films, because they all have a significant bias on yellow and a warm colour rendition (that is general policy at Kodak, the films are designed that way). This Kodak design also leads often to a certain cyan cast in blues with Kodak films.

2. With reversal film you already have a finished picture after development. With a proper development the results are perfect.
Send identical exposed slide films to several excellent labs and your results will be all identical.
Therefore you have a perfect accuracy in terms of reliability and consistancy.

But that is not the case with colour negative film:
After development you need prints and / or scans to have a usable, finished picture. Scanning / printing are interpretation processes. And therefore depending on the lab operator, the scanner, the software, the printing paper you will get different results.
Send identical exposed CN films to several excellent labs and your results (scans, prints) will be all different.

All the reasons above (and several more) are the reasons why in professional photography reversal film has been the preferred medium (in most cases exclusively used) for decades.

Quote:
Originally Posted by papo View Post
While we at it, i keep hearing that slide films are more unforgiving and that you need to have your exposure settings right but i
It is correct that negative film has more exposure latitude than reversal film, but
1. Negative film has no latitude concerning the other important quality parameters:
If you underexpose it, you get significantly more grain, worse sharpness and resolution, lack of shadow detail.
If you overexpose it, you are loosing sharpness, resolution and highlight detail. And you get colour shifts.
Result:
If you want optimal quality concerning all quality parameters, you have expose right. There is no difference concerning that between negative and positive film.
2. Getting a correct exposure is easy. For decades we have excellent metering systems in our cameras.
3. There are lots of excellent tools to manage even very high contrasts before / with exposure:
Fill-in flash, gradual filters, pre-exposure / pre-flashing, pol filter.
Get it right before you press the shutter. Then you don't need post-processing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by papo View Post
wonder, if i scan them, couldnt i simply adjust all of that in post production (Lightroom, Photoshop, etc) like i would with negatives?
Concerning scanning of reversal film the following aspects are important:
1. One further big advantage of reversal film is, you don't need to scan. After development you already have a perfect, finished picture. Look at it on a light box with an excellent slide loupe or in projection and you have a much much better quality than any (scanned) picture on a computer monitor.
2. Next advantage: With the slide you always have a reference, the original. You know how the scan have to look. That is impossible with colour negative film, because our brain cannot convert the negative colours.
3. Most scanners (with the exception of drumscanners) increase film grain by scanner noise. Therefore you benefit with reversal film from its finer grain (see above).
4. Reversal films have a very high contrast range (high Dmax). Most cheap scanners cannot fully record this high Dmax.
5. With drumscanners you can even get lots of detail from strongly under- or overexposed slides.
For example have a look here (scroll down to the portraits):
https://www.fineartdrumscanning.de/bilder/

Cheers, Jan
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2017   #9
waileong
Registered User
 
waileong is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 558
Quote:
Originally Posted by papo View Post
Can it be said that slide films are more accurate in terms of colors, contrast, depth and sharpness?

While we at it, i keep hearing that slide films are more unforgiving and that you need to have your exposure settings right but i wonder, if i scan them, couldnt i simply adjust all of that in post production (Lightroom, Photoshop, etc) like i would with negatives?
How can you adjust something you don't have? If you blow the exposure, you blow the highlights, there's nothing left to scan!
__________________
waileong’s Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2017   #10
nikonhswebmaster
reluctant moderator
 
nikonhswebmaster's Avatar
 
nikonhswebmaster is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by HHPhoto
1. One further big advantage of reversal film is, you don't need to scan. After development you already have a perfect, finished picture. Look at it on a light box with an excellent slide loupe or in projection and you have a much much better quality than any (scanned) picture on a computer monitor.
2. Next advantage: With the slide you always have a reference, the original. You know how the scan have to look. That is impossible with colour negative film, because our brain cannot convert the negative colours.
Art directors had light tables.

I don't ever remember seeing any negative color film, except in those envelops my mom got from the drugstore with prints.

Maybe it's just me, but how does one look at negatives since the color is always a product of the lab or scanner?
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2017   #11
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 8,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmr View Post
Pick any obviously over or under exposed photo from the web and try editing it and you will see what I mean.
No kidding.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2017   #12
SaveKodak
Registered User
 
SaveKodak is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikonhswebmaster View Post
Art directors had light tables.

I don't ever remember seeing any negative color film, except in those envelops my mom got from the drugstore with prints.

