Negative Print film vs. Slide Film

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Progressiveabsolution, Jul 4, 2006.

  1. I know this group is about digital photography, but I also know many
    likely still use film on occasion...well...once in a blue moon? I have
    some questions that I do not feel have been answered well enough from
    my numerous searches on deja, internet, etc. etc. Maybe I'm looking
    for a better answer than those I have seen:). Hope some or many can
    shed light to the questions I have. I will start with perhaps an
    easier question.

    1) What is an "average" price to have film made into slides? I will use
    a dedicated film scanner at home so I only want the slides to fit into
    the tray.

    2) It seems that in spite film is not being specialized since digital
    has in the large part taken it over in terms of marketing/production,
    there does seem to be ongoing advancements with it. For example, the
    new Velvia (though never used) or Provia are the lowest grained films I
    think have ever been produced, even bettering the Velvia 100F that is
    not too old. Question 2 is: Is film indeed getting better/more
    advanced?

    3) If the answer to 2 is yes, it is advancing still, how does the
    current state of negative color print film do in terms of optical
    results when compared to slide film? I know what the two have been
    used for and what their primary intentions of use are. I'm just
    interested in whether negative film has been able to somehow break any
    barriers to provide an optical result similar to slide film OR if the
    differences through time of negative vs.slide have not changed?

    4) When dealing with slide film using a home film scanner, is one able
    to replicate the results of the slide and make the final print look
    like the slide? Or does something get lost/altered along the way?

    5) This question correlates with the above question: If a slide cannot
    be made to look the same or close enough to the slide when it is
    scanned and then printed, how close then does the negative look when it
    is scanned the same way as the slide and then printed?


    I don't want this thread to be anything to do with film vs. digital as
    I shoot both and love both. I'm just looking for people that still
    shoot with both or have enough experience with today's present state of
    film to give provide some helpful answers to the above questions posed.

    Thanks for all help and contribution
     
    Progressiveabsolution, Jul 4, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Progressiveabsolution

    Stacey Guest

    Progressiveabsolution wrote:

    > I know this group is about digital photography, but I also know many
    > likely still use film on occasion...well...once in a blue moon? I have
    > some questions that I do not feel have been answered well enough from
    > my numerous searches on deja, internet, etc. etc. Maybe I'm looking
    > for a better answer than those I have seen:). Hope some or many can
    > shed light to the questions I have. I will start with perhaps an
    > easier question.
    >
    > 1) What is an "average" price to have film made into slides? I will use
    > a dedicated film scanner at home so I only want the slides to fit into
    > the tray.
    >


    I'm not sure what you are asking. Are you wanting print film negatives
    converted to slide film? If you just want negative film mounted to use with
    a "slide tray" supplied with your scanner, you can do that yourself. If you
    really are asking about having "film turned into slides", I'm not sure why
    you'd want to do that.
    --

    Stacey
     
    Stacey, Jul 4, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. FYI before I begin: I still shot film, but have dropped
    using 35mm film and I only do 4x5 film. I find 8-megapixel
    DSLR images higher quality than any film. My summary is at:
    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html

    Progressiveabsolution wrote:

    > 1) What is an "average" price to have film made into slides? I will use
    > a dedicated film scanner at home so I only want the slides to fit into
    > the tray.


    Varies with quality.
    >
    > 2) It seems that in spite film is not being specialized since digital
    > has in the large part taken it over in terms of marketing/production,
    > there does seem to be ongoing advancements with it. For example, the
    > new Velvia (though never used) or Provia are the lowest grained films I
    > think have ever been produced, even bettering the Velvia 100F that is
    > not too old. Question 2 is: Is film indeed getting better/more
    > advanced?


    Yes, film is advancing, but in small steps (I really like
    Velvia 100 in 4x5 sheets). But digital is advancing faster
    and has surpassed film, especially on a per unit area.

