The case for/against color slide film...

[BradS]

Well, I just went out and shot eight more sheets of E-100G....love that stuff.

I'm gonna have to look into home processing. That would be way too cool.

 

[keithwms]

Ron, brace yourself for an unapologetically argumentative response!

Keith;

See my original post then!

There are reasonable arguments based on scientific fact that duplication or printing color slides seriously degrades quality. They are therefore best used when viewed as the original or only duplicated using extensive methods of masking and other corrective methods (this can be best done digitally). And, even then only the first generation duplicate is really useful. Prints of duplicates have that "dupey" look as we used to call it.

PE

Nope, that's still no case against slide film. Whatever you used to call it has long since been solved.

Make a case against this... after you download it....

http://keithwilliamsphoto.net/mothdrum.tif

I can get prints (on traditional photo paper, mind you) to 6' and beyond. If somebody wants to make a case against the specific method of drum and lightjet, fine, but that's a separate issue because many of us look at slides, project slides, and have other output methods for slides beside ciba/ilfo. For example, I make emulsion lifts on instant film from slide. I make b&w dupes from slide. You could make c41 negs from slide. Whatever. Look, there are more display and output methods for slide than for c41!!!!

I should start another thread, the case for/against c41, the case for/against chromogenic b&w... the case against instant flm... the case for/against watercolour paint... :rolleyes:

 

[keithwms]

P.S. that slide scan is unsharpened and no colour correction was applied. I can prove that to anyone with functional eyeballs because I have the slide.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Keith, the scan means nothing as the digital scanning process introduces the corrections I described above. In fact, you are, in a sense agreeing with me.

A reversal scale is a cubic spline and the "print" is supposed to be the same cubic spline. The shape of the print curve is nominally derived from the product of the slopes of the two curves and therefore the print material must be adjusted to match the original in all respects but with a slope such that the product of the two results in the original curve. As you can see by thinking this simple calculus problem through, the slope of the print material must be a straight line with a slope of 1.0, but this is physically impossible. Therefore, each generation suffers unless there is an intermediate moderating step in the method of reproduction. This is the case in digital and in single reproductions. It cannot be used in multiple generations. It is a "lossy" compression at work.

Now, for color reproduction, negative film is masked for correction. Positive films have interimage effects that are limited due to the fact that the process goes to completion and therefore color fidelity is limited in each step. They make up for it by increasing contrast as much as possible.

I can take your arguments, but knowing the math behind it and having had to work with the equations on this type of problem, I know that mulitgenerational reversal systems are inherently faulty, somewhat like JPEG compression in a sense. This is the overriding reason reversal lost favor in Hollywood.

PE

 

[keithwms]

Keith, the scan means nothing as the digital scanning process introduces the corrections I described above. In fact, you are, in a sense agreeing with me.

I don't think so, Ron. What I am saying is that it's about as illogical to hold ciba/ilfo issues against slide as it is to say that c41 is inferior because people don't project it and cannot judge colour accuracy directly.

In your view, is that a fair case against c41... that we can't project it?

That is my point. Even if we aren't allowed to consider modern lightjet methods in present company, then slide still has many different output and display methods... and c41 has one.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Actually, I am saying that there are inherent physical and chemical laws at work here that limit the ability to make multigenerational reversal prints or duplicates without extensive manipulation of tone scale and color reproduction. These limitations are not present in negative materials due to their inherent nature.

This was manifest in that Hollywood abandoned reversal-reversal systems in favor of neg-pos systems.

PE

 

[keithwms]

I know, I get what you are saying and I am saying that I could just as easily say that c41 can't be projected, and declare that a disadvantage of c41!

So.... I guess we'll have to leave this up to an arm wrestle sometime soon at a neutral location

 

[Photo Engineer]

Ummm, well, C-41 can be projected and with great fidelity. It can be done up to 14 generations from the original with no significant loss in quality. That was Ektacolor Print film, now discontinued. It went through the C-41 process.

Also, similar to C-41 is ECP used in Motion Picture in theater screen or wall sizes! The MP process is modified to give even higher quality.

PE

 

[keithwms]

Sure but as you say, ektacolor is discontinued!

I know nothing of motion picture film; I rarely shoot 35mm slides. Is the ECP medium available in medium format?

