What film has the best dynamic range ?

Sophisticated scanners have programmable controls that allow you to do exactly that. And those are often linked directly to big laser printers programmable to specific RA4 printing papers. Fuji has downloadable settings for Frontier, Noritsu, Lamdba, Lightjet, and Chromira printers. Inkjet printers have their own kind of software. You might want to query on the hybrid section of the forum, rather than here. But there are certain people who are unsatisfied with that, so develop and even market their own alternate software.

Alan Edward Klein said:

If the mask and its complementing factor vary with the colors in the negative, how does the process know how to compensate for it? Does the compensation factor vary with the colors in the scene?

Click to expand...

The process doesn't do the compensating - the components in the mask adjust in response to the colour information in the film. The entire process is automatic and self compensating. The process just develops it.

DREW WILEY said:

Or look at a developed neg atop the lightbox through a medium blue filter

Click to expand...

Is there a specific Wratten number (or other designation) of filter which would work best for neutralising the orange mask?

I'm curious now about using such a filter on the taking lens when digitising negatives with a camera; in theory it should balance exposure of the separate colour channels and make the inversion process more straightforward.

edit: ah, I see this was already asked to some degree.

For people trying to digitize color neg images using a DLSR copy system rather than via a scanner, it would be best to research the threads of people who are already doing that, or trying to do that. But the roughly equivalent blue filter to an average orange density mask would be a common tungsten conversion 80A or 80B, which are readily available in glass, and should be good enough to at least get you started experimenting. But you should be able to internally adjust the color balance of your digital camera that amount, and perhaps more accurately. Consult the hybrid or digital portion of the forum.

GLS said:

Is there a specific Wratten number (or other designation) of filter which would work best for neutralising the orange mask?

I'm curious now about using such a filter on the taking lens when digitising negatives with a camera; in theory it should balance exposure of the separate colour channels and make the inversion process more straightforward.

edit: ah, I see this was already asked to some degree.

Click to expand...

For what useful purpose? It is for color optimization when printed.

Sirius Glass said:

For what useful purpose? It is for color optimization when printed.

Click to expand...

Because I would expect it to better unify the RGB channel responses so that a more ideal exposure could be made for each (rather than avoidance of red clipping in unfiltered captures limiting exposure of the other two channels), and hence probably give more accurate colour reproduction and decreased noise when inverted. Adjusting the white balance in camera (or RAW processing) to neutralise the orange mask may give an end result difficult to distinguish, but I'd be curious to test pre-filtration anyway.

Anyway, sorry for getting off topic.

GLS said:

Because I would expect it to better unify the RGB channel responses so that a more ideal exposure could be made for each (rather than avoidance of red clipping in unfiltered captures limiting exposure of the other two channels), and hence probably give more accurate colour reproduction and decreased noise when inverted. Adjusting the white balance in camera (or RAW processing) to neutralise the orange mask may give an end result difficult to distinguish, but I'd be curious to test pre-filtration anyway.

Anyway, sorry for getting off topic.

Click to expand...

Still off topic: one would loose the color accuracy by eliminating the orange mask. Many years of research went in to determining that the orange mask was definitely needed and you are going to toss it out based on exactly what? Nothing but a hunch and blind trust that you can do better than decades of experts?

Sirius Glass said:

Many years of research went in to determining that the orange mask was definitely needed and you are going to toss it out based on exactly what? Nothing but a hunch and blind trust that you can do better than decades of experts?

Click to expand...

I am not talking about "tossing it out", simply considering another way to compensate/optimise for the orange mask in a hybrid neg-pos process for which it was never designed.

And wouldn't you know? After doing some digging around on this topic it appears my "hunch and blind trust" has some merit after all:

(From the Negmaster guide to DSLR scanning at https://negmaster.com/negmaster-user-guide/)

Scanning with DSLR:​

An extensive guide to correctly exposing film with a DSLR can be found in the NEGMASTER Blog.

