Every chance I get!I have not used transparency film many years. Negative film has better grain, better laditude in exposure and processing. Granted, if they for projection slides are the way to go but how often would you subject friends/family to slide shows?
Back in the film days, a lot of art directors preferred transparencies ...
It used to be that magazines and such required slides...
Transparencies tend to be sharper. But color neg film has better latitude.
No.
Transparencies will rely more on the quality of the lens for "sharpness" (perceived or actual) in addition to the baseline characteristics of the film; "sharp" slide film is not the same as "sharp" negative film. This will be very evident during projection, and evident again during printing, which will determine the maximum enlargement before a loss of quality is observed, especially with smaller formats e.g. 35mm.
Grain structure for transparencies and negatives are not one and the same. Negatives (e.g. TMax, ADOX CMS 20; Portra and Ektar; Rollei...) provide for bigger, very sharp and clear enlargements with characteristically better tonal distribution and latitude irrespective of the quality of the lens (all things like technique being considered). Slide film has never benefited from ground breaking advances in grain technology — there is nothing particularly special about Fuji's films, for example. This is one of the prime reasons people do not like the idea of shooting transparencies, because there are so many perceived "failings" when in fact they are characteristics of the type of film. As with everything, a little knowledge goes a long, long way.
Transparencies also lose a small amount of their inherent sharpness during hybrid print processing.
From Grant Haist's chapter on reversal processing:
Fineness of Grain
The largest grains are the most developable. Thus these large grains are developed in the FD and bleached away, so that they do not form part of the final image (or do not form large dye clouds if color film is used).
Sharpness of the Image
The FD is a contrasty developer which promotes beneficial edge effects. Additionally, any direct positive process avoids any sharpness loss from neg-pos systems.
Absence of Fog
The FD is very foggy, so all fog is bleached away, leaving a virtually fog-free positive image.
Absence of White Dust Spots
Any dust of dirt on the film will produce a black spot on the film, which is much more discrete than a white spot that occurs with neg-pos processes.
Of course, there are disadvantages, and as you asked about color prints, I should say that I think if prints are your primary concern, negative film is superior. I'm not sure what method you are considering when you talk about printing slides: RA-4 reversal, tricolor carbon from separation negatives, or some non-analog process. IMO, there's currently not a truly excellent way of producing prints from slides. Slide film is contrasty and is hard to print. Color slide film doesn't make use of the colored couplers as a mask to compensate for deficiencies in the couplers.
//Warning: begin shameless proselytization
Why do I use slides? Stereo photography. There's nothing that comes REMOTELY close to the look of properly exposed Medium format stereo pair in a backlit handheld viewer. You will think you are actually standing where the camera was. I don't need prints for my final output, so that's something I don't need to worry about. I cannot communicate what an incredible experience it is. To embark on an incredible adventure, buy yourself a Russian MF camera called the Sputnik. Find out more (and ask questions) here: https://groups.yahoo.com/.../MF3D.../conversations/messages
I misspoke here. I didn't mean to say direct positive, what I meant to say was reversal process. Sorry for muddying the waters. Grant's point was that "Elimination of the printing of the negative image, a necessary step with the negative-positive process, avoids degradation of the image characteristics."Additionally, any direct positive process avoids any sharpness loss from neg-pos systems.
I'm using Ilfochrome without masking. It's contrast is greatly lower than Ilford Direct Positive + it's possible to control it using dilution/temperature/using different developing agents.
But masking should work, of course.
Thanks for your corrections, PE. Most appreciated. If I may follow-up on a few points:
1. The exact quote is:
"The large silver halide crystals in a photographic emulsion are often the most developable. These are exposed during the initial light exposure and form the silver image during the first development." (p313, V2)
I guess he meant that since the large crystals are most likely to be exposed, and since the FD is pretty active, it is likely that they will be developed during first development?
2. "Improved image sharpness results from the development of the residual fine-grained silver halide by a contrasty developer often exhibiting beneficial edge effects." (p314)
I can see how my post implied that there was a connection between a contrasty developer and a edge-enhancing effects. I guess the better way to put it is that the FD has both the independent attributes of 1) being contrasty and 2) producing edge effects.
3.
I misspoke here. I didn't mean to say direct positive, what I meant to say was reversal process. Sorry for muddying the waters. Grant's point was that "Elimination of the printing of the negative image, a necessary step with the negative-positive process, avoids degradation of the image characteristics."
