Are E6 Films actually sharper than c41?

[MingMingPhoto]

I read this a few places and have shot e6 over the years and tbh it always looks muggy when I zoom in compared to c41 or bw negative films. I have a pretty good lens, but that seems irrelevant since I'm shooting both films on the same setup.

Also, I've noticed that my slide film comes out with a green hue. I'm using a summicron 40mm for the lecia CL - is it possibly the coating?

I'm using an HS1800 to scan, and when the film comes up on the preview the colors and contrast are not great. But the other day I developed some customers film and he uses an SLR (don't know the model but looks like an ae1). His photos came out perfect in preview and after being scanned. He had the exact same film as me Velvia 50.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

green hue is most likely because 1) your film processor is an idiot or 2) you are using outdated slide film or 3) your film processor is not an idiot but your scanner is.

 

[MingMingPhoto]

green hue is most likely because 1) your film processor is an idiot or 2) you are using outdated slide film

I am said idiot - I'm using a filmomat with Tetenal E6 press kits. I've processed some customers films and they come out find sometimes but most times it's a little green.

What can I do to not get the green?

 

[SchwinnParamount]

Your chemicals are the problem... or your process.

 

[MingMingPhoto]

Your chemicals are the problem... or your process.

Where can I learn the process better

 

[SchwinnParamount]

I know. Not helpful. But seriously, if your chems are old/used up, you could have problems. Also, time and temperature are super critical with color, especially slide film

 

[SchwinnParamount]

There are many lab manuals available from film manufacturers or you can use the internet to search for documentation on standard e6 film processing. It's been around for about 40 years or so. Lots of knowledge published out there

 

[MingMingPhoto]

I know. Not helpful. But seriously, if your chems are old/used up, you could have problems. Also, time and temperature are super critical with color, especially slide film

I've been doing this for 3 years now (slide specifically) and have seen consistency in this result. And I've gone through a lot of kits so I'm sure the chemcaisl were fine at least once.

also I processed a customers film with my film the other day. We both had the same exact film and his came out better. So I think it's my lens. the codings on my lens or something. But ok, thank you

 

[koraks]

We both had the same exact film and his came out better.

That's when the slides are viewed directly; not scanned? The first thing I'd do is take the scanner out of the equation, since all kinds of color 'correction' can happen on the digital part of the process. In this case that's going to throw you off.

If you want to verify it's the lens/coating, just take two rolls and shoot them in different cameras - same scenes, same shots, same exposure. That way you can really compare. Comparing your client's photos to your own probably introduces a host of other variables since they're unlikely to shoot the same picture at the same place & time as you do. Btw, lenses do indeed render color subtly different. Compared side by side on slide film, the difference is definitely noticeable.

 

[MingMingPhoto]

That's when the slides are viewed directly; not scanned? The first thing I'd do is take the scanner out of the equation, since all kinds of color 'correction' can happen on the digital part of the process. In this case that's going to throw you off.

If you want to verify it's the lens/coating, just take two rolls and shoot them in different cameras - same scenes, same shots, same exposure. That way you can really compare. Comparing your client's photos to your own probably introduces a host of other variables since they're unlikely to shoot the same picture at the same place & time as you do. Btw, lenses do indeed render color subtly different. Compared side by side on slide film, the difference is definitely noticeable.

I'll run this experiment - thank you. But yes the negatives themselves look different when held to the light.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

In my experience ISO 50 and 100 135 slides handle 60x magnification with respectable ease if the projection lens is up to the task. Meanwhile print folks swear that 135 runs out of resolution way, way before... So in my uneducated observations yes - slides are sharper, but scans won't give you that definite answer. Live projection will.

One of the reasons quoted more often: with projected slides there's little intermediate steps that take the quality away - no 1) scanner, no 2) printer, no 3) paper: each conversion takes/interprets something away, that's given.

 

[grain elevator]

In my experience ISO 50 and 100 135 slides handle 60x magnification with respectable ease if the projection lens is up to the task. Meanwhile print folks swear that 135 runs out of resolution way, way before... So in my uneducated observations yes - slides are sharper, but scans won't give you that definite answer. Live projection will.

