johnw@astroatc.UUCP (10/30/85)
In article <1750@peora.UUCP> jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) writes: >> Reversal color print processes are not as good as negative print >> processes. MY OPINION: Don't bother to flame if you disagree! > >Why would anybody flame you! :-) After all, it's true... > >... Contrary to popular opinion fostered by the >fact that photojournalists and others who intend their photographs to be >reproduced by ink printing use slides (and the biased editorial position >of some popular photography magazines), the color rendition of color negative >films is "truer" than for slide films. It should seem intuitively probable >that a film that is *designed* for making prints would be better-optimized >for making good prints than a film that was designed for making slides >which are occasionally printed. ----WARNING: This was about prints from slides, you statments meet that, but I'd like to generalize....easy on the flames, one of my 2 aspestous suits is at the cleaners... 1: Why is "truer" better???? As a photographer, I try to create the most asthetily pleasing result!!! This is frequently far from the "truest." (I am not an "ARTsie type" that does wierd pics.) Since a picture is normally removed from its setting, it frequently needs some "boost" to make it grab you, or stand out. Photography (to me) is not for "historic records of the subjects" but rather an attempt to use the photographic media to achieve a result. (An artsie freind of mine has big words for this, but I forgot them.) To put this differently: sometimes I want it to look like a post-card, cuz reality, is just plain BORRING 2: The slide film has better latitude and contrast range. 3: In volume slides are cheaper than prints. 4: When projected on a screen, I find the increased contrast, and bigger-than-life colors (I use Kodacrome) to be *MORE* pleasing, memerable, and possible more realistic than small, flat prints. As for prints from slides that where taken to be slides, I have only poor opinions of ALL the prints from the 4-6 groups I've tryed. Thanks to all those on the net who supplied info on this topic, I've learned alot. (And I'll stick to Kodacrome when I do color, and not make prints, very often.) Also, I've never had inter-neg slide prints....all were 3x5 size junk for friends. > >On the other hand, grain is marginally better in Kodachrome. It's my >personal feeling that image sharpness is not sufficiently good with 35mm >cameras to make that much of a fuss over grain (eventhough I do use >a very fine-grain B&W film myself!) when comparing an ASA 100 film with >Kodachrome, and they don't make Kodachrome for larger-format cameras. >-- >Shyy-Anzr: J. Eric Roskos >UUCP: Ofc: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer > Home: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jerpc!jer > US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; > 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642 -- John W - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Name: John F. Wardale UUCP: ... {seismo | harvard | ihnp4} !uwvax!astroatc!johnw arpa: astroatc!johnw@rsch.wisc.edu snail: 5800 Cottage Gr. Rd. ;;; Madison WI 53716 audio: 608-221-9001 eXt 110 To err is human, to really foul up world news requires the net!
wjh@bonnie.UUCP (Bill Hery) (11/02/85)
> >> Reversal color print processes are not as good as negative print > >> processes. MY OPINION: Don't bother to flame if you disagree! > > > >Why would anybody flame you! :-) After all, it's true... > > > > 2: The slide film has better latitude and contrast range. > > 3: In volume slides are cheaper than prints. > > 4: When projected on a screen..... > The original posting only referred to PRINTS from slides, not the slides themselves. The point is if your expected final product is to be a print, use print film.
smh@mhuxl.UUCP (henning) (11/04/85)
**** **** From the keys of Steve Henning, AT&T Bell Labs, Reading, PA mhuxl!smh > the color rendition of color negative films is "truer" than for slide films. The color rendition of color negative films can only be true if you shoot a grey scale on one of the frames on each roll so the lab knows what filter pack to use when printing. All color negatives I have seen have an orange mask and need a strong compensating mask when printing, but in addition need tweeking to make white truly white. As you know, slides come out with as true a color as you are ever going to get. In fact you can compare the print with the slide and see if the print is right. You can never do that with a negative. > 2: The slide film has better latitude and contrast range. Kodachrome, Ektachrome and every other slide film I have ever used always built up contrast. That means you lose detail in the shadows. With negative films you can preserve the right contrast or use contrasty papers to change the contrast. One fine example of contrast build up is slide duplicates. Even special copy film still gives much contrast buildup unless you flash the film before copying.
