Why did magazines prefer slides to negatives?

[MattKing]

Remember that my initial comment was in response to a comment about slides (the final product) not film designed to be developed to a positive.
The dynamic range of a projected slide is about ten times the dynamic range of a print.
A computer screen has a higher dynamic range than a print.
Again, it is important to differentiate between the capacity of different films to record dynamic range in a usable manner from the capacity of a presentation medium to display dynamic range.
A "slide" isn't a capture medium, it is a presentation medium.
A film designed to be developed to form a positive image is a capture medium, not a presentation medium. It is capable of recording much more than 5 stops of dynamic range, but the only way to present (extract) that range is to develop that film as a positive and then project it.
Magazines preferred slides to prints or negatives for a large variety of reasons, but one of them was that a viewed slide was much more likely to give an editor an accurate impression of the visual power of the image than a negative or a poor print.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Seems like everyone has forgotten that, er .... color film involves the reproduction of color itself. It's not just about hypothetical dynamic range, but about what happens to specific hues and color relationships over that range, for which there is simply no generic answer. It all depends. Lots and lots and lots of variables.

 

[jtk]

Seems like everyone has forgotten that, er .... color film involves the reproduction of color itself. It's not just about hypothetical dynamic range, but about what happens to specific hues and color relationships over that range, for which there is simply no generic answer. It all depends. Lots and lots and lots of variables.

That's wildly off-topic. See the OT.

When professional photographers switched from color film to digital, they left slides, not negative film.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

One reason I could think of are photo editors need to see a positive image before it's approved for publication and on the design and printing end, a positive makes it easier visually for layout. When I shot transparencies for publication, I tried to turn in work that is color balanced. With color negatives, it would be an extra step to balance out the color. Color transparencies tend to be sharper. If you blow out a highlight on color transparency film, it can't be recovered. On color negative film, the neg gets denser make it possible to recover highlights.

 

[StepheKoontz]

That's wildly off-topic. See the OT.

When professional photographers switched from color film to digital, they left slides, not negative film.

I don't know any wedding photogs or portrait shooters who shot slide film. I know I never did.

 

[StepheKoontz]

When I first mentioned dynamic range, I was referring to an image viewed (and scanned) with transmitted light has more tonal range between the darkest and lightest areas as compared to a reflective light image (print).

But again, a slide can only record 5-6 stop range. If you shot the same contrasty scene with slide film and negative film and then scanned both, the scanned negative would have a lot more usable details in the shadows/highlights. Just because transmitted light/projection looks more "dynamic" to the viewer than a reflected light print, doesn't mean it has more dynamic range.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Of course portrait photographers shot chrome film, and did so for decades. Most of the high-end work was done this way - carbro, dye transfer, and then even Ciba printing. Color neg was more convenient; but the C prints faded quickly. I don't know what jtk is griping about. Halftone repro is still held captive to what's actually on the film or not. And the switch to digital affected all kinds of color film use, not just slides.

 

[MattKing]

Just because transmitted light/projection looks more "dynamic" to the viewer than a reflected light print, doesn't mean it has more dynamic range.

A projected slide has ten times the dynamic range of a (paper) print - slightly more than 3 stops extra.
A negative film has a greater ability to record dynamic range in a form that can be converted to other, high and low dynamic range media - that is why motion pictures are recorded on low contrast negative films - when those negative films are printed again onto further, negative materials intended for projection, the dynamic range of the resulting positive projection print far exceeds the dynamic range of a paper print.
A slide film has to be carefully exposed, because while the resulting slide has a lot of dynamic range, there is very little latitude. If you under-expose it, you will lose shadow detail, and if you over-expose it, you will lose highlight detail, and there is no intervening step that you can use to repair the problem. But you are still able to record a really wide range of light!

