Are E6 Films actually sharper than c41?

[DREW WILEY]

Hmmm. I detect a little resentment to image management based upon defying the limited bounds of small film formats. But per Alan's question per se, except for inevitable differences between specific color films, unless the format itself is quite small undergoing significant enlargement, the odds of detecting a DETAIL difference between chrome and color neg originals is almost nil today. Really grainy chrome films, like lovely ole Agfachrome 1000, are largely a thing of the past. And edge effect RESOLUTION typically gets altered either through contrast enhancement itself, post-scan digitally, or via masking or choice of paper in the darkroom.

I've placed my own mid-sized darkroom prints from MF and 4x5 shots in front of very very experienced lab owners - Cibas from chromes, and Fuji Supergloss ones from color negs - and they couldn't tell which was which. But with even 35mm shots using a color neg film like Ektar, an experienced person might be able to detect a hue or color palette distinction from slide film, but not a detail or resolution difference, if properly printed. The old stereotypes just don't apply anymore.

 

[Steven Lee]

What can I do to not get the green?

I was hoping to see informed answers to this question too. I do not shoot slides much, and one of the reasons is that the two local labs I used both gave me my Provia rolls with a noticeable green tint. This is so clearly not what Fuji intended, and yet so similar. Must be a common development issue.

I just received the package with Bellini E6 kit, but unfortunately I don't have any Provia to develop, need to shoot some. Will see if I get the same result developing at home.

 

[Steven Lee]

@MingMingPhoto actually here's what a quick Google search returns:

https://125px.com/docs/techpubs/kodak/z119-12.pdf

The possible reasons for the green tint are:

• Reversal bath exhausted, diluted, or underreplenished
• Film fogged by green safelight
• Wash used between color developer and reversal bath
• Color developer dilute
• Color pH high
• Too much Part A in color developer
• Overreplenished color developer
• A dilute color developer
• Color developer mixed using first developer starter

And comparing this list to other lists for other color casts, looks like the probability of one of these happening is higher vs others. Basically if the color developer bath is not perfect, you get this shift on green/magenta axis.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Green tint? I've never had an issue like that from any lab in my life. And if it ever did happen, I'd wouldn't use that lab ever again.

 

[MingMingPhoto]

Hey everyone thanks for responding. I was asking in terms of scanning and I guess printing (from negative - if Cibachrome ever came back).

When I take a photo on any negative film and everything is ideal I get SHARP scans. When I do the same with slide it always seems muggy.

I scan on an HS1800 noritsu and an imacon 848

The attached black and white photo was taken with a sumicron lens 40mm for the Leica CL and the other was some Velvia 100 taken on a minolta x700. So I know it's not the perfect comparison but even when I shoot slide on the summicaron it still looks pretty much as soft as shown in that slide film

keep in mind the black an white is zoomed in and it's tx400 in rodinal 1+50

 

[MingMingPhoto]

@MingMingPhoto actually here's what a quick Google search returns:

https://125px.com/docs/techpubs/kodak/z119-12.pdf

The possible reasons for the green tint are:

• Reversal bath exhausted, diluted, or underreplenished
• Film fogged by green safelight
• Wash used between color developer and reversal bath
• Color developer dilute
• Color pH high
• Too much Part A in color developer
• Overreplenished color developer
• A dilute color developer
• Color developer mixed using first developer starter

And comparing this list to other lists for other color casts, looks like the probability of one of these happening is higher vs others. Basically if the color developer bath is not perfect, you get this shift on green/magenta axis.

Thank you for sharing this!
I still hcan't conducted any experiments yet but I think ti's also my lens. since I've devloped other peoples film with mind and only mine will ahve the hue shift. but I'll donwlaod this becasue it will also be very usufull in the future

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Hey everyone thanks for responding. I was asking in terms of scanning and I guess printing (from negative - if Cibachrome ever came back).

When I take a photo on any negative film and everything is ideal I get SHARP scans. When I do the same with slide it always seems muggy.

I scan on an HS1800 noritsu and an imacon 848

The attached black and white photo was taken with a sumicron lens 40mm for the Leica CL and the other was some Velvia 100 taken on a minolta x700. So I know it's not the perfect comparison but even when I shoot slide on the summicaron it still looks pretty much as soft as shown in that slide film

keep in mind the black an white is zoomed in and it's tx400 in rodinal 1+50

The given example shows that misfocusing has occurred: sharpness is fine, just missed the eyes, focused too deep and landed on the hat - fabric is sharp. Are all slides misfocused this way?
+ You have motion blur due to slower shutter speed.