    > 3) If the answer to 2 is yes, it is advancing still, how does the
    > current state of negative color print film do in terms of optical
    > results when compared to slide film? I know what the two have been
    > used for and what their primary intentions of use are. I'm just
    > interested in whether negative film has been able to somehow break any
    > barriers to provide an optical result similar to slide film OR if the
    > differences through time of negative vs.slide have not changed?


    See the above link. While improvements in film happen, e.g.
    see the Velvia 50 and 100 positions in Figure 1 on the above web
    page. It is a small shift on the plot. Then consider
    the digital positions. A few years ago, this plot would not
    have anything above 6 megapixels. It took 15+ years to move
    the Velvia line over a little for comparison.
    >
    > 4) When dealing with slide film using a home film scanner, is one able
    > to replicate the results of the slide and make the final print look
    > like the slide? Or does something get lost/altered along the way?


    Yes, in a much better way than one ever could with a wet darkroom.
    It is called a color managed work flow. While colors are never
    exactly the same (there are whole books written on this subject),
    one can get closer with digital processing.

    > 5) This question correlates with the above question: If a slide cannot
    > be made to look the same or close enough to the slide when it is
    > scanned and then printed, how close then does the negative look when it
    > is scanned the same way as the slide and then printed?


    Similar to digital slide processing: better. Included in this
    is higher quality imaging through lower noise and higher dynamic range.
    See:
    Dynamic Range and Transfer Functions of Digital Images
    and Comparison to Film
    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2

    Roger
    Digital and Film Photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com/

    > I don't want this thread to be anything to do with film vs. digital as
    > I shoot both and love both. I'm just looking for people that still
    > shoot with both or have enough experience with today's present state of
    > film to give provide some helpful answers to the above questions posed.
    >
    > Thanks for all help and contribution
    >
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Jul 4, 2006
    #3
  4. I have already seen your site, amongst many others:)...thanks. I do
    shoot digital but I have not seen an image from the digital world look
    as good as what I have seen with the Contax G system so I use the
    digital for work such as Makro/telephoto/etc. and the G for
    street/people/architecture/etc.

    Maybe I should be more simple in my questions:

    1) Is today's negative print film as good as today's slide film (i.e.
    Fuji Superia Reala dated 2008 vs. Fuji Velvia 100 (not 100F) Dated
    2007)?

    2) When both of these film types shoot the same subject, then get
    developed into negatives/slides, then get put into a 5400dpi film
    scanner, will I see the differences between the two?

    3) If there are differences (see questions 1/2) how great are these
    differences taking into account the use of one of the sharpest lens
    systems available in 35mm format?

    Thank you for the website you have. It is very useful and I agree with
    you per your assessment on the digital world, but until I see a shot
    that is as sharp and dimensional as what my Contax G system will
    produce for specific things, digital this and that is
    insignificant/irrelevant w/exception of the work it can do that the G
    cannot.
     
    Progressiveabsolution, Jul 4, 2006
    #4
  5. Stacey wrote:
    > Progressiveabsolution wrote:
    >
    > > I know this group is about digital photography, but I also know many
    > > likely still use film on occasion...well...once in a blue moon? I have
    > > some questions that I do not feel have been answered well enough from
    > > my numerous searches on deja, internet, etc. etc. Maybe I'm looking
    > > for a better answer than those I have seen:). Hope some or many can
    > > shed light to the questions I have. I will start with perhaps an
    > > easier question.
    > >
    > > 1) What is an "average" price to have film made into slides? I will use
    > > a dedicated film scanner at home so I only want the slides to fit into
    > > the tray.
    > >

    >
    > I'm not sure what you are asking. Are you wanting print film negatives
    > converted to slide film? If you just want negative film mounted to use with
    > a "slide tray" supplied with your scanner, you can do that yourself. If you
    > really are asking about having "film turned into slides", I'm not sure why
    > you'd want to do that.
    > --
    >
    > Stacey


    Hi Stacey. I think I got too complicated with my writing. Here is a
    more simple version so as to make things more concise/clearer:

    1) Is today's "BEST" negative print film as good as today's slide film
    (i.e. Fuji Superia Reala dated 2008 vs. Fuji Velvia 100 (not 100F)
    Dated 2007)? You can add any of your favorite print/slide film choices
    that would be most optimum to compare with. I chose the Fuji ones
    based on the general consensus and from personal use, but I have not
    been through all of the current stuff.