Are you going to click on my link and give an honest assessment or not

http://keithwilliamsphoto.net/mothdrum.tif

Click it! Click it! Maybe click it before you go to bed; it'll take a while.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Keith;

Yes, ECP is available in medium format for 70mm cine cameras. Consumer dupe films were discontinued due to the same reason many reversal dupe films were, especially those used in cine applications.

Cine neg-pos films represent about 60%+ of all analog products sold today. Positive films represent a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of the remaining color.

PE

 

[HerrBremerhaven]

On a workflow basis, I would rather be editing and selecting E-6 chromes on a light table than anything C-41. While I can get my head around viewing a ground glass on a 4x5 with the reversed image, I cannot visualize colour while glancing at a C-41 negative. Without a print, that C-41 negative is damn near useless to me. I don't deliver prints to my commercial clients, so there is no benefit for me to use C-41. Unfortunately, the anti-E-6 bias on APUG does come through a bit too often, as Tim and Keith indicated.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

 

[keithwms]

I became slightly less resistant to looking at colour c41 on a light table when I tried the maskless stuff from Rollei. Unfortunately, Rollei's name for it contains the prefix "digi" and so it's going to be a hard sell to some folks here at APUG But I can attest that it is much easier to judge a maskless colour c41 neg. As for projecting or louping a masked c41 neg, no thanks. Fine for judging focus but awful for judging colour.

But in any case, I find it highly irritating that I cannot get a real picture of whether my c41 images work or not without scanning or printing them. With slide, I know straight away; the process of sorting keepers goes very quickly and doesn't involve a scanner or printer or more darkroom work.

I also wonder about anti-E6 and anti-Fuji sentiment and its role in these discussions. But frankly I'd rather we not go there. I know what I can do with what I use and that's that in the end, isn't it?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Keith;

My arguments are not against workflow or ability to see images. They are based on the limitations imposed by chemistry and physics. Your photo is a single stimulus object which in this context is virtually meaningless, but probably very beautiful. That is the only foundation of what I have been saying.

As a scientist yourself, I hope that you can see what I am urging you to consider from my POV, but it does not mean that reversal is bad by any means, just limited.

And, BTW, with practice you can judge masked color negatives on a light table.

PE

 

[keithwms]

See Ron I actually knew that you were going to say that I could learn to see beyond the mask I am just not sure I want to see the world through orange-coloured glasses, even if I do appreciate your POV.

Anyway, I have had slide and c41 colour film professionally drum scanned- arguably the most fair and neutral way to do it and to get close to 100% of the information out of the film. Based on those comparisons ...which by the way cost me a fair sum... I did not see any basis to the suggestion that the c41 material is superior in terms of level of detail. The c41 material is grainier/noisier. The c41 colours are more complex and nuanced, but there is also more colour noise and it is difficult for me to get a high degree of saturation from colour c41 in a particular channel without the colours all going nuts together. The highlight tolerance of the print film is of course superior, but that is the one and only negative with regard to slide film, as far as I am concerned. I am of course happy to share my drum scan results. Or to show negs and slides if we should meet in person.

But in summary, I shoot b&w and c41 and E6... all three very happily. They are simply different media that I use for different purposes.

 

[removed account4]

hi brad

yeah
i agree slide film is expensive to buy and to have processed
but the way i look at it is that the end product, that might cost 4 or 6 dollars
but ... it is the end product, and soup to nuts probably it costs about the same to
buy, process and print either black and white or color negative film.
i remember i was whining about the cost of polaroids (4x5) years ago
their expense and all that, and my counter pointer pointed out that
the polaroid was the final product, so all in all, it wasn't that much more expensive
AND if it was 55pn you got a sweet negative too ...
i have a whole bunch of 8x10 ( or is it 5x7 ) fuji slide film i got outdated from freestyle a few years ago
and it is sitting in my cold zone ready for me to shoot it this summer.
i hope the labs around me will still process it!
( or should i say i hope the 2 existing pro lab in the whole state don't go out of business before i shoot it )
... i am on septic and and the last thing i want to deal with is color chemicals in my tank ..

have fun!
john

 

[waynecrider]

I thought in it's day that slide film was the prefered medium for stock sales; And wasn't Playboy shot on positive film?