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (11/05/85)
> The color rendition of color negative films can only be true if you shoot > a grey scale on one of the frames on each roll so the lab knows what filter > pack to use when printing. All color negatives I have seen have an > orange mask and need a strong compensating mask when printing, but in > addition need tweeking to make white truly white. I must admit that I have come to have doubts even about the need for distinct color compensations among prints made from the same batch of film on the same paper. For a long time I used a color analyzer, with a photograph of a Unicolor grey card on each roll, to get the color just right. This worked fine, but soon I found that all the photographs made in the daylight on Vericolor III film printed on paper from the same box had the same color correction. Variations occurred for photographs made in the early dawn or late evening, but it is debatable whether these should be corrected. I had a photograph of a sunrise over the Atlantic Ocean which bothered me for awhile, because the sky was green; so I went to some trouble to color correct it to have a normal "blue" sky. However, later I saw another sunrise, and realized the sky was green at that time of morning over the ocean! On the other hand, you can make photographs made in awful yellow light come out fairly well (all things considered) with proper color correction. > As you know, slides come out with as true a color as you are ever > going to get. In fact you can compare the print with the slide and > see if the print is right. You can never do that with a negative. The "you can compare your prints to the slides" seems to be the current justification Herb Keppler gives for his anti-print editorial position in Popular or Modern Photography magazine (I have some trouble telling those two apart, except that Modern has more trustworthy ads). However, this assumes the colors were right on the slide in the first place... and how do you compare a slide with a print, anyway? > 2: The slide film has better latitude and contrast range. Neither of these is correct. Print film has a lower contrast than slide film, allowing it to capture a wider range of luminances in the original subject (this also gives "wide exposure latitude"). -- Shyy-Anzr: J. Eric Roskos UUCP: Ofc: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer Home: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jerpc!jer US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642
dsg@hlwpb.UUCP (DS Green) (11/05/85)
> > >> Reversal color print processes are not as good as negative print > > >> processes. From *my* experience, more care is taken with slide film processing ( by photo labs, custom and commercial ) than with negative film. Note that I am talking about the photofinishing, not the chemical process. Because most photofinishers send their reversal business to companies that specialize in wholesale slide film processing, the quality is better. It is harder to scratch the stock by just mounting slides than passing the film through a printing machine's negative carrier! > > 3: In volume slides are cheaper than prints. In any quantity, good photofinishing is cheaper for slides than prints. > The original posting only referred to PRINTS from slides, not the slides themselves. > The point is if your expected final product is to be a print, use print film. [Bill Hery] All things considered, it would be hard to tell if a dye-transfer print was originally from a slide or a negative ( yes, I know internegs are used). Just about all the "professionals" ( excluding wedding photographers ) I've met use slide film in large quantities and selectively print ( using internegs ) the best pictures. I would say: 1. If you expect to shoot dozens of pictures to get one or two good ones (for publication or contests or whatever ) use slide film. It will save you money. 2. If you are a casual snapshooter and you know in advance that you want lots of prints to hand out to friends and relatives, use print film. 3. If you are *that* good and need only one or two shots to get that perfect photo, use print film! David "Kodachrome" Green
sasaki@harvard.ARPA (Marty Sasaki) (11/08/85)
Which is cheaper, slide film or negative film? Why negative film, of
course. For which type of film is processing cheaper? Again, negative
film.
I always send my color film to Kodak for processing. When I send
negative film, I almost never have prints made. Making a color contact
sheet is very easy to do. Not counting my time to make the contact
sheet, I save about 50 cents processing negative film.
I want to emphasize that this debate is silly. As other posters have
mentioned, all that matters is how you use the film. One type isn't
better than another. One type may be better than another for certain
things, but isn't universally better for everything.
By the way, dye transfers are usually made from slide film. From the
positive image, a set of separation negatives are made. These
negatives are used to produce the positives that are used to actually
make the prints. It is too bad that this process is so difficult and
expensive, imagine the possibilities for controlling things when you
can separately control the contrast of each of the colors.
--
----------------
Marty Sasaki net: sasaki@harvard.{arpa,uucp}
Havard University Science Center phone: 617-495-1270
One Oxford Street
Cambridge, MA 02138kanner@tymix.UUCP (Herb Kanner) (11/10/85)
>By the way, dye transfers are usually made from slide film. From the >positive image, a set of separation negatives are made. These >negatives are used to produce the positives that are used to actually >make the prints. It is too bad that this process is so difficult and >expensive, imagine the possibilities for controlling things when you >can separately control the contrast of each of the colors. I hope that some time in my life I can work up the initiative to try dye transfer. About ten years ago I attended an exhibit of landscape photography in London. Most of the prints were blank and white, and as one would expect, Ansel Adams was well represented. There were perhaps a couple of dozen color prints, in some cases labelled with the process, e.g. "Cibachrome," and in others merely labelled "colour print"--I reproduce the British spelling of that fatuous label. While looking at some of them and saying to myself "not too bad," I glanced across the room and saw what I was certain must be a couple of large, rear illuminated transparencies. They were BRILLIANT. Walked over to them and discovered, to my surprise, that they were dye transfer prints. -- Herb Kanner Tymnet, Inc. ...!hplabs!oliveb!tymix!kanner