 

[RPC]

Here is some of what Photo Engineer had to say about the dynamic range, sharpness, and color quality of slides, color negatives, print paper, and print film:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/further-thoughts-on-color-negs-vs-slides-and-dig-printing.12131/
(post #6)

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/c-41-and-slides.39804/
(post #14)

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/help-dynamic-range-c41.19210/
(post #13)

I found this most interesting:

"In the final analysis, a transparency made from a negative embodies the highest form of rendition, photographically, of the original scene, as it can reproduce the original at a dmax up to 4.0 or 5.0, having none of the limitations of the transparency films, but unfortunately these print films no longer exist. It achieves this only through being a 2 step reproduction process with separate films and processes to achieve the optimum positive image"

 

[DREW WILEY]

That refers to tricolor RGB separation negatives made in camera using a black and white film with a very long straight line, then making a b&w film interpositive from each. One of the earliest applications was to align the respective negatives of three carbon arc projectors to create a single overlapping image. It is perfectly feasible to do that again. It would be a very long, slow, hot slide show; but the dynamic range could potentially be incredible. I've heard old timers describe those shows.

 

[RPC]

Printing a negative directly to print film also produces a transparency with a high brightness range as is evident in movies. Print film too has a high dmax, around 4.0.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The difference is that RGB separations on b&w film preserve the hue purity over the entire range. That is what Technicolor did to some extent, using a true tricolor camera. But color neg film rapidly gets quite a bit of dye crossover, hence a different, less clean look, no matter the brightness range of the projected final.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Printing a negative directly to print film also produces a transparency with a high brightness range as is evident in movies. Print film too has a high dmax, around 4.0.

I enjoy watching slides on my 75" 4K UHD TV. Since it transmits light, it produces bright, sharp and contrasty displays. Adding music and narration makes it even better. It's quick to set up and show since everything is stored on a memory card attached to the TV through the USB. Unlike a movie theater using digital where it's lamps are often worn and displays are dim, the TV is always displaying its maximum output. I know some people say it's not "pure" enough. Well, I think it's pretty damn good.

 

[ericdan]

Once you had your type-r or cibachrome print. How did you then mass print it with the same color for magazines?

 

[jamesaz]

Once you had your type-r or cibachrome print. How did you then mass print it with the same color for magazines?

You’d still need to make separations because you’d have to run ink on paper but since you’d be starting with a transparency before making an R or Ciba print there’d be no point, generally.

 

[Bikerider]

My ex wife used to work for a very high quality Greetings Card Company about 30 years ago where their trademark was almost every card printed was from a colour transparency of classical oil and water colour paintings. The film material was Ektachrome. Although most cards were printed around 6x8 inches, the transparencies used were 10x8. Consequently the quality was superb. I saw one of the transparencies and believe me a 10x8 transparency is a magnificent thing to hold. This transparency was actually a reject because the lighting used was not perfect and there were dark areas, where on the original had detail but absent on the copy - they were that particular and it had to be re-photographed. The quality of the finished card was perfect.

If you google 'The Medici Society' which was name of the company you can see the quality of their work today (They are still using large format transparencies.

 

[jtk]

Of course portrait photographers shot chrome film, and did so for decades. Most of the high-end work was done this way - carbro, dye transfer, and then even Ciba printing. Color neg was more convenient; but the C prints faded quickly. I don't know what jtk is griping about. Halftone repro is still held captive to what's actually on the film or not. And the switch to digital affected all kinds of color film use, not just slides.

I'm not "griping"..I'm trying to continue the focus on the OT.

. The OT asked why magazines wanted slides.

Obviously some portrait photographers occasionally used slides but the vast majority used color neg...few portrait specialist labs ran Ektachrome lines.

If a magazine was going to print a portrait it virtually always insisted on a slide. In my experience with dozens of "high end" portrait photographers, few ever shot Ektachrome (my two labs processed thousands of rolls of E4 and E6 for commercial photographers ) we never saw and didn't want portrait work)...other labs ran C22 and C41..

Ciba was rarely more than a hobbiest's toy.

Carbro (and yes, I've seen it) accounted for the peculiar flat color/tone we see in vintage magazines.

I have no data on this, but I suspect most portrait photographers stuck with C41 for a long time before switching...because there was a lag between the time when digital made sense for journalism and amateurs and the time when it became good enough for typical commercial work (fashion, products etc).

