My color film dilemma (rant).

[hrst]

I find color negative film much easier to scan. I think that this really should be the case; and if reversal film is easier to scan then there is something wrong in the scanner or the software. This is because: 1) negative film is masked; 2) negative has greater latitude; 3) negative is lower in contrast, meaning a better match to the dynamic range of scanner CCD. I use Nikon Coolscan V and it makes almost perfect image from color negative straight from the scanner. Slides always need Photoshop. Straight scans have always completely blocked shadows, and if I adjust just gamma correction or curves, I get too low contrast. In fact, I almost always need dodging/burning or Shadows&hilights tool in Photoshop to make the slide look the same as when projected. Then it looks good but I don't love digital retouching so much anymore. That's why I don't like scanning slides. But projecting them....!! That's a reason enough to use slide film. So I use both negative and slide.

In fact, the blocked shadows problem with slide scanning is same than when doing Ilfochromes. You usually need some dodging/burning, or contrast masking. But, Ilfochrome print can look so awesomely cool compared to some lousy digital scan on a computer screen, that blocked shadows can usually be forgiven...

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I agree with hrst. People do need to understand there is a loss of quality scanning from negatives or transparencies for display on a computer, which kind of defeats the purpose of why you would be using film as your media at all: you'd be much happier with digital. Some posts here, though, are befuddling: shooting slides, no scanning, no printing. And...!?

Ilfochromes are the way to go when shooting slides, not scanning and displaying on computers, and certainly not degrading digital prints; the loss of quality will be too obvious and no about of Photochopping will bring it back without introducing artifice.

All Ilfochromes require contrast masking. Dodging/burning is at the discretion of printer+photographer at dialogue stage (in-lab), or for very obvious areas.
Velvia 50 is most prone to blocked shadows but blows highlights gracefully; Velvia 100 is slightly better at EI80 while Provia 100F is relatively easy going printing to 'chromes — it really is a delight.

 

[keithwms]

I agree with hrst. People do need to understand there is a loss of quality scanning from negatives or transparencies for display on a computer, which kind of defeats the purpose of why you would be using film as your media at all: you'd be much happier with digital.

Well.... I do enjoy the traditional processes very much, and the self-made aspect of trad. processing. But to say that somebody who needs to scan may as well go digital, sorry, I don't agree with that. Plenty of us here get excellent results scanning film, results that cannot be had with the very highest end digital (as if there were such a thing as a medium format digital rangefinder, a digital viewcamera, a digital TLR, etc. etc.) And I do digital as well for some purposes, so I can report firsthand that it's a totally different workflow than the hybrid workflow(s). When I do need a paper print from my slides I do drum scans and then lightjet on traditional photopaper with no contrast masking required... not inkjet. There is a big difference... and not just the cost! In terms of overall quality, well, a drum gets more information out of the slide than you can ever get via traditional enlargement. The basic reasons are that the drum method is not lens based, and there is essentially zero detector noise. The big, annoying limitation with my current workflow is the lack of a true matte output paper for colour... I detest inkjet matte. Ilfo can't help me there either, unfortunately. So I am thinking of some other methods based on starting with colour sep negatives.

So... all I'm saying is there is pure analogue, there is digital, and then there is an ever-growing grey region between that is not one other and which has its own advantages. Let there be peace between analogue and hybrid! Kindly don't lump hybrid together with straight digital, it's very different.

 

[nickandre]

I argue that the less dynamic range of negative films give scanners a tough time. I'm somewhat convinced that many of these scanners are designed for slide film. If that's true then the limited dynamic range of the negative film hinders the process because it has to be "stretched out" in order to fill the entire digital color range. This would introduce more grain as a result of the errors of the CCD.

I first went to film out of annoyance because while my slides retained graceful highlight tones, my D50 bleached them to hell unless I underexposed 2 stops and carefully watched my screen for EVERY PICTURE I EVER TOOK. Not fun when I want to be shooting. Digital is not the same as film.

I agree. There's nothing quite like holding a shiny large print from a negative.

 

[Q.G.]

I doesn't belong to APUG, but the dynamic range of negative film is, alas, bigger than scanners can cope with.
To get the most out of a negative, you do need to combine scans.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

It is reversal film that has the limited dynamic range and which causes the most grief for people dabbling with it after so long shooting the much more generous neg. film.
C-41 is too broad for scanning; as Q.G. mentions, combine scans for that.
If I need to print (i.e. postcard-size prints, stats, representative images of framed chromes, webshots, etc.), I shoot digital (often, too, in-situ next to the film camera, literally "duping" selected scenes). If I need to Ilfochrome for exhibition, it is 100% reversal-to-'chrome. The division is clear for intended use. On the very limited occasions I have organised drum scans of trannies (the last being February 2009), I can recall 2 being returned scratched, though in truth, scratches are not a problem for Ilfochrome printing.

In truth, and from whatever angle, and with whatever we are using, I believe we, as film users, are doing much, much better than the opposition.

