new to film - colour negatives V transparency

[dainmcgowan]

could anybody list the bullet point pros and cons of the above??

many thanks.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

Color negative film: Wide exposure latitude, simpler film processing, needs to be printed or scanned to see result.

Color transparency film: Narrow exposure latitude, film is final product no need to print to evaluate, fewer labs offer E-6 processing now, but can be processed at home. More complex process.

 

[Oren Grad]

Wide exposure latitude means that color negative film can record scenes with a much greater brightness range than color transparency film can manage. Color neg has a greater ability to preserve detail in the brightest highlights and deepest shadows.

 

[fschifano]

Color negative film: Wide exposure latitude, simpler film processing, needs to be printed or scanned to see result.

Color transparency film: Narrow exposure latitude, film is final product no need to print to evaluate, fewer labs offer E-6 processing now, but can be processed at home. More complex process.

Yep, that's pretty much the way I see it too. I just don't think that processing C-41 (color negative) is any more or less complex than processing E-6 (color transparency.) E-6 has a few more steps is all. Temperature control is far more critical for both processes when compared to B&W processing.

Bottom line is that if you want to make prints, I can see no over arching reason to use E-6. The narrow latitude makes working with the material a pain. C-41 allows you to gather much more information, then do what you will with it in post processing.

 

[MattKing]

On the other hand, if you intend to project your photos, you should shoot colour transparency film.

You may be one of the growing number of people who have never seen a projected (still) transparency. If so, you should seek one out, because it is a very special way to see a photograph.

Oh and by the way, E6 isn't the only way to process transparency film. Kodachrome is still hanging in there.

Matt

 

[wiltw]

Yep, that's pretty much the way I see it too. I just don't think that processing C-41 (color negative) is any more or less complex than processing E-6 (color transparency.) E-6 has a few more steps is all. Temperature control is far more critical for both processes when compared to B&W processing.

Bottom line is that if you want to make prints, I can see no over arching reason to use E-6. The narrow latitude makes working with the material a pain. C-41 allows you to gather much more information, then do what you will with it in post processing.

If your end product are prints, shoot color neg. If you want images for commercial use, such as advertising or magazine, shoot color transparency.

 

[keithwms]

Totally different media. I get a bit annoyed when I read about this as X versus Y. It's almost as annoying as digital versus film :rolleyes: As if somebody feels the need to sort us into camps and then sit back and watch us duke it out for the umpteenth time.

Which type of film I choose depends mostly on how much range there is in the scene and what colour rendition I want. There are some things colour neg film simply cannot do for me; likewise there are some things that slides cannot do for me. And of course there are some things that colour film in general cannot do! So go on and embrace the diversity of media that we now have.

Honestly, from the standpoint of convenience, I wish that *everything* I shot could be on slide, that'd make it much quicker and easier for me to sort successful photographs from those that go on my floor. IMHO the biggest advantage of slide is being able to see what you've gotten without need for a print. No computer required. No printing equipment or chemicals or darkroom required. Just you, your eyeballs, and some light. (some folks are able to judge a neg quite well, but almost all c41 films have a mask that you have to mentally subtract, and it's not nearly as intuitive as looking at a slide.) The other nice aspect of having a slide to look at is knowing what it is possible to get in the print. You can hold them side by side. You see exposure and/or colour balance issues straight away and you know exactly where they come from. So... if it were possible to get c41 latitude and colour nuance in a slide, well, that'd be nirvana in my opinion.

Experiment with both... and enjoy them for their strengths, while you still can! Oh and take the time to search around the forums, there have been many very long (and somewhat contentious) threads on this subject lately.

Again I say: embrace the diversity of film products that we have!

 

[PHOTOTONE]

Totally different media.

Experiment with both... and enjoy them for their strengths, while you still can! Oh and take the time to search around the forums, there have been many very long (and somewhat contentious) threads on this subject lately.

Again I say: embrace the diversity of film products that we have!

Absolutely. I don't think the OP was wanting an either/or type of analysis, rather he just wanted to know the differences.