    2) When both of these film types shoot the same subject, then get
    developed into negatives/slides, then get put into a 5400dpi film
    scanner, will I see the differences between the two?

    3) If there are differences (see questions 1/2) how great are these
    differences taking into account the use of one of the sharpest lens
    systems available in the 35mm format?

    Thanks Stacey!

    BTW...the E1 is a brickhouse. It's the very best "consumer" camera
    available. I'd have to hold a full frame camera to see how they
    compare because nothing (Nikon D70/Canon 300D:20D:etc./Konica 5D/etc.)
    is remotely comparable IMO. I wanted to thank you on your comments
    regarding it. I'm very happy I chose it over anything else, though a
    Canon 5D sure would be nice.
     
    Progressiveabsolution, Jul 4, 2006
    #5
  6. Progressiveabsolution

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Progressiveabsolution wrote:
    > I know this group is about digital photography, but I also know many
    > likely still use film on occasion...well...once in a blue moon? I have
    > some questions that I do not feel have been answered well enough from
    > my numerous searches on deja, internet, etc. etc. Maybe I'm looking
    > for a better answer than those I have seen:). Hope some or many can
    > shed light to the questions I have. I will start with perhaps an
    > easier question.
    >
    > 1) What is an "average" price to have film made into slides? I will use
    > a dedicated film scanner at home so I only want the slides to fit into
    > the tray.
    >
    > 2) It seems that in spite film is not being specialized since digital
    > has in the large part taken it over in terms of marketing/production,
    > there does seem to be ongoing advancements with it. For example, the
    > new Velvia (though never used) or Provia are the lowest grained films I
    > think have ever been produced, even bettering the Velvia 100F that is
    > not too old. Question 2 is: Is film indeed getting better/more
    > advanced?
    >
    > 3) If the answer to 2 is yes, it is advancing still, how does the
    > current state of negative color print film do in terms of optical
    > results when compared to slide film? I know what the two have been
    > used for and what their primary intentions of use are. I'm just
    > interested in whether negative film has been able to somehow break any
    > barriers to provide an optical result similar to slide film OR if the
    > differences through time of negative vs.slide have not changed?
    >
    > 4) When dealing with slide film using a home film scanner, is one able
    > to replicate the results of the slide and make the final print look
    > like the slide? Or does something get lost/altered along the way?
    >
    > 5) This question correlates with the above question: If a slide cannot
    > be made to look the same or close enough to the slide when it is
    > scanned and then printed, how close then does the negative look when it
    > is scanned the same way as the slide and then printed?
    >
    >
    > I don't want this thread to be anything to do with film vs. digital as
    > I shoot both and love both. I'm just looking for people that still
    > shoot with both or have enough experience with today's present state of
    > film to give provide some helpful answers to the above questions posed.
    >
    > Thanks for all help and contribution
    >

    I believe there is an appropriate NG for this question/discussion, and
    this is NOT it.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jul 4, 2006
    #6
  7. > I believe there is an appropriate NG for this question/discussion, and
    > this is NOT it.


    I am likely to get more response from users like me that have and or
    use film even if digital is what I and those around here use the most.
    I would post on the film forum but there are so few responses I thought
    this would be a more efficient means. If you do not like the post and
    those are unwilling to help because it is "digital" only, then by all
    means I will try and locate some "film only" forums. I hope you
    understand I am trying to get an answer from what I feel is the
    "majority" of film users, even if it is something that was of a
    pastime, but with hope of someone at present time to be able to give
    some help. If I am forbidden from this "digital" only group with a post
    about film processing, I do apologize to you and others that see this
    post as being unacceptable because it says the word film in it.
     