One of the reasons quoted more often: with projected slides there's little intermediate steps that take the quality away - no 1) scanner, no 2) printer, no 3) paper: each conversion takes/interprets something away, that's given.

Do you really view projected slides as critically as a print though? I would think most people view from further away, you'd cast a shadow on the screen otherwise. So I have my doubts about the comparison.

 

[brbo]

Apart from that, I really doubt projection is the answer to the OP question.

From the data out there, I'd say (generally) C-41 film does not have higher resolution than E-6. But it is not uncommon that E-6 scans from some (most) scanners might look less sharp than C-41 because of the (generally) finer grain of E-6 film and the way the scanners work.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Do you really view projected slides as critically as a print though? I would think most people view from further away, you'd cast a shadow on the screen otherwise. So I have my doubts about the comparison.

Well, this invokes viewing distance - that makes all. You don't normally view prints under a loupe, right? So nobody walks up to the screen by default in a regular projection event.
Everyone sits at a distance, everyone views prints at some distance - usually such as to make the print or screen in question to fit comfortably in the field of view or at a distance most comfortable for the viewer due to eyesight deviations.

And yes, I view them quite critically: the magnification is quite extreme, giving you a chance to really delve into those tasty details. And you want to spend some time studying these details, as this tells you all the story about the film in question - less intermediate steps to alter the result, so you can really evaluate your film and development.

 

[brbo]

less intermediate steps to alter the result, so you can really evaluate your film and development.

Are projection lenses that much better than enlarger lenses?

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Are projection lenses that much better than enlarger lenses?

Don't know, but aren't there people swapping them for camera lenses? Don't know how the focusing distances are compatible, but I digress - haven't touched a quality enlarger. Ever.

But don't forget that paper is another conversion - from one medium (film) to another (paper with its limitations and characteristics). Conversion from one physical medium to another physical medium = inevitable loss of data/fidelity.

Or how would you explain this?


EDIT: link

 

[brbo]

But don't forget that paper is another conversion - from one medium (film) to another (paper with its limitations and characteristics). Conversion from one physical medium to another physical medium = inevitable loss of data/fidelity.

You don't consider projection screen as a physical medium?

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Hmmm, it sure is a variable. However I feel it should take far less away being a smooth, thin vinyl surface with black backing, reflecting quite inflated details back to the viewer at a surface-level. But point taken - it's something worth studying. But I feel my argument still holds: paper is not a surface mirror, it takes fidelity away, alters image - that's why we have paper choices for different results. Fibers and coatings absorb and scatter things, screen just reflects and probably blooms a little.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Back to the original hypothetical question about compared film "sharpness". It is impossible to give a generic answer because not all chrome slides films are the same, just as color neg films are not the same. Second, the dye and emulsion structure is different between the two systems, so comparing them under a magnifier on a light box won't give you an objective comparison. Slides often look sharper simply because the edge contrasts are higher. And it's best to ignore moth-eaten old hearsay on THIS topic, since so many things have changed.

Then introduce the added variables of scanning or printing, and the whole subject gets way more complicated, because one ends up blaming the film for something due to a different source.

SO IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE SPECIFICS.

Brbo - typical projection lenses are very poor compared to typical enlarging and camera lenses (there are exceptions); and unless slides are glass mounted, they are bowed and uneven, and a typical projection screen isn't ideal either. Old time slide shows can be stunning compared to today's anemic standard of web presentation of images. I've kept my old projector, but am really a darkroom printmaker, so never use it.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

they are bowed and uneven

What I've found with modern BW stock on transparent PET - it doesn't bulge under the heat of projection lamp, so the silly-flat base stays flat in my GEPE 7013 during and after projection - no bulging, no focus hunting, but gosh - last time I touched E-6 film was 2021 - too rich for my blood now: the cost of 3 quality BW films is just prohibitive.

E-6 can benefit from AN Glass frames. But the problem is - Glass/Film sandwich loves to condense - project enough times and mold develops - at least at the climate over here. And that AN pattern is visible during projection - especially in flat areas like skies. I find that unacceptable and I'd trade that for a little focus play any day.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Hmmm, it sure is a variable. However I feel it should take far less away being a smooth, thin vinyl surface with black backing, reflecting quite inflated details back to the viewer at a surface-level. But point taken - it's something worth studying. But I feel my argument still holds: paper is not a surface mirror, it takes fidelity away, alters image - that's why we have paper choices for different results. Fibers and coatings absorb and scatter things, screen just reflects and probably blooms a little.