 

[srs5694]

I just don't think that processing C-41 (color negative) is any more or less complex than processing E-6 (color transparency.) E-6 has a few more steps is all.

More steps makes it more complex by definition, IMHO. The difference isn't a show-stopper for hobbyist processing, but it can be a pain. It takes me half an hour or more just to get set up to process a roll of E-6 film, vs. about half that time to prepare to process a roll of C-41 film. Disclaimer: I use Kodak's 6-bath E-6 kit. Some third-party kits use a simplified 3-bath process, but I personally prefer the results from the Kodak kit.

Of course, all this is moot if you take the film to a lab for processing. There's also the fact that you need to scan or print negatives to fully evaluate them. That step adds time and complexity to the task, probably outweighing the C-41 process's relative simplicity compared to E-6 unless you also want to scan or print your slides -- but again, this is only for do-it-yourself processing.

IMHO, the bottom line is: If you want prints, shoot negative film; if you want to project your images or have commercial needs for slides, shoot slide film. If you intend to scan everything for use on a computer, it could go either way, and you'll just have to evaluate the results from both types of film to decide which you prefer.

 

[Anthony Lewis]

I see the situation differently to others above. When I take a shot I like to get as much information on the film as possible (no matter what the scene is),ie as much exposure latitude as possible. So I shoot Negative and rarely not even any saturated or vivid colour negatives. Saturated colours reduce exposure latitude and increase grain as well (slightly). Therefore on my negatives I've got the maximum visual information possible. This gives me a lot more latitude to do to the photograph what ever I like in Photoshop. Also I feel I am getting better scans from negatives. The quality from films like Porta NC is superb. However as others have pointed out, you cannot edit out dud shots until they are scanned - that is a nuisance.

A young friend the other day excited told me that he had just seen photographs on display with a light behind them - and how great they looked. He was asking how he could reproduce his digital images so he could display them the same way. I said they would never look the same as a film original. He just thought I was being old and obstructive because he has been told/sold that digital can do anything, and it can do it better than film - sad! Yes, there are a growing number of people who have never seen a projected image. The colours and sharpness just 'jump out'. Its a beautiful way of seeing a photograph and only a camera original transparency can do that!

The moral of my story is, if you do decide to shoot lots of negative, it's great to shoot the occasional trany for projection and/or light table - that beats digital photography any day. Bring back the slide night.

 

[Ektagraphic]

Color Neg: Still widely available for purchase and can be processed at tons and tons of places in 1 hour. Pretty inexpensive (usually). Not best archivalability compared to transparency.

Transparency: Not as readily available as color neg. Extremely high quality (even some 110 slide can put some digital cameras to shame). Amazing colors. Easy to view with out having to be printed. Can be turned into outstanding prints. Fun to project. Very archival (varies from film to film, Kodachrome being longest lasting). Fun to work with all around.

I personally shoot 95% slides and I enjoy every shot! I highly recommend all of the Kodak Ektachrome films availble as a good started. After you get the hang of shooting slides, you must try some Kodachrome. Color negatives are okay if you are in a hurry since they can be processed at most pharmacies. They are nice once in a great while. Here is an example of a shot taken with Ektachrome 100 Plus and scanned pretty cheaply.

 

[Ektagraphic]

Here is a shot taken with Kodachrome and scanned by Dwayne's Photo.

 

[dainmcgowan]

thank you everybody

i want prints, so i guess i will shoot negatives.
etkar 100 seems like a good choice, when it makes it to the UK in 120.

if i was to get negatives processed by a lab, with a contact sheet, would i be able to use that to decide which to print??

also, is there no way to print transparency (without scanning into a computer and printing from there)?

thank you again!

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

thank you everybody

i want prints, so i guess i will shoot negatives.
etkar 100 seems like a good choice, when it makes it to the UK in 120.

if i was to get negatives processed by a lab, with a contact sheet, would i be able to use that to decide which to print??

also, is there no way to print transparency (without scanning into a computer and printing from there)?

thank you again!

Negatives have a lot of latitude for exposure; reversal film is much less forgiving so getting the exposure right is more 'pointy' from the start. Note that trannies are printed to the Cibachrome process (no scanning involved), or the older RA4 (paper) process; which process you go for depends on your budget.

