Print versus slide film

[bmattock]

A few years ago (was it really that long ago?), I noticed that every photography magazine, if it had any 'landscape' shots in it at all, they were taken with Velvia, more often than not. The colors to my eye were just short of 'garish' - more real than real, not 'realistic' at all. I experimented with Velvia and liked it, but again, the shots I got were 'more than' what had originally been there when I looked at the scene. ESPECIALLY with a polarizer, which I felt had a profound and exaggerated effect on Velvia. No skies have ever been that blue to my eyes. But then, I'm color-blind, so what do I know?

Now that digital cameras are used for most of the shots one sees in photography magazines, the 'ultra saturated' look of Velvia seems to have faded a bit. Why? If it was so good, why not replicate it in Photoshop?

All I can say - I liken it to a stereo with the treble and bass turned up too high. Sure, you can say it sounds 'good', but it will soon begin to bother you and in the end, you may turn off the tone controls altogether and listen to the music as it was intended to be listened to.

Or eating candy - nice, but you just can't eat it all the time. Sometimes you want real food.

Frankly, I have a big bag of slide film and I guess I'll never use it. B&W, digital, and some remaining stocks of C41 are about all I do now.

I don't hate slide film, but it is expensive, damned inconvenient, slow to have processed (from podunk where I live), and the results are generally not what I had in mind.

I did find a C41 film once that had the 'over the top' saturation of Velvia - Agfa Ultra 50. Well, that was WAY over the top, even beyond Velvia. Fun, though. Looked like Walt Disney threw up.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Finder]

It would be hard to talk about the "accuracy" of color film. Basically, it cannot accurately reproduce color regardless for the film process. Memory is a very bad device to measure it also. In marketing in the photographic industry (especially digital), the phrase, "as you percieved it," "as your eye saw it," "as you remember it," or "to match the photographer's vision" means the color is not very accurate. Or rather the company is not going to gurantee the color accuracy.

As far as which is better, that cannot be answered. Color is personal. I don't use a scanner but print color the old fashioned way. I have always found direct prints from negatives more subtle than prints from slides. Both were very saturated. Unfortunately, one of the best ways of printing, dye transfer, is now gone, but slides from dye transfer could match the subtlies of prints from negatives. If you are projecting the image, natually slides are easier. They will also be better than what you are going to get from print film (a film used to make slides from negatives).

One problem with printing from negatives is the color is not the same from film type and brand. The intragal mask (the orange cast) makes elvaluating the negative color impossible. Excellent prints can be gotten from negatives, but it takes more skill. Negative have far more exposure latitude and you can get much more out of them than you can from slides.

Not using scanners to do my printing, I have only heard of the challenges of getting good scans because of the intragal mask. So whether a scanner can give you want you can get out of an enlarger, I don't know. If you are just wanting to put these on the web, I don't think it really matters as the web has a very fuzzy color space and the resolution is so low.

I use Fujicolor mostly. I also like the Kodak products and have used Agfa and Konica. I was disapointed with Agfa and Konica, but those are really not much of a choice anymore. When I shot slide film, I used Kodak Ektachrome as it seemed to give the most natural color. Fuji was a little too saturated. But there again, that is a personal choice. With the digital age, there seems to be a move to more saturation and contrast. There is nothing wrong with it. I find it unnatural.

 

[Finder]

One other small point, slides, computers displays, and prints all affect the way the image looks. The requirements for making an image look good on a display is not the same for it to look good on a piece of paper. The slide and display glow, the print simply reflects. In a way, it is much easier to make an attractive slide or display image. Prints are always more tricky whether the original is from a slide, negative, or file. Prints are also viewed under different light temperatures and intensities.