 

[StorminMatt]

I doesn't belong to APUG, but the dynamic range of negative film is, alas, bigger than scanners can cope with.
To get the most out of a negative, you do need to combine scans.

Actually, C41 films are capable of RECORDING a greater dynamic range than slide films. But slide films PRODUCE a higher dynamic range (ie they are more contrasty). So it is actually slide films that are going to give scanners more of a challenge when it comes to dynamic range. BUT, it is MUCH easier to correct the colors to look like the original since you can physically compare the output to the original slide.

As for shooting slide films and using a slide projector, I still do. In fact, slides are THE reason why I still shoot film (this may offend people, but to me, C41 is just digital) To me, there is just NOTHING like a well-exposed slide. Slides just have that special quality that C41 will NEVER duplicate, ESPECIALLY for outdoor/nature shots. And slide shows? I just don't know of any better way to view pictures. A projected Kodachrome, for instance, just brings the shot to life in a way that nothing else can.

 

[Leighgion]

Slide film, including stuff I didn't shoot, has caused me great pains in the scanning department and it's directly because of this even more than expense that I don't shoot more of the stuff.

That said, I am finally completing a little test run of various E6 films to find which ones scan better and I do try to keep some around because my experience agrees with decades of established practice: when you really want that color punch, there's nothing like a color positive.

 

[perkeleellinen]

Astia / Sensia caused me the least pain.

 

[Q.G.]

Actually, C41 films are capable of RECORDING a greater dynamic range than slide films. But slide films PRODUCE a higher dynamic range (ie they are more contrasty). So it is actually slide films that are going to give scanners more of a challenge when it comes to dynamic range.

True. Slide film causes problems at every stage in the production of a good image.

But negative film is too much for a good scanner too.
No matter how you tweak histograms, and what have you, to capture all the detail in the negative, highlights and shadows alike, you need to give up all hope that you can do it in just one scan, and start thinking about combining scans in HDRI style.
Alas ...

BUT, it is MUCH easier to correct the colors to look like the original since you can physically compare the output to the original slide.

Yes. Often said.
But that is assuming, of course, that the colour in the slide is the colour as it is supposed to be, so if you tweak the knobs such that the two things match, it'll be fine.
It could be just me, but it rarely is.

I find no great difficulty tweaking the colours in the on-screen image.
In fact, it's "much easier" to judge whether the on-screen colours are good than having to compare them to a slide on a light box.

 

[StorminMatt]

But that is assuming, of course, that the colour in the slide is the colour as it is supposed to be, so if you tweak the knobs such that the two things match, it'll be fine.
It could be just me, but it rarely is.

Then again, it has been my finding that, even if the colors of a slide are not completely 100% dead-on accurate, there is just something REALLY pleasing about them vs C41. In cases like this, absolute accuracy is really not paramount - at least to me.

 

[Q.G.]

Then again, it has been my finding that, even if the colors of a slide are not completely 100% dead-on accurate, there is just something REALLY pleasing about them vs C41. In cases like this, absolute accuracy is really not paramount - at least to me.

True.

But what colours are supposed to be depends as much (perhaps even more) on how you like them to be as on accuracy.
Different films have a different colour signature. Our film selection depends, i find, a lot on how that signature suits you. Something that you can tweak further towards your likings when using negative film, but not when using slide film.

Not a problem, of course, when you like already the colours the film produces all by itself.

But anyway, colour is not something that makes slides better suited for scanning than negative film.

 

[nyoung]

Sold my last slide projector 11 years ago. People (non-photographers) want to see prints. Only shoot transparency to test new (to me) shutters and lenses.

 

[DavidM]

I find scanning slides much easier and get the colours in the scan to the same as captured in the film.
From there i can share the images on the internet or as prints that i make at home.
BUT the new Kodak Ektar100 in 120 is a very nice film - rich colours and has a bit more latitude than the slide.

 

[naugastyle]

People (non-photographers) want to see prints.

AND photographers. I know a lot of people who like to look at slides the same way they look at photos. Holding in their hands, marveling at the beauty. I don't personally know anyone who has the patience to sit through a slideshow.

 

[mark]

Sure is a LOT of hybrid talk here. If you are scanning for output then it does not matter what you use because scanning is the creation of a copy and copies are always inferior to the original. YOMV

I prefer slides, for landscape, for the following reason, I can see the colors in it. I am a little color blind (yes there are degrees) and when I take a photograph I see colors I had no idea were there. The eye doctor says it is because of the compressed nature of the colors (whatever the hell that means)

For people shots I prefer color negative for the true to life flesh tones of Portra NC. It is the only color negative filme I find I like, because of the pallet. No matter which you choose it is a preference. Lots of folks say the fuji color negative films are great, I detest the look. It is a preference.

I love slide shows. Especially when I can sit down with mine or my dad's slides by myself and really "look" at the images. It is fun with the family too. I have yet to see a digitally presented image that is even close to the images presented by a good slide projector. Not a top of the line one, but just a good one.