• Use even Backlights. Evenness is key for finding correct tonality in your negatives.
• Avoid stray light. Use a lens hood and mask out the area around your negs.
• Use “hot light”. It provides full CRI* and GAI* what will lead to correct saturation and tone value distribution.
• Try to compensate the orange mask with your light source as it was done in enlargers.
• If you can’t compensate it with you light source consider using filters in front of your lens. Like an 80a for example.
• When DSLR Scanning, set white balance in Camera on the film border thus it will alter histogram and therefore exposure.
• The more you compensate the orange mask with white balance, the more noise you will get in the blue and green channel (cyan cast). [i.e. exactly the point I made earlier]
• Use bright backlights. The brighter, the shorter the shutter times, the better the sharpness.
• Shoot in AV mode without film rebate and sprocket holes to achieve proper exposure for the different densities of every frame.
• Stop your lens down to at least f8 for good corner sharpness.
• Avoid dust. Although NEGMASTER is very tolerant, too much dust can mess up tonal values during conversion. Rough dust and scratches can be removed in Camera Raw Converter or Lightroom prior to conversion.

Anyway, let's please not derail this thread any further or engage in unpleasant bickering. I'm sure we both have better things to do.

What do Epson scanners do when scanning color negative film to correct for the orange mask?

Does anyone have a good "derailing train" graphic?
This thread is madly careening toward a thread about digital/hybrid topics.
If you want to discuss ways of dealing with the orange mask while digitizing film, we have a sub-forum or two for that.

If someone needs to know how to null out the orange mask bias of color neg film when attempting to generate a pan film inter-positive for b&w printing use, or perhaps as a supplementary mask useful in darkroom color printing, I can supply that information. But it's all somewhere on this "analog" forum already.

It really depends on the total negative density range that the emulsion can capture. In my experience, Kodak's vision line of cinema film have a much lower contrast which allows them to capture quite a bit more exposure latitude in 2.7 to 3.0 negative density range. Very few color negative films will have negative densities higher than 2.7 to 3.0 simply because much more than that and you start to really overwhelm any antihalation that's there and light pipes all over the place through the emulsion support. Even then, with the strongest antihalation you can get, if you're dumping enough light onto the emulsion to get densities up above 2.4, stuff will start to bloom, especially if it's a low contrast film that takes a lot of light to register changes in density.

All that aside, if you want C-41 process films, Portra 400 has the most highlight overhead before colors start to get weird, followed by Fuji 400H, then Portra 160, then Portra 800, then Ektar 100. The consumer films (gold, ultramax, color plus, pro image 100, etc.) start to get weird 2-3 stops over, the pro line films extend that by a solid 1-2 stops or more.

Well on a most votes basis it looks to be Portra 160 but with the occasional vote for 500T and Portra 800.

Is that a fair summary of things so far. I wasn't sure how to classify Adrian's nuances for the various films he mentioned

pentaxuser

The whole point of pro films is that they're more carefully monitored and stored, so logically deserve more thoughtful exposure as well if one is going to get the most out of them. Porta's "latitude" is mainly a function of its low contrast. The opposite is Ektar, which is relatively high contrast for a CN film, and therefore needs tighter exposure. No way I'd EVER allow a stop over-exposure with Ektar unless it was a sheer accident, though even that is less of a felony than underexposing it a stop. That's just inviting crossover, either direction, unless the scene contrast itself is low to begin with. I haven't used Fuji CN film in a long time (more than 20 yrs), so can't comment on them.

What is the established or most used methods of defining a full stop of information?

I have no doubt that negative CN or B&W has more range than other methods of capture.
But we have to, if not compare apples to apples, then at least compare fruit to fruit.

The CMOS sensors that is usually measured that is, if we are going to be honest, what we are comparing against, always seems to have a very liberal definition of what a stop is.

Helge said:

What is the established or most used methods of defining a full stop of information?

Click to expand...

Well, for b&w film I'd say it would be to expose/develop a sensitometric wedge. Then read it with a traditional densitometer, using something like a 2 or 3 mm diameter measuring aperture. Then you can judge, in a somewhat arbitrary way, at what point you think the response curve is still useful.

The digital camera guys don't like to see this method used to show a maximum luminance-recording range for film. They like to try to restrict the measurement to the same area as a digital camera pixel. When you do this the grain of the film can come into play, so they like to say, "oh, there's so much "noise" between multiple readings that you can't use such and such a step when measuring dynamic range." (They can't win the argument otherwise, so they like to impose their own rules.)