I shoot slide in 35mm and the cost if much more reasonable then getting C41 printed.

 

[Uncle Bill]

I go back and forth...I say I'm through with color slides film and after a few months I buy more....repeat...

Here's what I like about color transparency film (I'm relating to 4x5 but, it probably applies to smaller formats as well)

1) Great color.
2) no guilty feeling because you still haven't printed it.
3) When its developed, its done.

what I don't like:
1) ruthlessly unforgiving about exposure errrors
2) expensive
3) I have to send it out for processing and...(see #2 )
4) did I mention that it is expensive!

Brad pretty much covered it, however I will add the disappearing E-6 labs to the list of I don't like and I am currently doing research on how to develop slide film at home.

 

[StorminMatt]

I know, I get what you are saying and I am saying that I could just as easily say that c41 can't be projected, and declare that a disadvantage of c41!

I should also add that E6/K14 is better for making prints than C41 is for making slides. I have had prints made from slides that look GREAT. But all that I can say about making slides from C41 (which I tried last fall through Dale Labs) is never again! They looked downright hideous.

As for the days being numbered for slide film, C41 people need to wake up and smell the coffee. Because digital has C41's days numbered just as well.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

I should also add that E6/K14 is better for making prints than C41 is for making slides. I have had prints made from slides that look GREAT. But all that I can say about making slides from C41 (which I tried last fall through Dale Labs) is never again! They looked downright hideous.

As for the days being numbered for slide film, C41 people need to wake up and smell the coffee. Because digital has C41's days numbered just as well.

My experiences - and predictions - are the opposite of yours, Matt. Straight prints from slides is iffy because so many slides are if shot under less than ideal lighting. I'm sure you have some that look "GREAT," just as I've had some that were "less than GREAT."

If Dale is using the movie industry "print" material to make slides from C41, well, that is certainly a contrast mismatch. When I used to shoot that film and had it processed by Identicolor in North Hollywood, the slides were the good stuff, the prints suffering from low contrast. Once again, contrast mismatches.

As I mentioned, RGB Labs in Hollywood did me well fifteen years ago converting C41 negs to beautiful slides using the intended Verichrome product. The four digit product number escapes me right now. Obviously, any time another generation is added, quality goes down a tick. The Verichrome slides would not pass a side by side with slide originals, but for general use, they were fine. And I could get perfect C41 prints, of course, too.

If slide films become unavailable, it will happen well before C41. I can't think of a professional customer base for slide. NO one is using slide film except die hards. All of the markets accept digital as long as it is of high quality. When that last Kodachrome lab gives up, E6 won't be far behind. The last local E6 lab is considering giving it up, lack of use and EPA regs. But their C41 keeps humming, even if at a lesser rate than five years ago.

 

[Bruce Watson]

Ouch, that was a backhanded comment - good job I'm not thin skinned .

That wasn't my intent. I'm sorry you took it that way. If I was good at expressing myself with words, I wouldn't need photography so much!

My point was (0r was intended to be) that no film is perfect; that all induce errors of various types and to various degrees. People have preferences as well. What we have to do is find where the errors from the films/cameras/processes fit best with our preferences. IOW, what people should to do is find the film and workflow that makes them comfortable. If they are comfortable with their choices they can spend less time fighting their tools and more time making their art.

Quite right though - I've nothing against anyone liking colour negative; it's just not for me personally. I don't try and justify my preferences on the basis of their perceived superiority, though - I just prefer 'em because I prefer 'em.

To be honest, the anti-slide-film minority here on APUG are really starting to bore me witless (not you Bruce, and not even this thread particularly, but this is just the most recent of many threads around the subject in which the same old arguments and the same old suspects crop up, and I'm getting sick of it.) The arguments sound exactly, almost word for word like the arguments trotted out in dozens of other fora across the Internet for why we should shoot digital instead of film.

There is that. I quit participating in digi/film threads years ago since there wasn't any real point. Too much like arguing religion; a serious waste of anyone's time. Still, looking at the posts from last night on this thread there are some good technical arguments to be made for using C-41 if your goal is prints. But I've seen plenty of good prints made from tranny originals too. I've even made some of those myself.

Still, in the end, people should find and use the tools and workflows that make them the most comfortable. It is, or it should be, more about art and less about tools.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Great post, Bruce.