Maybe it's just me, but how does one look at negatives since the color is always a product of the lab or scanner?
Uh they looked at contact sheets and not negatives.

More accurate less accurate, waste of time. Provia looks like Provia, Velvia looks like Velvia. With proper controls they can produce an image that looks a lot like the scene photographed. Perfect accuracy is only something people who are shooting repro or certain types product photography need. If you're out in the world, first you won't remember the color perfectly, second there are a million variations of light and color anyways, and when combined with variation of exposure and development...all bets are off. It just needs to make an acceptable reproduction of the scene visually.

I have a photograph of my girlfriend on Monhegan Island in Maine that I shot on Provia 100F. I used an 81A since we were in open shade. I think the color is pretty dang great. Is it completely accurate were I standing in the same place at the same time? Probably not....
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2017   #13
HHPhoto
Registered User
 
HHPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by waileong View Post
How can you adjust something you don't have? If you blow the exposure, you blow the highlights, there's nothing left to scan!
Yes and no.
The very important point is, that reversal film is recording much more detail in the shadows and highlights than most people think.
There is a lot of misinformation on the internet, e.g. that reversal film could only record 5-6 stops of dynamic range.
That is completely wrong!!
Reversal film has, principially in the same way as negative film (but to a lesser extent), also a shoulder in the characteristic curve (highlights).
How much detail can be seen or can be recovered in the shadows and higlights is depending on the viewing methods.
The test results differ from 8-11 stops depending on the used method and the film (Astia or Provia have a higher dynamic range as the Velvias).

Look at the example and the link I've given in my post above: It is absolutely outstanding what can be recorded from the shadows in the underexposed slide by the drumscanner.
The detail is there, it is on the film! Despite the huge underexposure.
You may also have a look at the excellent test results of Tim Parkin (onlandscape.co.uk).

But again:
Exposing correctly is extremely easy. Especially with the curent metering and exposing systems, or a separate lightmeter.
So nothing to worry about.

Cheers, Jan
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2017   #14
BillBingham2
Registered User
 
BillBingham2's Avatar
 
BillBingham2 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ames, Iowa, USA
Posts: 5,915
I always preferred slide film as the images always felt more pure, closer to what I was seeing. They looked dark when I wanted them to look dark, not muddy like the 4x6 prints always did.

Kodachrome and Extachrome weren't perfect, but for me the were more than good enough for everything I wanted to do.

B2 (;->
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2017   #15
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 61
Posts: 10,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by HHPhoto View Post
Reversal (slide) film has finer grain, higher resolution and better sharpness compared to negative films of the same speed.
Velvia 50, Velvia 100, Provia 100F, AgfaPhoto CT Precisa 100 deliver all that. With this better detail rendition compared to Ektar 100, Portra 160 you can make bigger enlargements from reversal films.

Concerning contrast:
A slide on a light box or in projection has a higher Dmax / bigger contrast range (more stops) than a print from a colour negativ.

Concerning accurate colors:
Two aspects are very important:
1. If you want most neutral, natural, precise colours than Provia 100F / AgfaPhoto Precisa are currently the best films on the market.
Followed by Fuji Pro 400H (which is slightly on the warm side).
If natural/neutral colors are needed, you have to exclude all current Kodak negative films, because they all have a significant bias on yellow and a warm colour rendition (that is general policy at Kodak, the films are designed that way). This Kodak design also leads often to a certain cyan cast in blues with Kodak films.

2. With reversal film you already have a finished picture after development. With a proper development the results are perfect.
Send identical exposed slide films to several excellent labs and your results will be all identical.
Therefore you have a perfect accuracy in terms of reliability and consistancy.

But that is not the case with colour negative film:
After development you need prints and / or scans to have a usable, finished picture. Scanning / printing are interpretation processes. And therefore depending on the lab operator, the scanner, the software, the printing paper you will get different results.
Send identical exposed CN films to several excellent labs and your results (scans, prints) will be all different.

All the reasons above (and several more) are the reasons why in professional photography reversal film has been the preferred medium (in most cases exclusively used) for decades.



