DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

Negative or transparency film?

I think it's all down to individual appreciation in the end. By that I mean that as an 'amateur' who is unlikely to produce wall sized enlargements, the system I use is perfectly adequate. Thanks to another forum member, I've revised my scanning procedure and quite frankly these show a huge difference in comparison to my original efforts.

Perhaps the major influence was reworking my exposure calculations when actually taking the photograph, and learning the limits of the different emulsions plays an important role as well.

The next hurdle is composition! But I'm working on that one...:z04_nic_0075:
 
Are you still shooting neg film? Exposing for the shadow detail? If find when I shoot Fuji Pro 400H I get better results at 320ISO, and sometimes in scenes of high contrast I overexpose by about a stop to stop the shadows looking murky / grainy. Is that what you're doing?

I think it's all down to individual appreciation in the end. By that I mean that as an 'amateur' who is unlikely to produce wall sized enlargements, the system I use is perfectly adequate. Thanks to another forum member, I've revised my scanning procedure and quite frankly these show a huge difference in comparison to my original efforts.

Perhaps the major influence was reworking my exposure calculations when actually taking the photograph, and learning the limits of the different emulsions plays an important role as well.

The next hurdle is composition! But I'm working on that one...:z04_nic_0075:
 
Up until now I've used exclusively negative film stock, and I expose for the shadows. But I've just received some rolls of Fuji PROVIA 100F and when the weather gets better (!) I'll do some tests. I had heard that transparency film scans better, but without a side by side comparison, it's hard to tell from other peoples individual scans.

The shot posted earlier of the lane and tree is not far from me, so I'll shoot the same scene on the PROVIA and scan it for comparison. Once I've decided what film stock is best for me, I'll shoot some reference frames with under/over exposure to decide the 'real' sensitivity of the film (in my eyes)
 
For those interested in scanning, I'd encourage you to listen to the Inside Analogue Digital Radio podcast with Kodak Photo engineer Ron Mowrey, 04/04/09.

His point of discussion is Pos-Pos versus Neg-Pos and leaves you in no doubt that the negative is the best starting position for scanning.

Simply, he explains that slides had to be provided so the Editor's could see a final image on a light box. Internegs were then used for the production process.

Without the need for the light box, there's no advantage for the slide. [Unless you need a specific look, I presume]

Well worth a listen IMO.
 
Thanks.
Are you able to provide a link? I've found one but it doesn't seem to be the one you're talking about and the dates don't match...

Thanks again.
 
I just found the link. Thanks anyway!

What he says about the motion picture industry and neg-pos printing is interesting and I can see what he means in my raw scans. Using a program like Vuescan instead of Nikon's software with the Nikon 9000 makes a huge difference. Nikon's software clips a heck of a lot of the toe and shoulder, reducing the useful latitude of neg film. I guess this is so amateurs get quick, acceptable results. With Vuescan you can a vast amount more info in the highlights and shadows but have to know how to adjust the end points in software to get the correct contrast range. So in that sense, and the way he describes the benefits of the neg-pos process, I can definitely see the advantage of shooting neg for moving footage or optical C-type stills prints.

Having said all of that, I still find from experience that (a properly exposed trannie) gives a better result when scanned. I'm not 100% sure why it is, but as Ron points out, neg film falls victim to more grain aliasing when scanned. I've always assumed it's because of the orange mask, but I've never found out. Scanned trannie, whether scanned on a Nikon, Imacon or Drum (I've only drum scanned a few 400ISO Portra NC films to compare,) is far finer looking in the grain department. As long as the exposure is correct, and if I'm scanning for digital output, I get the best results from trannie.

But...

If I were printing optically, I'd shoot negative film 100% of the time. As Ron says, it is just more tonal. But no pro lab prints optically in my country anymore and I'm not about to buy the equipment myself. All my work is scanned and outputted on an Epson 7800 24" printer these days. It's just so much more convenient.

I'd love my own Hasselblad Flextight X1 / X5, but then again, for that kind of money I could almost buy a MF digi system, simplify my workflow AND save on film processing costs in the long run!

Tim
 
Glad you found it Tim, and your view is interesting. I just typed this out for others:-


Hi, doesn't help that I spelt Analog in the English way.