 

[srs5694]

if i was to get negatives processed by a lab, with a contact sheet, would i be able to use that to decide which to print??

Probably. Contact prints from MF film are big enough that you should be able to tell whether the photo was properly framed, in focus, etc. If the contact sheet is made traditionally, though, the exposure could be off on a frame-to-frame basis, which might make you think that specific frames are too over- or under-exposed to be useful when in fact they could be printed individually, with appropriate exposure correction when making the print. If the "contact sheet" is done digitally, though, this shouldn't be an issue, unless the machine misjudged the exposure. Even if the contact sheet is deceptive, you should be able to tell something by looking at the negative.

also, is there no way to print transparency (without scanning into a computer and printing from there)?

Yes, but it's very expensive. The process is known as Ilfochrome (formerly known as Cibachrome), and it's a positive-to-positive print process. At B&H, a 100-sheet box of 8x10-inch Ilfochrome paper costs $266.95. This compares to $32.95-$36.95 for RA-4 (color print) paper. The chemicals are similarly expensive.

An alternative to Ilfochrome is making an internegative -- basically, you photograph the slide using negative film and then make a print from the negative on RA-4 paper. This is the analog equivalent of the digital flow; it's just that a negative substitutes for a digital scan.

Another alternative (using the term loosely) is to reversal process RA-4 paper -- expose the paper using a slide and then add some processing steps to get a positive print. This works, but results tend to be off -- contrast is high, colors can be a bit weird, and there may be some mottling. Although you might get traditionally good images from some photos, overall this is more of a process to try if you want a somewhat odd image.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

[...]it's great to shoot the occasional tranny for projection and/or light table - that beats digital photography any day. Bring back the slide night.

It's the way to go for Cibas (oh, sorry Kevin C. — "Ilfochromes"...) that literally throw punches from the wall, too...

Digital has a loooong way to go before it can give cheek to what Ilford first released on the market in 1963. That's staying power!

 

[Ektagraphic]

You could make a negative of the transparency and then print the negative.

 

[Urmas R.]

Isn't it easier to get the colors correct with transparencies? Especially when your final aim is a digital scan? I also think it is possible to get higher resolution scans from a transparency. I am just a beginner in scanning, so may be some pros would care to clarify in more detail...

An interesting link I found:
http://www.drumscanning.com/krrab.html

 

[aruxaru]

I too have a question concerning negatives and transparencies. I do not develop any color film at home, everything is sent off to local labs. I somehow got the impression that with negatives, the colors, saturation and look of the negative can be influenced by the person/machine developing the film. With transparencies, there is nothing/limited changes they can do to it.

Does this hold any truth?

 

[nickrapak]

You could make a negative of the transparency and then print the negative.

Unfortunately, all 35mm still-frame interneg films are discontinued.

 

[srs5694]

Isn't it easier to get the colors correct with transparencies? Especially when your final aim is a digital scan?

Transparencies have the advantage of serving as their own reference, so if you have a question about the accuracy of the scan or print, you can just do a side-by-side comparison. That said, if you're doing everything consistently (right times, same chemistry, same type of paper, etc.), color balance shouldn't vary much with print material unless the light source changes (daylight to tungsten, for instance, although even direct sunlight to shadow will cause a shift). Thus, once you get it right, you shouldn't need to change it much.

I also think it is possible to get higher resolution scans from a transparency.

No, the scan resolution is determined by the scanner hardware, along with software settings that affect it (typically by setting a reduced resolution). That said, the scan resolution interacts with things like the film's sharpness and grain. It's conceivable that negatives and slides interact differently with these factors to produce different levels of perceived sharpness, but if so I've never before heard of such a thing.

I do not develop any color film at home, everything is sent off to local labs. I somehow got the impression that with negatives, the colors, saturation and look of the negative can be influenced by the person/machine developing the film. With transparencies, there is nothing/limited changes they can do to it.

Does this hold any truth?