I think that ultimately one would have to consider how large a print, for example, would be to set some sort of useful limit for "noise." It's just not real cut and dried when you start to examine things real closely.

Are latitude and dynamic range used interchangeably?

Both terms can be potentially misleading. Lots of people seem to use "latitude" as if thinking, Just how careless can I be with exposure and still land something vaguely usable? I call them shoot from the hip types. They'd rather waste 500 rolls of film than spend fifteen seconds with a light meter. "Dynamic range" is hypothetically measurable, but means different things to different people. Some take the full scale of what a densitometer can detect, which might come up as a tinge of color on the film; but how much of that is realistically usable in any image-forming context? It's like saying you just built a submarine that is capable of reaching the bottom of the Marianas Trench. Well, so is a rock. So is a sunken ship which never comes back up.

Sensitometry is a hard science. But only a portion of what can be plotted is usable for real-world printmaking in any quality sense. The whole original question is hard to pin down. Yeah, certain color films have way more "dynamic range" than others; but what are your own specific color and textural reproduction expectations? Just how much can you water the coffee down until it tastes awful? (Yeah, I know, someone will say, just Photoshop it. But that's like adding 5 lumps of sugar instead of actual coffee flavor.)

Steven Lee said:

Are latitude and dynamic range used interchangeably?

Click to expand...

Instead of just "latitude" I would use the term "exposure latitude." But this is sorta vague, too, without knowing what the original scene is. For example on a real foggy day the entire scene might only cover 2 or 3 "stops" of range. So such a scene could tolerate more exposure error, or latitude.

Most people would see "dynamic range" as either the full range of the film, or perhaps only the most "usable" range. I sorta like to use the more painful term "luminance recording range."

Mr Bill said:

Well, for b&w film I'd say it would be to expose/develop a sensitometric wedge. Then read it with a traditional densitometer, using something like a 2 or 3 mm diameter measuring aperture. Then you can judge, in a somewhat arbitrary way, at what point you think the response curve is still useful.

The digital camera guys don't like to see this method used to show a maximum luminance-recording range for film. They like to try to restrict the measurement to the same area as a digital camera pixel. When you do this the grain of the film can come into play, so they like to say, "oh, there's so much "noise" between multiple readings that you can't use such and such a step when measuring dynamic range." (They can't win the argument otherwise, so they like to impose their own rules.)

I think that ultimately one would have to consider how large a print, for example, would be to set some sort of useful limit for "noise." It's just not real cut and dried when you start to examine things real closely.

Click to expand...

There has to be some kind of spec or test sheet that you can use. Can’t always have been this arbitrary.
A step wedge records if anything is there at all.
Whether there is recordable detail and to what degree would probably be down to a backlit resolution chart.

But then even noisy grain recording some detail can matter in highlights.
Completely posterized detail, in clouds or highlights, quantized at or close to a single bit depth, doesn’t count.

DREW WILEY said:

Lots of people seem to use "latitude" as if thinking, Just how careless can I be with exposure and still land something vaguely usable?

Click to expand...

However a lot of users of film do fall into the thinking you mention above and while I try to always think what I am doing when taking a shot I'd certainly welcome knowing the "latitude" of various films. It is useful information for many users

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

However a lot of users of film do fall into the thinking you mention above and while I try to always think what I am doing when taking a shot I'd certainly welcome knowing the "latitude" of various films. It is useful information for many users

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be helpful to know the film's range when checking let's say the brightest and darkest area you want to see let's say between the sky and the ground area? That way you can determine if you need a graduated neutral density filter of one or two stops if the range exceeds the film's latitude?

Helge : Of course there are tests. I do them every single time I try a new film or encounter an unfamiliar lighting situation. I take my MacBeath Color Checker chart and run a bracket test with roll film, and see how much deviation from 18% gray certain color patches will still saturate at, or how much, etc. It is vital to have one correct box speed exposure in that series, and ideally, at correct color temperature. And a test in bright open sunlight is different in a test in soft light. You might need both. In other words, tailor these tests to your own circumstances, not web hearsay. "Go to the horse's mouth."