But a projection screen is not a smooth surface. There are those little sand-like elements stuck on the surface to help reflect light back brighter and to help people watching from the side see the picture better. How do those sand elements affect resolution?

 

[Ivo Stunga]

They're rather fabric-like relief pattern/impressions against glare, to help with even reflection (scattering?) - someone way smarter than me could answer this. You don't want smooth plastic as a projection surface - glaring horror. But again - use case is a tad different: details are inflated, visible and larger than the said fabric-like pattern.
Grain of HR-50 is visible no problems, AN pattern too if AN glass frames are used: "Resolution" is good enough for me to perceive these from 2.5m viewing distance. But to compare apples to apples - we should evaluate the same stock projected and on the same size paper - as impractical as it sounds. Or do a detail shot/enlargement on smaller paper to compare.

And then there's screens with enhanced reflective capabilities that suffer from narrower viewing angles, how do those affect characteristics of the projected image?


EDIT:
"Resolution" because screen is not a paper, containing a finite, measurable amount of known size light recording particles, but is a reflective surface, no number predefined.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

They're rather fabric-like relief pattern/impressions against glare, to help with even reflection (scattering?) - someone way smarter than me could answer this. You don't want smooth plastic as a projection surface - glaring horror. But again - use case is a tad different: details are inflated, visible and larger than the said fabric-like pattern.
Grain of HR-50 is visible no problems, AN pattern too if AN glass frames are used: "Resolution" is good enough for me to perceive these from 2.5m viewing distance. But to compare apples to apples - we should evaluate the same stock projected and on the same size paper - as impractical as it sounds. Or do a detail shot/enlargement on smaller paper to compare.

And then there's screens with enhanced reflective capabilities that suffer from narrower viewing angles, how do those affect characteristics of the projected image?


EDIT:
"Resolution" because screen is not a paper, containing a finite, measurable amount of known size light recording particles, but is a reflective surface, no number predefined.

I don't know how this equates to film slide projection. But, with displaying digital still pictures using a 4K TV, I can't see the difference in resolution between 2K up-rezed to 4K and 4K native on my 4K 75" HDTV from 14 feet away. I have to move up to only a few feet from the TV to start seeing artifacts with 2K up-rezed to 4K.

How that compares with film projection, I don't know. But I have a feeling that the resolution from that far away isn't going to be that resolved with a film slide projector either regardless of the type of projection screen. Our eyes just can't differentiate resolution that finitely. Does anyone have research on this?

 

[Ivo Stunga]

That's why I stated - it invokes optimal viewing distance. How that old billboard analogy goes: up close it's a muddy, pixelated mess. Now step back to the intended viewing distance and everything changes. Higher resolution just allows you to have that distance closer - to an impractical degree when talking 4k+ monitors, TV's and phones with ridiculously specced screens.

So the relationship is similarly direct - nobody views prints normally with loupe. Nobody smudges the screen with their noses, nobody drives into the billboard to see it.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

That's why I stated - it invokes optimal viewing distance. How that old billboard analogy goes: up close it's a muddy, pixelated mess. Now step back to the intended viewing distance and everything changes. Higher resolution just allows you to have that distance closer - to an impractical degree when talking 4k+ monitors, TV's and phones with ridiculously specced screens.

So the relationship is similarly direct - nobody views prints normally with loupe. Nobody smudges the screen with their noses, nobody drives into the billboard to see it.

You just reminded me. I lowered the resolution on my phone from max possible after I bought it five years ago to save battery power. Haven't noticed any viewing difference. On the other hand, 4K of those animal shows seem sharper than other shows. I have a feeling they've added contrast and edge contrast to bring it out.

So at the end of the day, do people really see the difference in resolution between chromes and negative color film? Or are other differences more important like color palette, saturation, contrast, format size, quality of lenses, the flatness of film on film plate, tripod or handheld, etc?