Easy access to it is thru iTunes, but it's also available through the Inside Analog Photo Radio website if you search for Ron Mowrey. It's the fourth on the list Pos-Pos vs Neg-Pos

Please understand, I have no desire to convert anybody from the preferred methods of working, just to direct anyone who's interested in listening to an world expert on the subject.

Just to be clear, he is referring to conversion to digital via scanning. He acknowledges that first generation viewing of a slide via a projection system is a completely different ball game. If you like to project images there's probably nothing to match Superslides. :)
 

Attachments

  • Picture 6.jpg
    EXIF
    Picture 6.jpg
    80.8 KB · Views: 8
  • Picture 6.jpg
    EXIF
    Picture 6.jpg
    80.8 KB · Views: 8
Haha, yes I didn't realise the spelling!

It was a really interesting listen for anyone else interested in or persevering with film during this digital age. Thanks for posting. I've never heard of these pod casts and will make a point of listening to more of them when time permits.

As for the 'ol neg vs pos thing, I reckon that unless you're a gun at getting perfect exposures (which I'm not) negative film in usually a better option. Every day when I'm out shooting with Astia or some such E6 film I panic I'm blowing my highlights or plugging up the shadows. I live in New Zealand where the light is brutal and that kind of pressure can really drag a man to drink!

I really wish I could get the finer, more natural looking grain I get from scanning E6 with neg film. That's the only think holding me back. There are just too many positives (excuse the pun) to shooting C-41 in harsh and varied conditions to make it a real cut and dry decision. For commercial jobs I only shoot neg because of the extra room for error, which says it all really.

The other side of me reckons shooting E6 has made me a significantly better photographer technically and forced me to really analyze light and exposure. I hate to think how bad I'd be in terms of knowing the basics of exposure if I was brought up on digital, what with instant feedback etc. God bless being forced to wait and stress over film at the lab! :z04_pc2:



Glad you found it Tim, and your view is interesting. I just typed this out for others:-


Hi, doesn't help that I spelt Analog in the English way.

Easy access to it is thru iTunes, but it's also available through the Inside Analog Photo Radio website if you search for Ron Mowrey. It's the fourth on the list Pos-Pos vs Neg-Pos

Please understand, I have no desire to convert anybody from the preferred methods of working, just to direct anyone who's interested in listening to an world expert on the subject.

Just to be clear, he is referring to conversion to digital via scanning. He acknowledges that first generation viewing of a slide via a projection system is a completely different ball game. If you like to project images there's probably nothing to match Superslides. :)
 
Thanks for the link, amazing stuff!

From my point of view, in terms of scanning, slide is easier because the colours and tones are just what they are, no fiddling and guessing with white balance or tones, you can always refer to the original!

on the other hand I still cannot believe how easy it is to expose negative film, the latitude is crazy (and more so the dynamic range)... you can play with the exposure about 3 stops and you will still get something absolutely useful and that you can blow to whatever size... at the moment I'm shooting Fuji 160s and I can expose shots in the same roll at iso 100, others at 200 and others at 400 and process it normal and all shots are 100% usable! - auto ISO is not a digital invention :D

cheers again for the link

I'd love my own Hasselblad Flextight X1 / X5, but then again, for that kind of money I could almost buy a MF digi system, simplify my workflow AND save on film processing costs in the long run!

Tim

Film gives you different quality than digital, so no reason to make the comparison... for someone who wants and likes film the phrase would read: "for that kind of money I could buy a Hasselblad Flextight X1 / X5!"
 
Film gives you different quality than digital, so no reason to make the comparison... for someone who wants and likes film the phrase would read: "for that kind of money I could buy a Hasselblad Flextight X1 / X5!"

Yeah, I know, but man I'm sick of stressing out about outsourcing processing, scanning and printing. I would absolutely LOVE a Flextight but then I remind myself that a Hassy H3DII-31 isn't too far off in money. It's a different look, sure, and I wouldn't want to convert half way through an important project, but I'm sure digital can sing just as well with good, consistent treatment.

It would take a heck of a lot of persuasion for me to give up my Mamiya 7ii kit having said all of that. And no way am I going back to 35mm film for personal work.

Decisions, decisions, decisions...
 
Back
Top