    Progressiveabsolution, Jul 4, 2006
    #7
  8. Progressiveabsolution wrote:
    > I know this group is about digital photography, but I also know many
    > likely still use film on occasion...well...once in a blue moon? I
    > have some questions that I do not feel have been answered well enough
    > from my numerous searches on deja, internet, etc. etc. Maybe I'm
    > looking for a better answer than those I have seen:). Hope some or
    > many can shed light to the questions I have. I will start with
    > perhaps an easier question.
    >
    > 1) What is an "average" price to have film made into slides? I will
    > use a dedicated film scanner at home so I only want the slides to fit
    > into the tray.
    >
    > 2) It seems that in spite film is not being specialized since digital
    > has in the large part taken it over in terms of marketing/production,
    > there does seem to be ongoing advancements with it. For example, the
    > new Velvia (though never used) or Provia are the lowest grained films
    > I think have ever been produced, even bettering the Velvia 100F that
    > is not too old. Question 2 is: Is film indeed getting better/more
    > advanced?
    >
    > 3) If the answer to 2 is yes, it is advancing still, how does the
    > current state of negative color print film do in terms of optical
    > results when compared to slide film? I know what the two have been
    > used for and what their primary intentions of use are. I'm just
    > interested in whether negative film has been able to somehow break any
    > barriers to provide an optical result similar to slide film OR if the
    > differences through time of negative vs.slide have not changed?
    >
    > 4) When dealing with slide film using a home film scanner, is one able
    > to replicate the results of the slide and make the final print look
    > like the slide? Or does something get lost/altered along the way?
    >
    > 5) This question correlates with the above question: If a slide cannot
    > be made to look the same or close enough to the slide when it is
    > scanned and then printed, how close then does the negative look when
    > it is scanned the same way as the slide and then printed?
    >
    >
    > I don't want this thread to be anything to do with film vs. digital as
    > I shoot both and love both. I'm just looking for people that still
    > shoot with both or have enough experience with today's present state
    > of film to give provide some helpful answers to the above questions
    > posed.
    >
    > Thanks for all help and contribution


    Fact is, none of us know the answer to your questions, since we haven't
    tried the experiments.
    I have sanned thousands of negatives and slides, but I don't use slide film
    for prints and don't use negative film for slides. If you want color slides,
    use positive film, if you want good quality prints use either negative film,
    or go digital, or try both.
     
    Dennis Pogson, Jul 4, 2006
    #8
  9. Progressiveabsolution

    Anthony Guest

    Progressiveabsolution wrote:

    > ...
    > 1) Is today's negative print film as good as today's slide film (i.e.
    > Fuji Superia Reala dated 2008 vs. Fuji Velvia 100 (not 100F) Dated
    > 2007)?
    > ...
    > ...
    >


    Please define good. Nah! Maybe you should try the best of both negative
    and slide and make the decision based on your experience. That would be
    better than asking random usenet users which is better when you didn't
    even define what better is.

    You see:

    Negative is better for making prints.
    Slide is better if you want to project.
    Negative is better in tonal range.
    Slide is better in color saturation.
    Negative is better in terms of development costs.
    Slide is better if you intend to scan.
    Negative is better in terms of availability everywhere.
    ....
    You get the drift.

    > ... but until I see a shot
    > that is as sharp and dimensional as what my Contax G system will
    > produce for specific things, digital this and that is
    > insignificant/irrelevant w/exception of the work it can do that the G
    > cannot.


    Since film works for you then please don't let us stop you. However,
    the development of film is already slowing down if not totally stopped
    already. The best slide film you mentioned is made by Fujifilm. Do you
    know that Fujifilm also produces digital cameras? Purely in terms of
    allocation of resources, Fujifilm would rather spend research and
    development on something that has growth (digital) than on something
    that is shrinking (film).

    You may already be using the best slide film ever made in the universe.
    Please don't expect more.
     
