All Color and Black and White Film Stocks Compared from the slanted lens

[nbagno]

Not really a good place to post this but there was more B&W film in the comparison than color so...

Youtube link

 

[ic-racer]

What was the conclusion?

 

[Punker]

Thanks for the link. Very interesting. They didn't pick winners per se, they just compared the films and chose their own personal preferences.

 

[faberryman]

Thanks for the link. Very interesting. They didn't pick winners per se, they just compared the films and chose their own personal preferences.

Based on scans on a computer screen?

 

[Punker]

Based on scans on a computer screen?

Yeah why not?

 

[removed account4]

weird there was no velveeta

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Yeah why not?

Are you serious?

 

[E. von Hoegh]

weird there was no velveeta

Actually it was all "velveeta".

 

[removed account4]

Are you serious?

i can see why it was done the way it was, there is really no way to compare prints
unless they were all done optically &c. it would be hard to compare negatives on a light table
and scans on a computer is how most people look at film and share images.
i wonder though how the images were made, was it the same exact methodology at richard lab
where the film was processed ? was it an "auto correct" algorithm so it was the same click for every film ?
the hosts were making certain comments that i didn't see on my end, im guessing it was obvious on their end
and just didnt' translate with a video of a computer screen of a scan ..

 

[Sirius Glass]

+1

Spot on!

 

[keenmaster486]

What they were comparing was various digital files from a scanner, which probably had different settings for each film and thus it's likely the final products don't resemble what you'd get from an optical print.

 

[ruilourosa]

why???????

 

[removed account4]

why???????

i think the answer to why is ...
because it is film... ? and people want to see what different emulsions are like ?

 

[john_s]

Interesting, but optimizing EI and degree of contrast should be achieved first. In the words of Geoffrey Crawley writing in his review of 400 speed films in, I think, BJP,
"...So how does one go about comparing the properties of one film with another? Firstly it is essential that they are developed to the same contrast...."
Sending a single roll of each to a lab might be close, but it could be bettered.
Still, the youtube video is worth a look.

 

[Cholentpot]

Are you serious?

90% of film shooters are getting scans. I care more about how the film scans than how it prints as I'll print maybe one frame out of 10 rolls these days.

 

[Europan]

What was the conclusion?

Hot pants

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

There are more holes in their cherry-picked list — by no means comprehensive, than a slice of Swiss cheese could manage.

 

[FujiLove]

Those Fuji and Kodak colour films always seem to look like that when scanned by Richards Film Lab and a few other 'pro' labs such as Canadian Film Lab who use Frontier scanners. They look very different when other labs scan them, when I scan them, and absolutely nothing like it when I wet print those film stocks. As far as I can tell, that high-contrast, low-saturation 'look' is nothing but a current fashion that's been copied from some of the high-end wedding photographers who post a lot of stuff on Instagram.

This video should have been called, "Here's how this lab's scanner operator scanned these film stocks when we shot them at box speed."

It's still far from perfect, but Flavr is about as close as you're going to get to a sensible comparison of scanned film:http://www.oneplusonegroup.com/

 

[ruilourosa]

I can get 50 different results from the same film... maybe more... but at least 10 results that involve a clearly different visual sintax...

from different ISO to different developers to different dilutions and different agitations...

comparison... this is just some experiments with film and scanning...

test and compare in your own terms... thats the way

 

[FujiLove]

I can get 50 different results from the same film... maybe more... but at least 10 results that involve a clearly different visual sintax...

from different ISO to different developers to different dilutions and different agitations...

comparison... this is just some experiments with film and scanning...

test and compare in your own terms... thats the way

+1 Exactly.

 

[ic-racer]

What was the conclusion?

No one knows? Time for the "Ignore Thread" button...

 

[removed account4]

No one knows? Time for the "Ignore Thread" button...

the conclusion was the look the guy from slandted lens liked
kodak bw. and portra and europan's conclusion

 

[Tor-Einar Jarnbjo]

Yeah why not?

Because the main reason why there at least used to be a wide range of colour negative films with different contrast, saturation and colour rendition, is that you have very limited means in the RA-4 wet print process to change these attributes when printing. RA-4 allows you to modify brightness (exposure time) and white balance (using coloured filters), but you have no real possibilities to modify contrast, saturation or the emphasis of single colours. If you as a photographer wanted a landscape picture with strongly saturated colours or a portrait with soft skin tones, you had to choose the right film for the right job before exposing the film. It was simply not an option to shoot on arbitrary film and decide on these features later, when making the final print.

Nowadays, when colour film is scanned and post-processed digitally, and perhaps even for most purposes looked at digitally with just the one or another odd paper print ever made, the significance of the emulsion properties is almost lost, since you have a bucket full of much more powerful tools for brightness, contrast and colour control in your image processing software, than what used to be available in the 'old days'.

 

[ruilourosa]

so... the test is not only made in quicksand but it´s also the quicksand itself

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I appreciate the link but...

I agree with those suggesting the test is haphazard and of little value. There was absolutely zero control over exposure, development, and scanning. It's remarkable how little the authors understand about controlling either medium. Personally, I wonder why those folks are bothering with film at all. If they want zero control then they should switch to digital and not look back.