It is correct that negative film has more exposure latitude than reversal film, but
1. Negative film has no latitude concerning the other important quality parameters:
If you underexpose it, you get significantly more grain, worse sharpness and resolution, lack of shadow detail.
If you overexpose it, you are loosing sharpness, resolution and highlight detail. And you get colour shifts.
Result:
If you want optimal quality concerning all quality parameters, you have expose right. There is no difference concerning that between negative and positive film.
2. Getting a correct exposure is easy. For decades we have excellent metering systems in our cameras.
3. There are lots of excellent tools to manage even very high contrasts before / with exposure:
Fill-in flash, gradual filters, pre-exposure / pre-flashing, pol filter.
Get it right before you press the shutter. Then you don't need post-processing.



Concerning scanning of reversal film the following aspects are important:
1. One further big advantage of reversal film is, you don't need to scan. After development you already have a perfect, finished picture. Look at it on a light box with an excellent slide loupe or in projection and you have a much much better quality than any (scanned) picture on a computer monitor.
2. Next advantage: With the slide you always have a reference, the original. You know how the scan have to look. That is impossible with colour negative film, because our brain cannot convert the negative colours.
3. Most scanners (with the exception of drumscanners) increase film grain by scanner noise. Therefore you benefit with reversal film from its finer grain (see above).
4. Reversal films have a very high contrast range (high Dmax). Most cheap scanners cannot fully record this high Dmax.
5. With drumscanners you can even get lots of detail from strongly under- or overexposed slides.
For example have a look here (scroll down to the portraits):
https://www.fineartdrumscanning.de/bilder/

Cheers, Jan
Jan,

Thanks for the concise and thorough writing.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2017   #16
nikonhswebmaster
reluctant moderator
 
nikonhswebmaster's Avatar
 
nikonhswebmaster is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaveKodak View Post
Uh they looked at contact sheets and not negatives.
Probably just me, but I never knew anyone shooting neg color.

Anyway, I never did.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2017   #17
GarageBoy
Registered User
 
GarageBoy is offline
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 773
You can get c41 shadows to look dark too, dodge it during your print stage
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2017   #18
edge100
-
 
edge100 is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 757
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelwj View Post
Following up on my previous post, what exactly is accurate sharpness?

But back to colour accuracy, slide films are no more accurate than negatives. If they were accurate, then Kodachrome would look exactly like Velvia which would look exactly like the scene. But they don't. All photography is a representation, choices made by hardware and software engineers dictate which version of reality the photograph will depict but none are perfect.
+1

This is a bug-bear of mine. There are two kinds of colour accuracy: accuracy of the original scene and accuracy of duplication of the slide.

As pointed out, Velvia 50 doesn't look like Kodachrome, which doesn't look like Provia 100F, which doesn't look like Astia, which doesn't look like Ektachrome, and so on. Each film applies its own tonal palette to the range of colours presented to it in the scene. And none of them are "accurate" with respect to the colours present in nature (whatever that means).

That, of course, has nothing to do with the accuracy of scanning the slide, which is a quantitative and reproducible thing. We calibrate our scanners with IT8 targets for each film type, and then use the associated LUT to map the scanned colours (which are biased by the individual scanner) into the "accurate" colours.

Negatives are a completely different beast; they have always been a medium of interpretation, where the printing stage is an integral component of the final subjective image characteristics (colour balance included). This is why there aren't equivalent calibration images for negative film: there's nothing to calibrate against. A film negative is not merely an inverted positive.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2017   #19
edge100
-
 
edge100 is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 757
Quote:
Originally Posted by HHPhoto View Post
Reversal (slide) film has finer grain, higher resolution and better sharpness compared to negative films of the same speed.
Velvia 50, Velvia 100, Provia 100F, AgfaPhoto CT Precisa 100 deliver all that. With this better detail rendition compared to Ektar 100, Portra 160 you can make bigger enlargements from reversal films.

Concerning contrast:
A slide on a light box or in projection has a higher Dmax / bigger contrast range (more stops) than a print from a colour negativ.

Concerning accurate colors:
Two aspects are very important:
1. If you want most neutral, natural, precise colours than Provia 100F / AgfaPhoto Precisa are currently the best films on the market.
Followed by Fuji Pro 400H (which is slightly on the warm side).
If natural/neutral colors are needed, you have to exclude all current Kodak negative films, because they all have a significant bias on yellow and a warm colour rendition (that is general policy at Kodak, the films are designed that way). This Kodak design also leads often to a certain cyan cast in blues with Kodak films.