    Anthony, Jul 4, 2006
    #9

  10. >
    > Fact is, none of us know the answer to your questions, since we haven't
    > tried the experiments.
    > I have sanned thousands of negatives and slides, but I don't use slide film
    > for prints and don't use negative film for slides. If you want color slides,
    > use positive film, if you want good quality prints use either negative film,
    > or go digital, or try both.


    Thank you. I do use both digital and film and enjoy both, though I
    know a lot more about working with digital than film since my film days
    were over long ago until recently...and until recently, my digital days
    have been since 1999. Just trying to learn more about the way film is
    working in 2006. I'll find another place to post this or maybe a
    thread person can move it to a correct place.

    Thanks all and sorry to inconvenience anyone.
     
    Progressiveabsolution, Jul 4, 2006
    #10
  11. "Progressiveabsolution" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > >
    > > Fact is, none of us know the answer to your questions, since we haven't
    > > tried the experiments.
    > > I have sanned thousands of negatives and slides, but I don't use slide

    film
    > > for prints and don't use negative film for slides. If you want color

    slides,
    > > use positive film, if you want good quality prints use either negative

    film,
    > > or go digital, or try both.

    >
    > Thank you. I do use both digital and film and enjoy both, though I
    > know a lot more about working with digital than film since my film days
    > were over long ago until recently...and until recently, my digital days
    > have been since 1999. Just trying to learn more about the way film is
    > working in 2006. I'll find another place to post this or maybe a
    > thread person can move it to a correct place.
    >
    > Thanks all and sorry to inconvenience anyone.
    >

    No problem about inconvenience. I guess that the majority of readers of this
    group will also have used film.
    Might be worth browsing the other photo newsgroups and seeing if there is
    one that better suits your question.

    Good luck,
    Ian.
     
    Fred Anonymous, Jul 4, 2006
    #11
  12. Progressiveabsolution

    One4All Guest

    Progressiveabsolution wrote:

    > I'll find another place to post this or maybe a
    > thread person can move it to a correct place.


    There are two NG's that may help you: One re: medium-format
    photography, the other, large-format photography. Due to the high cost
    of digital equipment for these formats, many, if not most, of these
    posters still shoot with film, and would be more knowledgeable about,
    and more receptive of, your question:

    rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
    rec.photo.equipment.large-format

    It's about film, not the format, right?
     
    One4All, Jul 4, 2006
    #12
  13. Progressiveabsolution

    Stacey Guest

    Progressiveabsolution wrote:

    >
    > Hi Stacey. I think I got too complicated with my writing. Here is a
    > more simple version so as to make things more concise/clearer:
    >
    > 1) Is today's "BEST" negative print film as good as today's slide film
    > (i.e. Fuji Superia Reala dated 2008 vs. Fuji Velvia 100 (not 100F)
    > Dated 2007)?


    The best slide file scans better/cleaner than negative film. The problem of
    course is slide film has almost zero exposure latitude and has a problem
    with recording some scenes at all due to this narrow dynamic range.

    >
    > 2) When both of these film types shoot the same subject, then get
    > developed into negatives/slides, then get put into a 5400dpi film
    > scanner, will I see the differences between the two?


    Maybe a bit cleaner from the slide film.. But I personally still usually
    shoot negative film for the wider dynamic range.


    >
    > I wanted to thank you on your comments
    > regarding it. I'm very happy I chose it over anything else


    Glad you like it!
    --

    Stacey
     
    Stacey, Jul 5, 2006
    #13
  14. Progressiveabsolution

    Stacey Guest

    Ron Hunter wrote:

