Making prints from slide film? Is the quality any different?

[lantau]

The dyes used in color photography have absorption irregularities that give less than perfect color. They are not really noticeable unless copied where the problem compounds and degradation is then noticeable. That is why color negatives, designed for printing, are masked because the mask effectively cancels the impurities so they are not transferred to a print.

That's a fair point then. It would be interesting if someone had some visual sample to see the magnitude of the error. Did the photo companies or researchers ever release images that would show the difference?

Is the masking only important for convenient printing in RA4 type rapid processes with minimal opportunity to adjust the printing? What I mean is that in the past they didn't have a problem in commercial magazine printing when the source was a slide. But that is a complex process with various adjustment stages.

 

[RPC]

That's a fair point then. It would be interesting if someone had some visual sample to see the magnitude of the error. Did the photo companies or researchers ever release images that would show the difference?

Is the masking only important for convenient printing in RA4 type rapid processes with minimal opportunity to adjust the printing? What I mean is that in the past they didn't have a problem in commercial magazine printing when the source was a slide. But that is a complex process with various adjustment stages.

Anyone can see the problem when you compare a print made from a negative with a print made from a slide of the same scene. The negative print will have more accurate colors. Some people look at prints from slides such as a Ciba/Ilfochrome print and see high saturation and mistake that for accuracy. I'm not saying that they won't or can't look pleasing to the viewer.

Masking is always beneficial in any type of printing or copying to prevent the dye impurities from being transferred to the next generation. There definitely is a problem in commercial printing when the source is a slide. To obtain the best quality the printers must create masks that do the same job as the mask found in a negative, since the slide is not masked.

 

[Ted Baker]

What "dye impurities", and where??

The dye impurities exist in most dyes as it is difficult to create a dye that does not effect some of the spectrum outside its target range.

For example the Cyan dye, which filters out the red light, also filters out some of the green light. The colour mask is an attempt to correct for some of that. Slide film needs to use other chemical methods instead.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Commercial magazine printing involves a lot of masking.

Masking corrects for unwanted absorption of the cyan and magenta dyes. The cyan has a lot of green and blue absorption and the magenta has a lot of blue. Thus, the cyan layer has what amounts to 2 masks. One is magenta and the other is yellow making the mask red in color. The magenta mask is yellow in color. These are effectively positive images of the negative dye that counters the image imperfections.

The work by Evans, Hanson and Brewer (Principles of Color Photography) has examples, but that is about the only one I can think of OTOMH. Mees may have some as well.

PE

 

[Ted Baker]

It also important to understand that no film, or at least film design for taking regular pictures and viewing on print or projected or viewed on a light box is designed to give perfect colometric colour. i.e. there are lots of clever chemical tricks used to adjust the colour such that it looks "correct" in its intended viewing environment.

i.e. they are designed to give a certain result on the intended medium.

 

[MattKing]

The mask built into C41 negative films is like the RIAA equalization used with vinyl records.
A built in distortion from a linear response, designed to compensate for the non-linear characteristics of the medium.
When you compensate for the applied distortion, you bring things back to linear.
This clearly is not a perfect analogy - not least because RIAA equalization is an industry wide standard whereas the C41 mask varies from film type to film type - but it may help some get a feel for what the mask actually does.

 

[DREW WILEY]

But color negs have their own foibles when it comes to repro applications. For me, the cat's meow is to first contrast and color-control unsharp-mask the original chrome using black and white film (or films, depending on how complicated and precise you wish to make it), then generate a Porta 160 sheet film interneg. Better than old school internegs, but takes quite a bit of experience and gear. So I limit this to select 8x10 chromes, or once in awhile enlarge a 4X5 original onto an 8x10 Portra interneg in analogous manner; but in principle it could be done with 35mm slides or any format. For very low contrast chrome originals, I've very successfully substituted Ektar 100 to as the interneg; but it's no good with typical higher contrast originals (crossover issues).

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Some people look at prints from slides such as a Ciba/Ilfochrome print and see high saturation and mistake that for accuracy. I'm not saying that they won't or can't look pleasing to the viewer.