2. With reversal film you already have a finished picture after development. With a proper development the results are perfect.
Send identical exposed slide films to several excellent labs and your results will be all identical.
Therefore you have a perfect accuracy in terms of reliability and consistancy.

But that is not the case with colour negative film:
After development you need prints and / or scans to have a usable, finished picture. Scanning / printing are interpretation processes. And therefore depending on the lab operator, the scanner, the software, the printing paper you will get different results.
Send identical exposed CN films to several excellent labs and your results (scans, prints) will be all different.

All the reasons above (and several more) are the reasons why in professional photography reversal film has been the preferred medium (in most cases exclusively used) for decades.



It is correct that negative film has more exposure latitude than reversal film, but
1. Negative film has no latitude concerning the other important quality parameters:
If you underexpose it, you get significantly more grain, worse sharpness and resolution, lack of shadow detail.
If you overexpose it, you are loosing sharpness, resolution and highlight detail. And you get colour shifts.
Result:
If you want optimal quality concerning all quality parameters, you have expose right. There is no difference concerning that between negative and positive film.
2. Getting a correct exposure is easy. For decades we have excellent metering systems in our cameras.
3. There are lots of excellent tools to manage even very high contrasts before / with exposure:
Fill-in flash, gradual filters, pre-exposure / pre-flashing, pol filter.
Get it right before you press the shutter. Then you don't need post-processing.



Concerning scanning of reversal film the following aspects are important:
1. One further big advantage of reversal film is, you don't need to scan. After development you already have a perfect, finished picture. Look at it on a light box with an excellent slide loupe or in projection and you have a much much better quality than any (scanned) picture on a computer monitor.
2. Next advantage: With the slide you always have a reference, the original. You know how the scan have to look. That is impossible with colour negative film, because our brain cannot convert the negative colours.
3. Most scanners (with the exception of drumscanners) increase film grain by scanner noise. Therefore you benefit with reversal film from its finer grain (see above).
4. Reversal films have a very high contrast range (high Dmax). Most cheap scanners cannot fully record this high Dmax.
5. With drumscanners you can even get lots of detail from strongly under- or overexposed slides.
For example have a look here (scroll down to the portraits):
https://www.fineartdrumscanning.de/bilder/

Cheers, Jan
Excellent post, Jan. Spot on!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2017   #20
SaveKodak
Registered User
 
SaveKodak is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikonhswebmaster View Post
Probably just me, but I never knew anyone shooting neg color.

Anyway, I never did.
Folks shot anything and everything. Some choices certainly were more popular than others, but as usually it was job dependent.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2017   #21
nikonhswebmaster
reluctant moderator
 
nikonhswebmaster's Avatar
 
nikonhswebmaster is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaveKodak View Post
Folks shot anything and everything. Some choices certainly were more popular than others, but as usually it was job dependent.
I'm sure, just never saw anything but chromes.

Chromes are just so great to look at.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2017   #22
dmr
Registered Abuser
 
dmr's Avatar
 
dmr is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Somewhere in Middle America
Posts: 4,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikonhswebmaster View Post
Probably just me, but I never knew anyone shooting neg color.
For years I shot mostly color slide film and I'm glad I did. I preferred color to B&W, and I know this sounds silly but I just did not want to pay for color prints of the shots I had taken but did not want printed. Back when I was in HS and college there was no such thing as a contact sheet from a consumer processing lab.

Anyway, I would do slide film and just order prints of the ones I wanted, which was maybe 10% of what I shot.

I'm glad I did that, as it forced me to pay attention to lighting, exposure, and such.

In later years I switched to color negatives and I do appreciate the latitude it gives.
__________________
My (NEW) Gallery
My Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2017   #23
gnuyork
Registered User
 
gnuyork is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 709
I don't know about accurate, but slide films in my experience, the ones I shoot anyway, seem to give me a color more true to life of what my eye sees compared to negative films (with the exception of Kodachrome). I don't shoot negative color film much, but when I do, I like it for the novelty of the character of the film (Portra). That being said, I do think of Kodachrome in the same way - it has a very special character and was one of my favorites. Too bad it's gone.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2017   #24
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 61
Posts: 10,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikonhswebmaster View Post
I'm sure, just never saw anything but chromes.

Chromes are just so great to look at.
I believe the Pro's shot color chromes mostly for economic reasons, meaning slides not only gave positives but were less costly per image capture.