    > Progressiveabsolution wrote:
    >> I know this group is about digital photography, but I also know many
    >> likely still use film on occasion...well...once in a blue moon? I have
    >> some questions that I do not feel have been answered well enough from
    >> my numerous searches on deja, internet, etc. etc. Maybe I'm looking
    >> for a better answer than those I have seen:). Hope some or many can
    >> shed light to the questions I have. I will start with perhaps an
    >> easier question.
    >>
    >> 1) What is an "average" price to have film made into slides? I will use
    >> a dedicated film scanner at home so I only want the slides to fit into
    >> the tray.
    >>
    >> 2) It seems that in spite film is not being specialized since digital
    >> has in the large part taken it over in terms of marketing/production,
    >> there does seem to be ongoing advancements with it. For example, the
    >> new Velvia (though never used) or Provia are the lowest grained films I
    >> think have ever been produced, even bettering the Velvia 100F that is
    >> not too old. Question 2 is: Is film indeed getting better/more
    >> advanced?
    >>
    >> 3) If the answer to 2 is yes, it is advancing still, how does the
    >> current state of negative color print film do in terms of optical
    >> results when compared to slide film? I know what the two have been
    >> used for and what their primary intentions of use are. I'm just
    >> interested in whether negative film has been able to somehow break any
    >> barriers to provide an optical result similar to slide film OR if the
    >> differences through time of negative vs.slide have not changed?
    >>
    >> 4) When dealing with slide film using a home film scanner, is one able
    >> to replicate the results of the slide and make the final print look
    >> like the slide? Or does something get lost/altered along the way?
    >>
    >> 5) This question correlates with the above question: If a slide cannot
    >> be made to look the same or close enough to the slide when it is
    >> scanned and then printed, how close then does the negative look when it
    >> is scanned the same way as the slide and then printed?
    >>
    >>
    >> I don't want this thread to be anything to do with film vs. digital as
    >> I shoot both and love both. I'm just looking for people that still
    >> shoot with both or have enough experience with today's present state of
    >> film to give provide some helpful answers to the above questions posed.
    >>
    >> Thanks for all help and contribution
    >>

    > I believe there is an appropriate NG for this question/discussion, and
    > this is NOT it.


    Sure it is..

    More so that the posts from Bret etc attacking other people who post here,
    which I noticed you never complain about.
    --

    Stacey
     
    Stacey, Jul 5, 2006
    #14
  15. One4All wrote:
    > Progressiveabsolution wrote:
    >
    > > I'll find another place to post this or maybe a
    > > thread person can move it to a correct place.

    >
    > There are two NG's that may help you: One re: medium-format
    > photography, the other, large-format photography. Due to the high cost
    > of digital equipment for these formats, many, if not most, of these
    > posters still shoot with film, and would be more knowledgeable about,
    > and more receptive of, your question:
    >
    > rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
    > rec.photo.equipment.large-format
    >
    > It's about film, not the format, right?


    Thanks a lot. I appreciate it. I'll check those forums now. I wasn't
    aware of them prior to posting here. Thanks!
     
    Progressiveabsolution, Jul 5, 2006
    #15
  16. Stacey wrote:
    > Progressiveabsolution wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > Hi Stacey. I think I got too complicated with my writing. Here is a
    > > more simple version so as to make things more concise/clearer:
    > >
    > > 1) Is today's "BEST" negative print film as good as today's slide film
    > > (i.e. Fuji Superia Reala dated 2008 vs. Fuji Velvia 100 (not 100F)
    > > Dated 2007)?

    >
    > The best slide file scans better/cleaner than negative film. The problem of
    > course is slide film has almost zero exposure latitude and has a problem
    > with recording some scenes at all due to this narrow dynamic range.
    >
    > >
    > > 2) When both of these film types shoot the same subject, then get
    > > developed into negatives/slides, then get put into a 5400dpi film
    > > scanner, will I see the differences between the two?

    >
    > Maybe a bit cleaner from the slide film.. But I personally still usually
    > shoot negative film for the wider dynamic range.
    >
    >
    > >
    > > I wanted to thank you on your comments
    > > regarding it. I'm very happy I chose it over anything else

    >
    > Glad you like it!
    > --
    >
    > Stacey


    Thanks Stacey. I was told Slide film has more dynamic range and is why
    I wanted to get more info. I'm going to post over in the Medium
    format/Large Format groups which is what another users mentioned for me
    to do since they would mostly know more about film. Out of curiousity,
    what print/negative film do you use and can you offer some good choices
    in the 100ISO range? I know the ones for the 400-800 range, but from
    what I have learned and seen so far, the Superia Reala seems to do very
    well at iso100.
     