Being "less about tools" also means there is a place for digital. It's another tool to get the art you want. And nothing can beat it for snaps. I love my film cameras (all the way back to WWII Leica) and I love my digital.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

I said previously, "I used to get slides made from color negative film onto that Verichrome product by RGB color in Hollywood. I loved the results, and unlike those movie film reloads, prints were of regular contrast."

I looked this up finally, and the first thing that slapped was it was VeriCOLOR, not CHROME. Of course. Anyway, it was called Vericolor Print Film 4111 in sizes from 4x5 to 30x40, and Vericolor Slide Film 5072 in 35 and 46mm. This is how they made those rolls of slides way back when that we saw in school. Quote from Photographic Materials and Processes (1979): "These products are designed to make color transparencies from color negatives, and they replace Kodak Ektacolor Print and slide films......"

There are a number of returns from a Google search. The literature for both is at http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e24/e24.pdf

 

[keithwms]

I should also add that E6/K14 is better for making prints than C41 is for making slides. I have had prints made from slides that look GREAT. But all that I can say about making slides from C41 (which I tried last fall through Dale Labs) is never again! They looked downright hideous.

Well yep, that was my original point in this and some other related threads. I see these as different media for different purposes. I think we as photographers need to be fighting to maintain the diversity... equipment diversity, film diversity. The digi world wants us all to use the same sensors and roughly the same gear. So I see a net homogenization of photography that bugs me.

On the question of whether good prints can be had from E6, I have yet to hear anybody tell me that my E6 prints have a colour cast or whatever.

RE: the drum file I posted of a luna moth, I think it's obvious why I picked velvia 100 for that: I wanted the green primary in the moth to play against the green leaves, while still maintaining neutral treatment of the browns and greys in the barrel. The colour play between the moth and the leaves was the major theme, so... velvia it was.

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

Now, I would hasten to add that I got what I wanted from velvia 100 with *zero* postprocessing/filtering whatever. The slide is/was in perfect agreement with what I wanted. Period. So I'd say the film was "perfect" for that particular shot. Of course, I am not saying that the shot is perfect! It can never be. I am saying that the film delivered precisely what I was after. So for my taste, velvia was the perfect choice.

A related example, this time in favour of the choice of c41, would be this shot of a bee on a passion flower:

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

For this case I definitely wanted c41 colour overall, and the sun and the sun's rays were directly incorporated to make a visual link, so... high subject brightness range. I also needed more speed because there was a moving bee in the scene and I wanted for it to be recognizable.

Different media for different purposes. Neither shot could have been done with the other medium and given results as good, in my opinion.

Bottom line (finally!)... here is my manifesto: we film photographers must try to preserve the diversity of gear and of film and not undercut others' opinions or preferences on either of those issues. On the whole, the #1 reason why I shoot film is diversity of gear and media. Art requires diversity, art breathes and generates diversity.

 

[L Gebhardt]

I've luckily missed all the Slide film should die discussions. I guess I have never seen it as print or slide film. I like both. Right now I am interested in wet printing my color images. For that I have much less hassle with C-41 and RA4 than with E6 and Ilfochrome. I still use both and will be very unhappy if either disappears. With the 4x5 I frequently shoot the same scene with both films. What is surprising to me is that I can frequently get a print that matches the slide, and usually surpasses the raw slide. Sure adds to the expense, but I have a ton of frozen Provia I got for dirt cheap a few years ago and I want to use it up before it goes bad. So the added cost is only in the processing.

 

[tim_walls]

Still, in the end, people should find and use the tools and workflows that make them the most comfortable. It is, or it should be, more about art and less about tools.

Absolutely; I would have thought this is a sentiment that would go without saying on APUG, but apparently there is a blind spot when it comes to slide film.

When someone admits to liking platinum printing, why is it we don't get a load of smartarses trying to 'prove' they are wrong and that there are graphs to prove they should prefer resin coated B&W printing? It can't just be because Kodak don't even play in that game any more...


There are people here who clearly will be delighted when E6 isn't available, and other than base mean spiritedness against people who simply prefer a different aesthetic and different way of working to themselves I just can't understand why. Maybe it's some kind of insecurity and need to have their own choices validated by seeing others' taken away.