It's important to make the distinction as to what the viewer wants to see: quality photographs. Never mind about thumping the Bible and shouting about trannies and negatives, inkjets and darkroom prints! Only a very small percentage of the viewing public have any degree of knowledge about print processes and methodologies, nor do they particularly care, and even fewer are clued up about Ilfochrome and its forerunners: that stuff is the business of photographers, not the viewing public, but we have willingly advanced and shared knowledge of the process for years to those who have asked. But are they complaining about what they are seeing: high intensity colours, a mirror-image to make 'em blush and a price label to make your eyes water? No, I have never seen this, either in my gallery or elsewhere. The real meat in the sandwich is the quality of the subject brought to the photograph. Without that, no amount of arguing and debating about how the photograph was recorded, nor made, is going to save it.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I don't care about the "viewing public". The public also happens to eat tons of gastronomic junk food. My worst critic is me - that's who I gotta please. Guess you've never seen really good Ciba prints. Too bad. It was incredible medium. But you either had to learn to dance with it or else beat it into submission. Like herding cats, it was an idiosyncratic medium with a mind of its own. But if you understood it, and were willing to take the extra steps - wow! "Subject" means nothing if the interpretation of that subject is half-baked. And what if the subject was itself nuanced and not just in someone's face as yet another corny instantly-accessible stereotype - something that made the viewer pause and think? So as far as I'm concerned, the print IS the subject. With a novelist, it's not just about having a good story. The skill involved in the specific vocabulary and phrasing
of the book can be even more important.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It's important to make the distinction as to what the viewer wants to see: quality photographs. Never mind about thumping the Bible and shouting about trannies and negatives, inkjets and darkroom prints! Only a very small percentage of the viewing public have any degree of knowledge about print processes and methodologies, nor do they particularly care, and even fewer are clued up about Ilfochrome and its forerunners: that stuff is the business of photographers, not the viewing public, but we have willingly advanced and shared knowledge of the process for years to those who have asked. But are they complaining about what they are seeing: high intensity colours, a mirror-image to make 'em blush and a price label to make your eyes water? No, I have never seen this, either in my gallery or elsewhere. The real meat in the sandwich is the quality of the subject brought to the photograph. Without that, no amount of arguing and debating about how the photograph was recorded, nor made, is going to save it.

Nicely said. When I used to have slides made into prints, if necessary I left any instructions and my phone number with the order. On very, very rare occasion a print had to be remade and even then every time the photo finisher agreed with me.

 

[wiltw]

2-3 decades ago, the wisdom on the subject said...

1. If your primary goal is a print, shoot color neg.
2. If your primary goal is a transparency, shoot color tranparency.
3. Yes, you can get a print from a transparency, and if you don't need to control contrast build-up, you can print an R-print; but if you need to control contrast build up, make and interneg and print from that.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Stale wisdom back then, petrified wisdom now. "R" prints were always the ugly stepchild unwelcome in the same room as
dye transfer and then Ciba.

 

[RPC]

It's important to make the distinction as to what the viewer wants to see: quality photographs. Never mind about thumping the Bible and shouting about trannies and negatives, inkjets and darkroom prints! Only a very small percentage of the viewing public have any degree of knowledge about print processes and methodologies, nor do they particularly care, and even fewer are clued up about Ilfochrome and its forerunners: that stuff is the business of photographers, not the viewing public, but we have willingly advanced and shared knowledge of the process for years to those who have asked. But are they complaining about what they are seeing: high intensity colours, a mirror-image to make 'em blush and a price label to make your eyes water? No, I have never seen this, either in my gallery or elsewhere. The real meat in the sandwich is the quality of the subject brought to the photograph. Without that, no amount of arguing and debating about how the photograph was recorded, nor made, is going to save it.

Not exactly sure what your rant is about but my quote was in reference to those who have claimed, including many on this site in the past, that prints on Ciba/Ilfo from slides are superior to prints from negatives.

Ciba prints have been known for their high contrast and saturation and many have stated that is why they prefer them over prints from negatives and many believe that is what good color is all about. If that is what they prefer, fine. But it may matter to some to know that technically, prints from negatives are superior and the pop seen in Ciba prints does not necessarily mean accurate colors.

In a nutshell, those that see what they may perceive as "better" color in Ciba prints, even if not due to high saturation, well that's what they see and prefer. But technically it can be shown that prints from negatives are more accurate.

