Fairly Basic Color Film Question: Negs vs Slides

roscoetuff

Well-known
Local time
9:07 PM
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
534
Location
Washington DC
So I'm mostly a B&W shooter, but with some interest in color from time to time. Read recently that slide film was better for scanning 'cause the more intense saturation added a depth digital struggles (or probably "struggled") to match. Paying less attention to the "why" or "how" of that idea, and noting that some of my initial forays resulted in thin colors, I'm wondering whether there's any legs to this? Thoughts?
 
Slides have high contrast, the issue in scanning is to capture all the density range. Seriously, Kodachrome said to have Dmax of 3.7-3.8 which is almost 13 stops, tough for scanners. But, the color is what you see in the slide, easier to get good color in your scan.

Color negatives have much less contrast in the negative so it's easier to capture all the density range that's there. But color-negs have an orange mask and varying response to colors. Mini-labs have calibrations for each film brand/type; it's harder to get good color rendition at home.

I'm experimenting now with camera-scans for color-neg with good results. See other threads here for more.
 
Ah... good question. To me, "Thin" is like a thin B&W negative: Tad bit on the washed out side. Looks like over-exposure, but in this case it wasn't exposure so much as winter's yech/meh lack of color. Bad photographer's time of day pick. These happen in my case sometimes.

Maybe I'm just comparing a bad photo to a good one? and this isn't a general problem? Fair possibility. But part of why I wonder whether there are any legs to the assertion? Some of the best shots I took in my life on a trip to the UK were all Kodak 64 slides on an Argus C3 ("the brick") metered with a celenimum powered Sekonic back in the 1970's... and the colors came out just ripplingly beautiful. Haven't shot color in a long time with film... so I'm creeping back to it.
 
So I'm mostly a B&W shooter, but with some interest in color from time to time. Read recently that slide film was better for scanning 'cause the more intense saturation added a depth digital struggles (or probably "struggled") to match. Paying less attention to the "why" or "how" of that idea, and noting that some of my initial forays resulted in thin colors, I'm wondering whether there's any legs to this? Thoughts?

The big advantages of colour slides in scanning compared to colour negative film are:
1. You always have a colour reference: You can compare your scanning results with the original slide on a light table. So you immediately know how the colours have to look in your scan.
That is impossible with colour negative film:
Our brain cannot convert the colours on a negativ correctly into positive colours.

2. Transparency films have finer grain compared to colour negative films.
As almost all scanners - with the exception of real drum scanners - have the weakness of enhancing grain by adding digital noise to the scans, this problem is less visible with transparencies compared to CN films.

3. Transparencies are sharper (higher MTF) than colour negative films. As all scanners lead to a loss in sharpness, this problem is less visible with slides compared to CN films.

There can be one disadvantage with scanning slides:
If you are using a cheap scanner, than slides with a high Dmax can be a problem, because the Dmax of cheap scanners is lower than the very high Dmax slides can deliver.
 
Slides vs Negatives

Slides vs Negatives

I personally love slides. When you project them to huge sizes, there is nothing more satisfying. I've had people thank me when I show 35mm slides, as they are sick of looking at blue screened powerpoint digital projections. But, back to your original question.

If your slides are "thin" and washed out, they are overexposed. Slides are intolerant of exposure error. 1/3 of an f/stop will make a visible difference to a slide. Your dynamic range is effectively 2 stops on either side of the correct exposure. In zone speak (since you shoot B&W), you have zones 3 to zone 7 as your dynamic range. The traditional teaching is to meter for the highlight and let the shadows fall where they may.

I use an incident light meter for slides. If I can't use the incident light meter, I use a spot meter on the highlight that I want to preserve detail in. Then, I open up 2 stops to set the highlight at zone 7 (your meter puts everything you meter from at zone 5). In this way you place the highlight at zone 7.

So now, what do you do about the shadows? You need fill lighting.
Either bring an electronic flash unit with you, or my preferred route is flash bulbs 😀. With a #6 focal plane flash bulb, you can shoot at 1/1000 or 1/2000, so there's no reason to complain about the 1/50 flash X synch speed on your Leica. In fact, the Leica instruction manuals say that you can use up to 1/500 shutter speed with an M class bulb such as a Press 25.

A bulkier option is to bring a big folding reflector along, and have someone assist you in holding it in position. This is to throw light into the shadows, so they get out of the black murk and into zone 3 or higher.

Scanning a slide is much easier in a couple of ways.
First, you always have the slide as a reference.
Second, you can get calibration slides for various emulsions. Kodak used to make ones for Kodachrome and Ektachrome. There are also ones for Fuji (all their emulsions are basically the same, so you only need one Fujichrome reference slide), and Agfa. You then generate a color correction profile for each film type. Vuescan can do this for you, as can that super expensive German program that I've temporarily forgotten the name of. Anyway, you scan your slides in RAW format, then have Vuescan do a batch run to apply the correction profile.
BAM - your scans are now identical to your slides. You can then manipulate to your heart's content with your usual image processing system.

Negatives have far higher dynamic range when shooting (something akin to zone 0 to zone 11 or so). You are probably used to metering for the shadows, and letting the high dynamic range of the film maintain the highlights. Unfortunately, there is no objective standard for color with a negative emulsion, so it is whatever you want it to be.
 
When I was ordering large size prints from slides, my instructions to the lab were always:
"make the prints to exactly match the slide when viewed on a neutral color lightbox."
As said above, we can see in each slide what we expect to see in a scan or print.
 