 

[Prest_400]

Sure is a LOT of hybrid talk here. If you are scanning for output then it does not matter what you use because scanning is the creation of a copy and copies are always inferior to the original. YOMV

I've got an advantadge; I've never felt the pain of scanning a slide. Because, I simply don't scan them, and, I don't have a scanner.

I love slide shows. Especially when I can sit down with mine or my dad's slides by myself and really "look" at the images. It is fun with the family too. I have yet to see a digitally presented image that is even close to the images presented by a good slide projector. Not a top of the line one, but just a good one.

I've got to try that. I did project 40 slides, but not really well projected. It's awesome. Like in a cinema, they do the same, but with a bigger screen, a smaller frame, and viewers are farther from the screen.
When I have a bulky collection of slides, I'll have to buy a projector...

 

[keithwms]

I don't personally know anyone who has the patience to sit through a slideshow.

That's definitely contrary to my experience. Very contrary.

A few weeks ago I went to a slide show by a Nat Geo photographer, Michael Nichols, and he kept the audience of 500 people of all ages at rapt attention for two hours. And that was with a lowish res powerpoint slide show (albeit still a much better-than-average projector). An analogue slide show would have been even mo bettah!

Now, I'm no Nick Nichols but I have also given slideshows several times and gotten plenty of compliments. The experience is very different from viewing a small print.

There is another aspect of slides and slideshows that used to be more important, namely that you can see straight away how a photographer uses the frame and how much he/she can do "in camera" as opposed to post-processing. Any flaws are immediately very obvious. Now, that is still worth something in this day and age, when many images we see are so processed. IMHO people need to relearn how to respect what competent photographers can do without any need for processing.

~~~

Now, this business of considering slide/scan workflow to be =digital is ridiculous to me. I could just as easily say that because c41 users usually scan their negs to show them, they have gone digital. I mean, does anybody make analogue slides from c41 anymore? (What's that, you don't do your slideshows in a purely analogue way, you're going to digihell!) One could equally well accuse everybody who posts to the apug gallery of being pro-digital. How silly :rolleyes: Use whatever tools you want to show your work! The 'showing' is very different from the art and the handcraft of creating the image in the first place.

 

[naugastyle]

Wow. I honestly can't imagine that. Now, if it were a BOOK of his photos that somehow took 2 hours to wade through...yes . But yes, I agree slides are a great way to see the unaltered photographer's view, skill, and mistakes.

I've only been here a little while and understand the site's anti-hybrid slant, but I think the equating of shooting & scanning C-41 to digital is ridiculous. Besides, in my view it's far more important to take good pictures, which plenty of 100% analog folks don't. OK, make that 99% analog folks, since I have managed to SEE their photos somehow .

 

[keithwms]

P.S. One thing that Nick Nichols did, which was very impressive, was to show complete images and then show the cover version with the standard Nat Geo boundary. More often than not, the crop that wound up on the cover was a half frame or smaller... from a 35mm slide! I guess he showed us about a half dozen of his covers. Toward the end of the show he showed digital work (redwood composites) and, unfortunately it was fairly clear to me from the tonality that it was digital-derived, but honestly it was still quite impressive. Perhaps because he came from a film background, he had not lowered his standards... it just had a different feel.

 

[naugastyle]

Oh, that's really cool...I'm always interested in what changes are made by editors.

 

[Stephen Schoof]

A few weeks ago I went to a slide show by a Nat Geo photographer, Michael Nichols, and he kept the audience of 500 people of all ages at rapt attention for two hours.

That's great - I could sit through 2 hours of his stuff. I attended one of Gordon Wiltsie's presentations (w/ analog projectors) a few years ago and wasn't bored in the least. And on a smaller scale I also get compliments for my slide shows, and much prefer the format of being able to concentrate everyone's attention on one image at a time than dealing with the constant repetitive explanations that come with passing prints around a roomful of folks with greasy fingers.

 

[keithwms]

It's a very different experience, right, giving a slide show. Everyone is looking at the same image. People react together, they talk amongst themselves, they ask questions... totally different experience than looking at prints single file or in much smaller groups. I'm not saying it's better or worse, just... very different. The only problem I have is that after seeing a projected slide, it is almost impossible to deliver a print that has as much impact. It can be almost be done but not quite.

 

[StorminMatt]

I mean, does anybody make analogue slides from c41 anymore? (What's that, you don't do your slideshows in a purely analogue way, you're going to digihell!)

Nobody makes analog slides from C41 anymore (at least that I know of). I think even Dales stopped doing this around last July. Then again, this never gave good results in the first place (compared to actual reversal slides). So I don't think there are alot of tears being shed over the loss of this process.

 

[Ektagraphic]

For color I still shoot slides ONLY and I love to project. I wouldn't give it up for anything. I love black and white and I LOVE darkroom but I really like slides too. I just ordered some Efke Positive paper to try out. Should be interesting. Printing my color slides in black and white myself.