 

[Minoltafan2904]

Why has this thread come up again over a year later??
I have now found a different much better lab that will actually make prints from slides, they have bought a Hasselblad Flextight X1 and i've seen a huge print they made from a scanned 120, 6 x 4.5 1982 expired Ektachrome 64 transparency shot with a Mamiya 645 and it looked very good, absolutely stunning detail,it was a portrait of one of the guys who works at the lab, i mean absolutely crystal clear defined single hairs when you zoom in on the scan,

 

[DREW WILEY]

Poisson - I have no reason to doubt that you're highly proficient at what you do, which seems to mainly be taking other people's images, garnering their intent, and then commercially translating that as efficiently as possible into a color print. My ballgame is completely different. I shoot with the intended output in mind and have personal control over the entire process. The pretty much nullifies your stereotypes about Ciba. I printed a lot of subtle sophisticated images that way. Effective color is more about hue relationships than brute saturation. Like I already stated, I prefer to dance with a chosen medium, employ its native personality rather than fight it.

 

[wiltw]

Stale wisdom back then, petrified wisdom now. "R" prints were always the ugly stepchild unwelcome in the same room as
dye transfer and then Ciba.

Indeed, what was the situation 20 years ago (or whatever) is 'academic' in these times, but if one fails to understand the limits of yesteryear, it makes one have a somewhat artificial sense of one's current situation...yeah we can shoot with electronic flash to 1/4000 synch speed today and belly ache about it being 'limited', but if one has the context that SLRs were limited to 1/60 shutter speed 50 years ago, one then appreciates what you have today all that much more!

 

[Photo Engineer]

Wiltw, slrs had higher shutter speeds 50 years ago. My F1 and Nikkormat went higher than that by a large amount, and my older Petri and Pentax from about 60 years ago even went higher.

PE

 

[DREW WILEY]

We've actually lost a lot. Digital technology certainly hasn't improved color reproduction, but just made it far more democratic. I mostly shoot larger formats anyway; and having total control of the outcome in the darkroom is something I highly enjoy. Threads like this one seem to confuse the idea of "better" for what is simply more convenient or cost efficient for certain individuals. But a violinist likes a violin better because that's what they've personally mastered; a cellist prefers a cello; and a pianist has an entirely different opinion. Some people seek out the services of a suitable commercial lab for their color needs; people like me who aren't on the clock appreciate the extra something possible with home cooking. It's all good. And a bit of discussion about past methods or media can be useful for making informed choices about current options. Everything changes over time, so the skill of adaptation is itself a vital acquisition.

 

[wiltw]

Wiltw, slrs had higher shutter speeds 50 years ago. My F1 and Nikkormat went higher than that by a large amount, and my older Petri and Pentax from about 60 years ago even went higher.

PE

Yes, I know...but 1/60 in cloth horizontal curtain focal plane shutters was the rule, it was only a few Copal Square-equipped cameras back then, like Topcon D-1, Nikkormat, plus a very few very high end cameras in the 1960-70s that had 1/125 because of the vertical metal 'curtain' blades

BTW, which Pentax? The H3 was limited to 1/50 X sync, and the Spotmatic (including the later Spotmatic IIa) had 1/60, both 1960s era cameras. Even the 1970s vintage Pentax ES was limited to 1/60 for X-sync

 

[Photo Engineer]

Wilt, some of the Nikon stuff I have had the horizontal shutter.

PE

 

[wiltw]

Wilt, some of the Nikon stuff I have had the horizontal shutter.

PE

Then you confused me, with your earlier statement, "...and my older Petri and Pentax from about 60 years ago even went higher." I was wondering about which specific models of Pentax could X-sync faster than 1/60.

And did you just mean to say, "Wilt, some of the Nikon stuff I have had the VERTICAL shutter." which permits faster X-sync (which is how the dSLRs of today do it)?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, I missed the part about the X-sync. I don't remember us specifically talking about flash and sync. Sorry if I was confused, but I linked it to film speed back then.

My Pentax had a horizontal shutter and could not sync about 1/125th. I have several "half" photos shot incorrectly.

PE

 

[fdonadio]

My Nikon F3, the first camera I used, has a maximum X-sync speed of 1/80 and an horizontal curtain. Faster X-sync was the reason I bought my FM2, which’s syncs up to 1/250 and has a vertical curtain. The quality of my skateboarding shots with fill-in flash improved a lot.