 

[warden]

Here is some of what Photo Engineer had to say about the dynamic range, sharpness, and color quality of slides, color negatives, print paper, and print film:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/further-thoughts-on-color-negs-vs-slides-and-dig-printing.12131/
(post #6)

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/c-41-and-slides.39804/
(post #14)

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/help-dynamic-range-c41.19210/
(post #13)

I found this most interesting:

"In the final analysis, a transparency made from a negative embodies the highest form of rendition, photographically, of the original scene, as it can reproduce the original at a dmax up to 4.0 or 5.0, having none of the limitations of the transparency films, but unfortunately these print films no longer exist. It achieves this only through being a 2 step reproduction process with separate films and processes to achieve the optimum positive image"

OT follows, friends, so if you're sensitive to OT don't read it.

Thanks for those links, which I enjoyed. This thread is interesting to me because like everyone else I've read that negative film has more dynamic range than positive film, but it's never felt that way to me when actually looking at the results. Comparing a negative film to a positive film gives one result when viewed as mid-process raw materials (the negative is superior), but then comparing end-of-process results - i.e. comparing prints to projections - gives a different result to my eye (the projection appears superior).

When I hold a properly exposed slide up to the sky the darks look fairly dark and the hi-lights are about as bright as the ever-lovin' sun which is an enormous perceived range. Looking at a print in broad daylight doesn't give me that same subjective impression. If I understand what PE was saying the print is apparently delivering more dynamic range but it sure doesn't feel that way to my retinas!

 

[RPC]

The true dynamic range of a negative will be experienced when a transparency is made from it and projected. Its superiority over slide film can then be observed. The color quality and sharpness will also be better, or at least on par.

 

[jtk]

The true dynamic range of a negative will be experienced when a transparency is made from it and projected. Its superiority over slide film can then be observed. The color quality and sharpness will also be better, or at least on par.

Seems like an antique idea.

Just exactly what transparency material are you using to make your positives from negatives?

 

[jtk]

Once you had your type-r or cibachrome print. How did you then mass print it with the same color for magazines?

Type R was a useful product for people who weren't personally capable of making Ektacolor prints..and couldn't afford to have somebody else make proper internegs.

Ciba was a toy. It went away because it couldn't compete with better products.

 

[RPC]

Seems like an antique idea.

Just exactly what transparency material are you using to make your positives from negatives?

Please read correctly I didn't say I was doing that. I just stated it as fact. The motion picture industry used that technique for highest quality, and as far as I know, motion pictures can still be made that way. My understanding is it is no longer available for C-41 films.

 

[DREW WILEY]

JTK - you are either spouting off ignorant nonsense or predictably trolling as usual. The biggest lab in SF specialized in Ciba, and had their own portrait studios (plural) to go along with it. They had 30 enlargers in operation, half of them 8x10, not exactly a "hobby". Multiple other labs in the Bay Area specialized in Ciba too. Ektacolor was the easiest, most economical process, Type R just the reversal version. Dye transfer was considered the premium alternative until Ciba largely killed it off due to greater simplicity. Now go back and stare at another thousand predictable Muench calendar pictures, if you have nothing of substance to contribute.

 

[Pieter12]

Whenever high-end color retouching was necessary, it was always on a dye transfer print or a Cibachrome. Type R prints were muddy and blocked up in comparison.

This was before Photoshop, before any computer retouching. The first I recall was on a SciTech or Quantum machine where the retoucher worked on a huge console and the computer was in a separate, cooled room! And the output was an 8x10 color transparency, printers couldn't deal with anything digital yet.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Cibachrome was hell to retouch. I specialized in it. Now I get very similar results more easily on the Fujiflex Supergloss medium. I hope I finally find enough time to get back to my stash of dye transfer supplies before my own clock runs out; but it is time consuming and labor intensive. The biggest console I ever saw was when my nephew was living with me while studying at UCB. He got work at Lawrence Lab stitching early satellite photos of the backside of the moon. This was well before Photoshop stitching. It was a six million dollar work station with a monitor screen six feet wide - can't remember if it was Scitex or IBM built. Now he has his own geophysics company.