Thanks a lot for the information in your other points.
"Why slide film instead of print?"
I give up. Why?
That's a rather short answer.
Do you mean "Why would anyone in their right mind shoot slide film with its inherent color inaccuracy, tight exposure tolerance, high contrast results"?
"When a satisfactory print at the very least requires difficult to obtain material, but even when that material was widely available you could sometimes get a satisfying print but most of the time you would find out that masking is needed to really create the print you imagined. And while masking is just a technique that you could learn and use, the whole idea of making another film copy and developing it, feels counter to your intense desire to see something come out of this darkroom session."
"A far better choice would be color negative film. When you want a print, you should use a film that was designed to be printed. Professional portrait photographers knew it all along, they always used color negative film because they knew the end result was going to be a print."
"And you don't have to be a professional to appreciate the wide range of exposures that you can give the film and still produce a print of nearly the same quality. Color correction is far more convenient when your original is a negative."
If you print your own negatives, optically, no one in their right mind would shoot slides to make prints.
Of course that didn't stop me! I have some beautiful Cibachrome prints to prove it.
Today a case could be made for control. Slide film is unforgiving. A third of a stop can ruin your day. But, that gives you control of the output.
If you shoot negative film and send it to a lab for processing, you can bracket 2 stops under and 3 stops over and get 6 identical looking prints back.
When I shoot 35mm slides with my F5 I use auto bracketing. 1/3 EV above and below what the meter says.. I have 3 images to choose from I mount the one I like best.
If I want a print I take it to University Camera in Iowa City and have a print made. They scan and tweet (just a bit ) and print on Fuji Crystal Archive.
Then I store it for all time in a Carousel slide tray.
Just making prints! If you can print RA 4 color prints, shoot Portra and Ektar.
Best Regards Mike
That's a rather short answer.
Do you mean "Why would anyone in their right mind shoot slide film with its inherent color inaccuracy, tight exposure tolerance, high contrast results"?
"When a satisfactory print at the very least requires difficult to obtain material, but even when that material was widely available you could sometimes get a satisfying print but most of the time you would find out that masking is needed to really create the print you imagined. And while masking is just a technique that you could learn and use, the whole idea of making another film copy and developing it, feels counter to your intense desire to see something come out of this darkroom session."
"A far better choice would be color negative film. When you want a print, you should use a film that was designed to be printed. Professional portrait photographers knew it all along, they always used color negative film because they knew the end result was going to be a print."
"And you don't have to be a professional to appreciate the wide range of exposures that you can give the film and still produce a print of nearly the same quality. Color correction is far more convenient when your original is a negative."
...Projection favors transparencies (slides) but few use slide projectors anymore! So to answer the question, no, there is little or no reason to shoot transparencies.
...color transparency film if was to be used for color publication (magazines mostly). ... Projection favors transparencies (slides) but few use slide projectors anymore! So to answer the question, no, there is little or no reason to shoot transparencies.
for ... transparency films ... It's not the film that is to blame, but the photographer!
In the past, the process used by the magazine printing industry involved preparation of separation negatives. That process was keyed to transparencies, because the editors used transparencies in their editing workflow.It sounds strange and curious that nowadays it is only useful for projection (for some) and yet years ago it was also useful for magazines
In the past, the process used by the magazine printing industry involved preparation of separation negatives. That process was keyed to transparencies, because the editors used transparencies in their editing workflow. If negative film had been used, the editors would have needed prints for the editing process. Than the preparation of separation negatives would have required inter-positives before the preparation of final internegatives. In each case, In essence, they wanted slides, because they preferred working with slides (visual reference) and their systems were set up for slides.
Now everything is done digitally.
...In essence, they wanted slides, because they preferred working with slides (visual reference) and their systems were set up for slides.
Now everything is done digitally.
Good practice is that for small format film (35mm), ±0.5 steps over- and under compensation; MF and LF, to ±0.3 or ±0.5 steps. The greater spread of contrast and tone over the bigger size makes it much easier to discern where changes have taken place in either step compensation.
±0.6 in 35mm is way too much for most transparency films and going ±2.0 stops accounts for a huge number of balsed-up errors in exposure of the examples shown to me. It's not the film that is to blame, but the photographer! All of my MF transparency work (and very occasional 35mm) for A-to-D hybrid RA4 is in ±0.5 steps.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?