Saturation and contrast could be easily added to scans in the Lightroom. It will make negatives scans looks like digitized slides. 🙂

In my experience this is not quite the case. Slide film has that something that neg film or raw files can't do. I know slides aren't optimal from a dynamic range standpoint, but I always say dynamic range is overrated - until I need it, like shooting waterfalls at high noon 🙂
 
Ah... good question. To me, "Thin" is like a thin B&W negative: Tad bit on the washed out side. Looks like over-exposure, but in this case it wasn't exposure so much as winter's yech/meh lack of color. Bad photographer's time of day pick. These happen in my case sometimes.
Negatives often must be graded (as they say in cine) and have multiple interpretations. There is a baseline depending on the exposure of the frame, but it can be molded into an array of different looks.

For example, editorial and wedding film photography is popular with a pastel low contrast interpretation which often does wash out colours as you mention. Use a lab that caters to that collective and you will get that kind of results. BTDT.

Kodak Ektar, or even Portra, can be made to look like slide film.


In my experience this is not quite the case. Slide film has that something that neg film or raw files can't do. I know slides aren't optimal from a dynamic range standpoint, but I always say dynamic range is overrated - until I need it, like shooting waterfalls at high noon 🙂
Agreed, slides have something going into them that negatives just don't. The "film look" nowadays is mostly drawn towards CN's wide range and tonality rather than slides punchier character.

Taking a look at a 6x9 well exposed slide is really beautiful. Hmm, I haven't shot E6 in quite a while and should perhaps order another pack of Provia...
 
In my experience this is not quite the case. Slide film has that something that neg film or raw files can't do. I know slides aren't optimal from a dynamic range standpoint, but I always say dynamic range is overrated - until I need it, like shooting waterfalls at high noon 🙂

Ah yes. Just today dug out some Kodachrome from 1995 - Victoria Falls. Sky looks ok on the light of, so I suspect the shadows are black. Looking forward to scanning them with my K1 tomorrow.

Mike
 
There can be one disadvantage with scanning slides:If you are using a cheap scanner, than slides with a high Dmax can be a problem, because the Dmax of cheap scanners is lower than the very high Dmax slides can deliver.

The importance of this cannot be overstated. Particularly with dense slides (which always have the highest saturation possible in slides), the lack of dynamic range of lesser scanners will result in mediocre results, even if you can get good colour matching with IT8 targets. This rules out all minilab CCD scanners and consumer flatbeds.

If you shoot slides, project them and enjoy their splendor.

But if you want an accurate digital representation (to see the 'intense saturation' the OP was curious about), I've found that nothing less than an Imacon X5/949 or a drum scan will do.
 
I have largely given up on colour negative due mostly to the contrast and sharpness of which to my style of photography these days is lacking. Slide film (if you let yourself become content where the shadows fall) is superior in contrast and colour. I get lovely, sharp, acute and "real" contrast. Closer to the scene colour. I've had better results in scanning E6, even though the scanner I used mostly only had a range of 3.7.

The photo of the girl is probably using a Imacon Flextight scanner, the second a Fuji Frontier SP3000.

Hasselblad Planar 80/2.8 wide open, Provia 100F, 81a Warming Filter
34382815306_2f01be29ea_c.jpg


Leitz Summaron 35/2.8, Fuji Velvia 50, 81a Warming Filter
34208183391_e9f8f9b7bc_c.jpg
 
Haha "Fairly basic" rarely stays that way on RFF 🙄 😉

But I'm happy with that- here's another thread I'm going to enjoy, while on a memory lane trip sorting through the 90 rolls of Sensia and Velvia I took backpacking through South America in the 90s...
 
Since I've tried Portra 160, I've just ordered some Fuji Velvia (E6) film to see whether working with positives might be easiser. Won't know about "better", but we'll see about "easier". Guess I'm okay with capturing a higher dynamic range in slides and then NOT being able to scan it fully than missing it in the original ...at least as a concept. We'll see about the results. And fairly, haven't scanned my latest Portra shots... so we'll there, too.
 
The big advantages of colour slides in scanning compared to colour negative film are:.....

2. Transparency films have finer grain compared to colour negative films.
As almost all scanners - with the exception of real drum scanners - have the weakness of enhancing grain by adding digital noise to the scans, this problem is less visible with transparencies compared to CN films.

Another advantage of scanning film in RAW format with a digi cam vs non drum scanners.
 
The big advantages of colour slides in scanning compared to colour negative film are:
1. You always have a colour reference: You can compare your scanning results with the original slide on a light table. So you immediately know how the colours have to look in your scan.
That is impossible with colour negative film:
Our brain cannot convert the colours on a negativ correctly into positive colours.

2. Transparency films have finer grain compared to colour negative films.
As almost all scanners - with the exception of real drum scanners - have the weakness of enhancing grain by adding digital noise to the scans, this problem is less visible with transparencies compared to CN films.

3. Transparencies are sharper (higher MTF) than colour negative films. As all scanners lead to a loss in sharpness, this problem is less visible with slides compared to CN films.

There can be one disadvantage with scanning slides:
If you are using a cheap scanner, than slides with a high Dmax can be a problem, because the Dmax of cheap scanners is lower than the very high Dmax slides can deliver.

+1.

That's it exactly.

Cheers, Jan
 
Back
Top Bottom