 

[MingMingPhoto]

The given example shows that misfocusing has occurred: sharpness is fine, just missed the eyes, focused too deep and landed on the hat - fabric is sharp. Are all slides misfocused this way?
+ You have motion blur due to slower shutter speed.

ok how about this photo. same lens and everything
shot at like f8 or something with flash

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Looks evenly blurry to me on my phone, therefore I'd go for motion blur. Especially knowing that you used slow film speed indoors. Try fastest flash sync speed available and wider aperture next time?

Then try to isolate the problem by trying different apertures and/or lenses on easy to focus objects in good light, report the results...

 

[MingMingPhoto]

from experince can you say that you've had e6 film come out jsut as sharp or sharper than your ngative film? the point im getting at is ive been shootign for years and never had a single e6 photo come out as sharp as any of my negative films

 

[koraks]

from experince can you say that you've had e6 film come out jsut as sharp or sharper than your ngative film?

Simple answer: yes. No doubt. There's nothing in E6 film that makes it inherently "blurry".
The examples you posted both suffer from focus problems among others.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

from experince can you say that you've had e6 film come out jsut as sharp or sharper than your ngative film?

I have worked with negatives very little, but it's a world that requires a translation - mostly on paper. And people stop pushing 35mm frame enlargement quite quickly to have acceptable print.

But what I can tell from my experience: I have no problems projecting 60x magnified slides, sharp and great. But your examples cannot fill phone screen, without looking blurry - you've got yourself some focusing problems, mate.

 

[BMbikerider]

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

It is a long time since I processed a E6 film, the film and chemical manufacturers priced me out of the market! But the last Tetenal kit came with the usual instructions - time, temp and dilution but also a warning that some plastics used in the manufacture of photographic beakers could absorb some of the chemicals and contaminate the next mix UNLESS the same beaker was used for the developer concentrates. i.e Concentrate 'a' always went into a beaker only used for concentrate 'a' and Concentrate 'b' always went into a beaker for concentrate 'b', so on and so forth. Never ever mix the developer concentrates with beakers that previously held bleach and fix.

The same seems to apply with C41 developer. After mixing the developer, I always rinse out the measures but one would always have a pink tinge even though it has already been rinsed out. I got around this by replacing all my mixing beakers with certified accurate Pyrex glass ones which do not absorb anything. The only plastic ones I use are the ones that fit in my JOBO processor and are clearly marked and are never used for anything else.

 

[Richard Man]

I used to shoot a lot of E-6. 35mm, XPan, 4x5, I even has a few sheet of 8x10 E-6.

First: there's no indication whatsoever that slides are less sharp than B&W or color negs. I have scanned 4x5 E-6 images that printed to 6 feet wide and it looks fine, as sharp as scanning similar C41 images

Second, Provia has a blue tint. It's just a characteristics of Fuji slide films. If you get green, something is very wrong

 

[DREW WILEY]

Just a pile of hearsay any direction you go. Serious film testing is not based on anecdotal alleged evidence; nor does it involve intermediary variables with their own issues, like scanning and commercial printing interjects. Make little difference anyway. You can get high resolution varieties of either chrome or color neg film, although the selection of chrome films has thinned out quite a bit. And once you move up in format size, especially into sheet film, minor differences in this respect pretty much disappear due to the smaller amount of enlargement.

But let's not get nutty about this. Claims of printing 4x5 six feet across, or chromes up to 60X, and still looking sharp ... who are you kidding? Get close, and it's mush. Yeah ... there is that "normal viewing distance" nonsense, like viewing a Marlboro Man billboard from a quarter mile away on the highway going 70mph.

And how did Provia ever come out with a blue tint? Maybe you didn't filter for blue shade conditions? Dunno. I've shot every generation of Provia ever made in large format, including a lot of 8x10's, and never experienced an inherently blue bias. Sounds like another scanning or perhaps development issue. Don't blame the film itself. A chrome film which did trend blue was classic old Ektachrome 64, and everyone remarked just how different and warm Fuji chromes were by comparison, when they came out.

 

[BMbikerider]

The degree of sharpness over B&W or C41 may be in the eye of the beholder. E6 is inherently higher contrast so giving an impression of sharpness.

I have some E6 slides that are admittedly quite old but they are definitely not as sharp as B&W and they were taken on a tripod with a good lens up front.

 

[DREW WILEY]

What do you mean that E6 slides are not as sharp as black and white film? Which specifically are you comparing, and relative to what developers and lenses etc etc etc - as if all black and white films were the same, or all chrome films were the same.

Color neg film is hard to compare unless you actually print it, due to the intervening orange mask. But under a magnifier it will never look as sharp. Try adding a blue filter to the viewer, and textural details and dye cloud edges get more distinct. Yet here again you have to be narrow it down to the specific type. The selection and characteristics of these films have changed a lot too.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

But let's not get nutty about this. Claims of printing 4x5 six feet across, or chromes up to 60X, and still looking sharp ... who are you kidding?