Contacts for B&W is a different story...

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2017   #25
waileong
Registered User
 
waileong is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 558
I don't rely on the internet for my info on slide film. I've blown the highlights many times.

Once they're gone, they're gone. And the midtones go with them too! They don't look good any more.

My post is not about shadow detail, but if you underexpose slide film, it looks crap too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HHPhoto View Post
Yes and no.
The very important point is, that reversal film is recording much more detail in the shadows and highlights than most people think.
There is a lot of misinformation on the internet, e.g. that reversal film could only record 5-6 stops of dynamic range.
That is completely wrong!!
Reversal film has, principially in the same way as negative film (but to a lesser extent), also a shoulder in the characteristic curve (highlights).
How much detail can be seen or can be recovered in the shadows and higlights is depending on the viewing methods.
The test results differ from 8-11 stops depending on the used method and the film (Astia or Provia have a higher dynamic range as the Velvias).

Look at the example and the link I've given in my post above: It is absolutely outstanding what can be recorded from the shadows in the underexposed slide by the drumscanner.
The detail is there, it is on the film! Despite the huge underexposure.
You may also have a look at the excellent test results of Tim Parkin (onlandscape.co.uk).

But again:
Exposing correctly is extremely easy. Especially with the curent metering and exposing systems, or a separate lightmeter.
So nothing to worry about.

Cheers, Jan
__________________
waileong’s Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2017   #26
nikonhswebmaster
reluctant moderator
 
nikonhswebmaster's Avatar
 
nikonhswebmaster is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calzone View Post
I believe the Pro's shot color chromes mostly for economic reasons, meaning slides not only gave positives but were less costly per image capture.

Contacts for B&W is a different story...

Cal
I mostly shot B&W for small non-profit magazines and academic presses. They would send out want lists, and after a while I could almost guarantee a half dozen photos a month, which would pay my rent. There was a time when living was cheap.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2017   #27
SaveKodak
Registered User
 
SaveKodak is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 573
If you want perfectly exposed chromes, my advice would be to buy an F6! I used to auto bracket more but I'm finding that's not even necessary most of the time. The camera just nails it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2017   #28
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 61
Posts: 10,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikonhswebmaster View Post
I mostly shot B&W for small non-profit magazines and academic presses. They would send out want lists, and after a while I could almost guarantee a half dozen photos a month, which would pay my rent. There was a time when living was cheap.
N,

Takes a lot of courage to have done that, even back then. I'm thinking the 70's.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2017   #29
HHPhoto
Registered User
 
HHPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by edge100 View Post
Excellent post, Jan. Spot on!
You and Cal (Calzone) are welcome .

Cheers, Jan
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2017   #30
nikonhswebmaster
reluctant moderator
 
nikonhswebmaster's Avatar
 
nikonhswebmaster is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calzone View Post
N,

Takes a lot of courage to have done that, even back then. I'm thinking the 70's.

Cal
it was this kind of stuff (scan from a proof sheet).





Not much about art or courage, all from an F and a 50, and an M and a 21. Simple kit. Always Tri-X. The first from the Post Dispatch and NY Times, the second from Transaction Magazine. And most definitely the '70s
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Scanned-Picture01.jpg (22.2 KB, 270 views)
File Type: jpg Scanned-Picture02.jpg (30.2 KB, 269 views)
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2017   #31
kb244
Registered User
 
kb244's Avatar
 
kb244 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Grand Rapids, Mi
Age: 38
Posts: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikonhswebmaster View Post
it was this kind of stuff (scan from a proof sheet).





Not much about art or courage, all from an F and a 50, and an M and a 21. Simple kit. Always Tri-X. The first from the Post Dispatch and NY Times, the second from Transaction Magazine. And most definitely the '70s
Good stuff. I wonder what today's equivalent to that kind of work would be.
__________________
Karl Blessing
Film (Working RF): Canon 7, Fed-2A, Argus C3, Mercury II
Digital: Olympus E-M5, E-P3
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2017   #32
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 61
Posts: 10,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikonhswebmaster View Post
it was this kind of stuff (scan from a proof sheet).





Not much about art or courage, all from an F and a 50, and an M and a 21. Simple kit. Always Tri-X. The first from the Post Dispatch and NY Times, the second from Transaction Magazine. And most definitely the '70s
N,

Great stuff to be proud of. Still took a lot of guts to sustain yourself as a freelancer. Much admired for all the risks taken.