You've got to distinguish between two parts of the process: Developing the film into a strip of negatives or transparencies; and making prints. For the first step, both negatives and slides can be affected by processing details. For color film, this is mostly a question of getting it right or not getting it right -- old chemicals, incorrect temperatures, etc. can all negatively impact the results. (Push processing is an exception to this rule. It's possible with both negative and slide films, but I get the impression it's more common with slide film than with color negative film.) Offhand, I don't know of a way to systematically alter either color balance (say, adjusting a daylight film for tungsten light) or contrast with either type of film, at least not without impacting other film characteristics.

For print-making, the possible manipulations are pretty much the same for negatives and transparencies, although as has already been stated, traditional darkroom prints from transparencies are expensive, and therefore unpopular compared to RA-4 prints from negatives. You can adjust exposure and color balance quite easily. Contrast is harder to control -- you need to change papers or jump through hoops with extra processing steps. Since negative films are almost always printed (or today, at least scanned), these manipulations are always possible with it, and different labs may do things differently as a matter of course. With slide films, you might never see a print, so these options might not be very meaningful; however, if you do scan or print a slide, these same factors come into play.

 

[keithwms]

Urmas, here is a medium resolution drum scan of a medium format (6x7) shot on velvia 100. See for yourself.

http://keithwilliamsphoto.net/mothdrum.tif

Please also see this thread:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Bruce Watson]

Isn't it easier to get the colors correct with transparencies?

Really, it's not. All films have a "sweet spot" of lighting conditions where they give their intended responses -- typically D50 standard lighting in the studio, or tungsten lighting (few tungsten films are left on the market). If you expose a piece of film designed for 5000K white point at 9000K, the film will render your whites as somewhat blue. If you expose the same film at 3000K, your whites will render as somewhat yellow. True for tranny or negative film.

I've never seen a landscape shot that didn't need some level of color correction somewhere (especially in shadows -- so often they shift blue). No matter what film was used.

Especially when your final aim is a digital scan?

Again, really it's not. I can and do drum scan both kinds of films. Getting the colors right is more dependent on the software to drive the drum scanner. Some software makes this relatively easy (my ColorRight Pro 2.0 software for Optronics ColorGetters for example) and some makes it relatively difficult (NewColor / Linocolor for Heidelberg / Hell scanners -- so I'm told, I've never had the chance to drive one of the big Hells, or even a Tango, but their operators tell me that negatives are a PITA for them to work with).

I also think it is possible to get higher resolution scans from a transparency.

Not really. It might look that way however. This is because graininess increases with density. So with a tranny film, most of the graininess shows up in the shadows where it's most difficult to see, and the highlights look more "grainless." With negatives most of the graininess shows up in the highlights were it's quite easy to see. So prints from negative films seem to be more grainy even when their RMS graininess measures are smaller.

This phenomenon can make the tranny film appear sharper even if the negative film can resolve more.

This of course matters more in smaller films, because smaller films are typically enlarged more. When I was strictly a 35mm shooter, I was also strictly a tranny shooter. When I moved to 5x4 film, I almost immediately switched over to negative films, because with nearly 20 sq inches of film area to play with, graininess becomes nearly meaningless.

 

[Urmas R.]

Thank you Bruce, Keith and srs5694. You gave me something to think about. I haven't done any comparisons of the same scene myself so this is just what I have heard. As I to not do high resolution scans myself, but order them, my knowledge in scanning is very very poor. I've been shooting mostly 35mm and 120 6x6. With MF usually color slides, plus BW.

U

 

[mrladewig]

I've been scanning alot more color negative from 4X5 to 35mm lately partly on things I've read from Bruce and some others. I thought the increased dynamic range could be useful.

In the process of learning to scan color negative I was thinking about how the scanner works with color negative and how I've set the software. One of the things I noticed is how narrow the histogram often can be for color negative compared to the histogram for slide film. I think one of the reasons why the grain is more noticable on color negative is that we crank up the contrast on color negative (by setting the white and black points on the histogram) and therefore increase the apparent difference in tone between individual dye clouds or grains. Its just a thought as to why color negative film appears to have more grain.