Agrreed, let's not! So, I'm fooling nobody. Let me guess - your nose isn't touching the screen you're reading this on, that'd be impractical and a pixellated mush to see. If your PC monitor is 1080p, it too WILL be a mush at impractical viewing distance - just as you say. Viewing distance is an obvious variable in this equation - take the normal slide viewing distance into consideration and I'll call my HR-50 enlarged to 60x sharp any day.

EDITTY:
But I wont call my Sensia 100 developed in Cinestill D9 Dynamic Chrome sharp at the same projection parameters. Having said this, I will call my Sensia 100 developed in standard E6 sharp enough for the party.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Sounds like a pretty mushy party. Fondue? Half-melted Frosties? That's what we'll get here today in the hills behind me, near the coastline, some slushy snow that will melt away in a couple of hours once the sun comes out. Up in the high mountains, it's a different story, and will takes months to even partially melt. Yeah, it's all snow, but not everyone's definition of snowfall is exactly the same. Likewise, there is more than one definition or "normal viewing distance". If sufficient real detail is present, people will indeed walk right up to even large prints to examine and enjoy that.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

walk right up to even large prints to examine and enjoy that

Exactly, you can walk closer/further to your liking if you're grain fetishist, but at one point you won't even recognize that's snow you're talking about - all will be a mush up that close.

When's the last time you complained about visual fidelity of projected 35mm movie in a cinema? When's the last time you experienced it?
Do you find the visual fidelity of live 35mm film projection good, accepteble or lacking? And did you know that cine frame is smaller than 35mm, as it gets recorded vertically on the medium and you have to have a room for audio data in multiple formats as well, including digital? Yet the smaller frame yields sufficient quality to fill a CINEMA SCREEN, no? My eyes work great without any aid, and enough said.


EDIT:
Oh, and what was the reason for National Geographic and the likes to request work being shot on slides back in the day?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Exactly, you can walk closer/further to your liking if you're grain fetishist, but at one point you won't even recognize that's snow you're talking about - all will be a mush up that close.

When's the last time you complained about visual fidelity of projected 35mm movie in a cinema? When's the last time you experienced it?
Do you find the visual fidelity of live 35mm film projection good, accepteble or lacking? And did you know that cine frame is smaller than 35mm, as it gets recorded vertically on the medium and you have to have a room for audio data in multiple formats as well, including digital? Yet the smaller frame yields sufficient quality to fill a CINEMA SCREEN, no? My eyes work great without any aid, and enough said.


EDIT:
Oh, and what was the reason for National Geographic and the likes to request work being shot on slides back in the day?

Movies don't work the same way as stills because you're viewing 24 frames per second with movies. Each frame blurs into the next in your brain.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Movies don't work the same way as stills because you're viewing 24 frames per second with movies. Each frame blurs into the next in your brain.

I'm aware of this, but some of the same principles apply: they still need to be in focus and sharp to deliver. It seems to me that you've long since experienced projection. Or I'm crazy or something

Either way - to each his own and that's great!

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I'm aware of this, but some of the same principles apply: they still need to be in focus and sharp to deliver. It seems to me that you've long since experienced projection. Or I'm crazy or something

Either way - to each his own and that's great!

My biggest problem with theater presentation is they're usually too dark because they don't replace the lamps often enough because they're trying to save money. Sometimes they leave the 3D filter on when they're switch to a 2D movie which also darkens the projection. There's no projectionist around to handle this. In any case, these things cause the daytime scenes to all look like nighttime.

Regarding resolution, different theaters and different presentations of the same movie in the same multiplex theaters provide different resolutions: 2K 4K IMAX etc. Before you go, try to find out what the theater uses. Do they have multiplex theaters in Latvia? IMAX? Etc.?

 

[MattKing]

My biggest problem with theater presentation is they're usually too dark because they don't replace the lamps often enough because they're trying to save money. Sometimes they leave the 3D filter on when they're switch to a 2D movie which also darkens the projection. There's no projectionist around to handle this. In any case, these things cause the daytime scenes to all look like nighttime.

Regarding resolution, different theaters and different presentations of the same movie in the same multiplex theaters provide different resolutions: 2K 4K IMAX etc. Before you go, try to find out what the theater uses. Do they have multiplex theaters in Latvia? IMAX? Etc.?

More importantly, do they have film projectors.
Most digital projectors are still 2K and the result looks yech!

 

[brbo]

Oh, and what was the reason for National Geographic and the likes to request work being shot on slides back in the day?

So that they could print it without photographer's input on actual colour balance?