Anyways this is from a guy who went to art school during those times, and decided to play it safer and work day jobs rather than put myself out there like you did.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2017   #33
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
 
sevo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Posts: 6,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calzone View Post
I believe the Pro's shot color chromes mostly for economic reasons, meaning slides not only gave positives but were less costly per image capture.
Lower cost probably did not make it into the considerations. Or rather, it worked the other way around - while slide was cheaper, halftone printing was still seriously expensive, and photography cost in general was a minor consideration, compared to the money pre-press and press devoured. Colour halftone processes were incredibly complex in the pre scanner era (and far from easy for the first decade of scanning), and the latitude was tiny, so everybody preferred slide as that avoided the extra generation of a print - even with slide it was hard enough to have consistency.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2017   #34
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 61
Posts: 10,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by sevo View Post
Lower cost probably did not make it into the considerations. Or rather, it worked the other way around - while slide was cheaper, halftone printing was still seriously expensive, and photography cost in general was a minor consideration, compared to the money pre-press and press devoured. Colour halftone processes were incredibly in the pre scanner era (and far from easy for the first decade of scanning), and the latitude was tiny, so everybody preferred slide as that avoided the extra generation of a print - even with slide it was hard enough to have consistency.
Thanks. The backdrop of technology really makes sense of why in the 70's there were opportunities that no longer exist today. Good information.

Back in those days Annie Liebierwitz freelanced at the Village Voice...

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2017   #35
David Hughes
David Hughes
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,507
Hi,

Just curious; years ago I noticed that my eyes had a slightly different colour balance; easily seen if you look at a colour print with one eye and then the other. So I wonder how accurate is accurate, since others may have the same mismatch or worse...

Regards, David
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2017   #36
nikonhswebmaster
reluctant moderator
 
nikonhswebmaster's Avatar
 
nikonhswebmaster is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Hughes View Post
Hi,

Just curious; years ago I noticed that my eyes had a slightly different colour balance; easily seen if you look at a colour print with one eye and then the other. So I wonder how accurate is accurate, since others may have the same mismatch or worse...

Regards, David
David there are color tests on the web, where you arrange tints to see how accurately you can see colors.

After my cataract operation my eyes are close to 100% accurate. I think I only miss due to getting bored with the tests. Before I had a hard time seeing blue, it always seemed green because of the yellow in my eyes.

Here is a very simple one you can start with, but there are ones with hundreds of chips. http://www.xrite.com/hue-test
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2017   #37
kb244
Registered User
 
kb244's Avatar
 
kb244 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Grand Rapids, Mi
Age: 38
Posts: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikonhswebmaster View Post
David there are color tests on the web, where you arrange tints to see how accurately you can see colors.

After my cataract operation my eyes are close to 100% accurate. I think I only miss due to getting bored with the tests. Before I had a hard time seeing blue, it always seemed green because of the yellow in my eyes.

Here is a very simple one you can start with, but there are ones with hundreds of chips. http://www.xrite.com/hue-test
Got a perfect score on that... but I've always been curious about tests that are reliant on an electronic display, versus printed hues/etc.

Interesting thing though, I usually seem to score perfectly on anything in regards to seeing hues, or tinted changes.

Yet if I try to use this one specific fountain pen ink called Noodler's Baystate blue, something most the community swears is a rich vibrant blue, or as some people would call a "True blue", I always see it as purple, almost a royal purple, even if I photograph it next to a color chart, it matches blue when photographhed/scanned, but to my eyes right in front of me, that very specific shade of blue looks purple to me, I can't quite explain it. No other specific shade of color does this to me.
__________________
Karl Blessing
Film (Working RF): Canon 7, Fed-2A, Argus C3, Mercury II
Digital: Olympus E-M5, E-P3
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2017   #38
nikonhswebmaster
reluctant moderator
 
nikonhswebmaster's Avatar
 
nikonhswebmaster is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by kb244 View Post
Got a perfect score on that... but I've always been curious about tests that are reliant on an electronic display, versus printed hues/etc.
...
The test I linked to tests against yourself, it could of course, be that you see blue differently than I do. You are arranging tints, which I also can do perfectly.