    Progressiveabsolution, Jul 5, 2006
    #16
  17. On 4 Jul 2006 23:07:24 -0700, "Progressiveabsolution"
    <> wrote:


    >Thanks Stacey. I was told Slide film has more dynamic range and is why
    >I wanted to get more info. I'm going to post over in the Medium
    >format/Large Format groups which is what another users mentioned for me
    >to do since they would mostly know more about film. Out of curiousity,
    >what print/negative film do you use and can you offer some good choices
    >in the 100ISO range? I know the ones for the 400-800 range, but from
    >what I have learned and seen so far, the Superia Reala seems to do very
    >well at iso100.



    Slide film has a larger *density range* on the film than
    negative film.

    But in fact it generally has less latitude than negative film.

    Here's a quick link with results that show this pretty clearly
    (and results that concur with my own over many years.)

    <http://daystarvisions.com/Docs/Rvws/Acut/pg1.html>


    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Raphael Bustin, Jul 5, 2006
    #17
  18. Progressiveabsolution

    Stacey Guest

    Progressiveabsolution wrote:

    >
    > Stacey wrote:
    >> Progressiveabsolution wrote:
    >>
    >> >
    >> > Hi Stacey. I think I got too complicated with my writing. Here is a
    >> > more simple version so as to make things more concise/clearer:
    >> >
    >> > 1) Is today's "BEST" negative print film as good as today's slide film
    >> > (i.e. Fuji Superia Reala dated 2008 vs. Fuji Velvia 100 (not 100F)
    >> > Dated 2007)?

    >>
    >> The best slide file scans better/cleaner than negative film. The problem
    >> of course is slide film has almost zero exposure latitude and has a
    >> problem with recording some scenes at all due to this narrow dynamic
    >> range.
    >>
    >> >
    >> > 2) When both of these film types shoot the same subject, then get
    >> > developed into negatives/slides, then get put into a 5400dpi film
    >> > scanner, will I see the differences between the two?

    >>
    >> Maybe a bit cleaner from the slide film.. But I personally still usually
    >> shoot negative film for the wider dynamic range.
    >>
    >>
    >> >
    >> > I wanted to thank you on your comments
    >> > regarding it. I'm very happy I chose it over anything else

    >>
    >> Glad you like it!
    >> --
    >>
    >> Stacey

    >
    > Thanks Stacey. I was told Slide film has more dynamic range and is why
    > I wanted to get more info.


    Maybe you read they LOOK more dynamic? They actually have a very narrow
    latitude and many times it's impossible to record the shadow details
    without blowing out the highlights or vice versa. With negative film you
    have all the information recorded on film and you then have more to work
    with. In some ways they end up being cleaner scans because there is less
    noise in the shadows etc..

    >Out of curiousity,
    > what print/negative film do you use and can you offer some good choices
    > in the 100ISO range?


    Reala.

    --

    Stacey
     
    Stacey, Jul 5, 2006
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. takeone

    Digital SLR as Slide/Negative Scanner

    takeone, Dec 9, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    16,365
    Dave Martindale
    Dec 9, 2003
  2. FocaIPoint

    Dedicated 35mm slide and negative scanner or flatbed

    FocaIPoint, Dec 27, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    4,356
    J. A. Mc.
    Dec 28, 2003
  3. rovereab

    Slide/negative reader and converter

    rovereab, Apr 11, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    7,689
    William Mutch
    Apr 12, 2004
  4. Sharp Shooter

    DSLRs or Slide Film or Colour Negative Film? ;o)

    Sharp Shooter, Jun 20, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    1,142
  5. Replies:
    5
    Views:
    4,033
    Michael Benveniste
    Jun 13, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page