Any generic "spec sheet" is likely to be questionable. Everything is dependent upon how you want to reproduce your image. For example, much of the range you might be visually able to perceive in a color slide atop a light box or using a traditional slide projector might be difficult or impossible to reproduce in a color print. The limitations of offset reproduction in a book or magazine are even more stringent. And individuals have different printing abilities in the darkroom. Some of us have advanced skills and equipment, like for contrast masking; others do not. So there is no one single answer. You have to tailor exposures to your own specific needs and esthetic proclivities.

Actual printing tests of select patches follow. Then as things get more serious, I make a sheet film master neg or chrome of whatever film I standardize on, with a perfectly exposed and color temp balanced shot of the MacBeth Chart under representative conditions. I have em clear up to 8x10 film size. Those it turn greatly speed up color balancing of any new color printing paper batches or new types. I won't go into the complications of scanning and digital workflow; that should be addressed elsewhere.

Alan - "brightest" and "darkest" are relative terms if you expect to retrieve usable color itself. But the bracket tests I just briefly described will get you on the right track. I've been an outdoor photographer for about 60 years, and have worked with all kinds of chrome films as well as color neg, and have never ever found the need to use a neutral grad filter. I'm not condemning them, but have noticed just how easily they get abused to create fishy or phony looking images.

DREW WILEY said:

Both terms can be potentially misleading. Lots of people seem to use "latitude" as if thinking, Just how careless can I be with exposure and still land something vaguely usable? I call them shoot from the hip types. They'd rather waste 500 rolls of film than spend fifteen seconds with a light meter. "Dynamic range" is hypothetically measurable, but means different things to different people. Some take the full scale of what a densitometer can detect, which might come up as a tinge of color on the film; but how much of that is realistically usable in any image-forming context? It's like saying you just built a submarine that is capable of reaching the bottom of the Marianas Trench. Well, so is a rock. So is a sunken ship which never comes back up.

Sensitometry is a hard science. But only a portion of what can be plotted is usable for real-world printmaking in any quality sense. The whole original question is hard to pin down. Yeah, certain color films have way more "dynamic range" than others; but what are your own specific color and textural reproduction expectations? Just how much can you water the coffee down until it tastes awful? (Yeah, I know, someone will say, just Photoshop it. But that's like adding 5 lumps of sugar instead of actual coffee flavor.)

Click to expand...

I only use the terms for mean usable number of f/stops and avoid all the marginal cases.

DREW WILEY said:

Helge : Of course there are tests. I do them every single time I try a new film or encounter an unfamiliar lighting situation. I take my MacBeath Color Checker chart and run a bracket test with roll film, and see how much deviation from 18% gray certain color patches will still saturate at, or how much, etc. It is vital to have one correct box speed exposure in that series, and ideally, at correct color temperature. And a test in bright open sunlight is different in a test in soft light. You might need both. In other words, tailor these tests to your own circumstances, not web hearsay. "Go to the horse's mouth."

Any generic "spec sheet" is likely to be questionable. Everything is dependent upon how you want to reproduce your image. For example, much of the range you might be visually able to perceive in a color slide atop a light box or using a traditional slide projector might be difficult or impossible to reproduce in a color print. The limitations of offset reproduction in a book or magazine are even more stringent. And individuals have different printing abilities in the darkroom. Some of us have advanced skills and equipment, like for contrast masking; others do not. So there is no one single answer. You have to tailor exposures to your own specific needs and esthetic proclivities.

Actual printing tests of select patches follow. Then as things get more serious, I make a sheet film master neg or chrome of whatever film I standardize on, with a perfectly exposed and color temp balanced shot of the MacBeth Chart under representative conditions. I have em clear up to 8x10 film size. Those it turn greatly speed up color balancing of any new color printing paper batches or new types. I won't go into the complications of scanning and digital workflow; that should be addressed elsewhere.

Alan - "brightest" and "darkest" are relative terms if you expect to retrieve usable color itself. But the bracket tests I just briefly described will get you on the right track. I've been an outdoor photographer for about 60 years, and have worked with all kinds of chrome films as well as color neg, and have never ever found the need to use a neutral grad filter. I'm not condemning them, but have noticed just how easily they get abused to create fishy or phony looking images.

Click to expand...

What do you do if the ground is in shade and you're also including a blue sky in the shot? You can easily be four stops difference which counts a lot if you're shooting chromes.