You need to also test yourself for being color blind, which is very common. That is best done by a doctor, but there are online tests.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2017   #39
Skiff
Registered User
 
Skiff is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 966
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calzone View Post
I believe the Pro's shot color chromes mostly for economic reasons, meaning slides not only gave positives but were less costly per image capture.
As a professional who has worked at that time (and is still working with reversal film, too) I can assure you the cost advantage of reversal film was (and is) an important factor.
But it was not the only or decisive factor.
Other advantages were / are also important: Finer grain, better sharpness and higher resolution of reversal film compared to CN film.
And that you always have the slide as an optimal reference for the following reproduction and printing process for pictures in advertizing campaigns, on product packagings, in books, in product catalogs and so on.

For lots of photographers also the much better versatility was / is a reason for using reversal film. For example adventure, travel and nature / wildlife photographers: They can use the slides both as optimal medium for their AV shows for big audiences, and have at the same time an excellent base for their printed books.
Current example:
The current book of famous wildlife photographer Norbert Rosing has exclusively only pictures from reversal film in it.
No digital at all, no negative film shots at all.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2017   #40
Skiff
Registered User
 
Skiff is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 966
Quote:
Originally Posted by HHPhoto View Post
Reversal (slide) film has finer grain, higher resolution and better sharpness compared to negative films of the same speed.
Velvia 50, Velvia 100, Provia 100F, AgfaPhoto CT Precisa 100 deliver all that. With this better detail rendition compared to Ektar 100, Portra 160 you can make bigger enlargements from reversal films.

Concerning contrast:
A slide on a light box or in projection has a higher Dmax / bigger contrast range (more stops) than a print from a colour negativ.

Concerning accurate colors:
Two aspects are very important:
1. If you want most neutral, natural, precise colours than Provia 100F / AgfaPhoto Precisa are currently the best films on the market.
Followed by Fuji Pro 400H (which is slightly on the warm side).
If natural/neutral colors are needed, you have to exclude all current Kodak negative films, because they all have a significant bias on yellow and a warm colour rendition (that is general policy at Kodak, the films are designed that way). This Kodak design also leads often to a certain cyan cast in blues with Kodak films.

2. With reversal film you already have a finished picture after development. With a proper development the results are perfect.
Send identical exposed slide films to several excellent labs and your results will be all identical.
Therefore you have a perfect accuracy in terms of reliability and consistancy.

But that is not the case with colour negative film:
After development you need prints and / or scans to have a usable, finished picture. Scanning / printing are interpretation processes. And therefore depending on the lab operator, the scanner, the software, the printing paper you will get different results.
Send identical exposed CN films to several excellent labs and your results (scans, prints) will be all different.

All the reasons above (and several more) are the reasons why in professional photography reversal film has been the preferred medium (in most cases exclusively used) for decades.



It is correct that negative film has more exposure latitude than reversal film, but
1. Negative film has no latitude concerning the other important quality parameters:
If you underexpose it, you get significantly more grain, worse sharpness and resolution, lack of shadow detail.
If you overexpose it, you are loosing sharpness, resolution and highlight detail. And you get colour shifts.
Result:
If you want optimal quality concerning all quality parameters, you have expose right. There is no difference concerning that between negative and positive film.
2. Getting a correct exposure is easy. For decades we have excellent metering systems in our cameras.
3. There are lots of excellent tools to manage even very high contrasts before / with exposure:
Fill-in flash, gradual filters, pre-exposure / pre-flashing, pol filter.
Get it right before you press the shutter. Then you don't need post-processing.



Concerning scanning of reversal film the following aspects are important:
1. One further big advantage of reversal film is, you don't need to scan. After development you already have a perfect, finished picture. Look at it on a light box with an excellent slide loupe or in projection and you have a much much better quality than any (scanned) picture on a computer monitor.
2. Next advantage: With the slide you always have a reference, the original. You know how the scan have to look. That is impossible with colour negative film, because our brain cannot convert the negative colours.
3. Most scanners (with the exception of drumscanners) increase film grain by scanner noise. Therefore you benefit with reversal film from its finer grain (see above).
4. Reversal films have a very high contrast range (high Dmax). Most cheap scanners cannot fully record this high Dmax.
5. With drumscanners you can even get lots of detail from strongly under- or overexposed slides.
For example have a look here (scroll down to the portraits):
https://www.fineartdrumscanning.de/bilder/

Cheers, Jan
That's spot on.
Extremely precise explanation!
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 15:21.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.