Print versus slide film

[herbkell@shaw.c]

As explained in other threads I a new to rangefinder photography and I have lots of questions - here is one.

In my previous film life I shot slide film only when shooting colour. I don't ever remember using colour negative film although I did use B and W negative film a fair bit.

In my new rangefinder life where I will scan all keepers on a Nikon 5000ED does it make sense to continue using slide film (usually Provia or Velvia) or do the current "pro" colour negative films provide as good a image quality and presumably have the added benefit of more exposure latititude.


I am interested in what film most people use.

thanks

 

[justins7]

I shot slide film for years but now use only negatives and a scanner. While I was initially seduced by the ease of slides and their clarity and contrast, I no longer use them. I find the contrast to be way too high and the latitude too low.

For me using negatives and a scanner is the taking advantage of the best of today's technology: film with incredible latitude (especially useful if you are not using a light meter), and a scanner that can pull out all of the vast color subtlety that is the advantage of film over digital.

I now use an M3 without a meter, and most of my negatives are right on target.

 

[Kim Coxon]

One advantage of slide film such as Velvia is that it still produces better colour saturation, IMHO. On the the other hand, the colours from print film such as Reala are much more subtle.

Kim

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

do the current "pro" colour negative films provide as good a image quality and presumably have the added benefit of more exposure latititude.

thanks

On that narrow question, the answer is still NO. Slide film such as Velvia and Provia still provide the best color fidelity I've ever seen. In other words, when I view a slide, I feel like I remember exactly what I saw when I was there.

Fuji Reala 100 and Superia 100 are probably the two print films that come closest to slide film. Good satuation (Reala) and fine grain. But for absolute 'fidelity' to the actual colors, slide film still wins.

You are right of course that negative/print film has more latitude. Velvia/Provia has at best 5 stops of latitude. So it is a tradeoff. For color fidelity, go slide. For latitude, ease of processing, cost of processing, go print/negative.

On special trips, particularly abroad, where I want exact fidelity of my memories, I always shoot slide Velvia/Provia. But Reala/Superia are certainly excellent films for less important trips/projects. And, they convert well to B/W.

cheers

 

[aad]

Prints made from my scanned slides are much nicer than from negatives. Plus the color seems to come through on the scan-negatives need more work to be right.

 

[Gid]

I've been experimenting a lot lately with colour. My initial impressions with scanning some astia slide is that it needs far less work than the colour negative that I have been trying - superia 200, xtra 400, NPS 160 (old stock), Pro 160 s. The colours from the astia also look like I remember with no colour cast. I tried the astia based on some comments in another thread that suggested it had more latitude than velvia, provia and sensia. On the results achieved so far I will be choosing astia for colour.

 

[nwcanonman]

I've been experimenting a lot lately with colour. My initial impressions with scanning some astia slide is that it needs far less work than the colour negative that I have been trying - superia 200, xtra 400, NPS 160 (old stock), Pro 160 s. The colours from the astia also look like I remember with no colour cast. I tried the astia based on some comments in another thread that suggested it had more latitude than velvia, provia and sensia. On the results achieved so far I will be choosing astia for colour.

....................................
AND, my favorite thing about Astia would be the incredibly true whites and true skin colors. It works great for weddings and those ladies are very picky 😛

 

[nwcanonman]

I do use Velvia or E100VS for nature/landscape shots, better for greens, or flower shots.
The thing with negative film, for me, is being at the mercy of the developer. Some are good, some are awful; even at the same lab. With slides I'm only seeing exactly what I wanted when I composed the shot.

 

[dmr]

A very similar thread on "another network" elicited this comment from a well-known retired engineer, formerly with the Yellow Box Company:

If you can get exact exposures and want exaggerated color use slide film, but if you want exact color and wide exposure latitude use negative film.

I'm sure in this context, he was referring to the later slide films and not Kodachrome.

My personal opinion is: It depends. 🙂

IMAO, some slide films (Kodachrome) have excellent color fidelity, and some have exaggerated colors. Also, SOME negative films have faithful colors, others have that vivid look that sells film. 🙂

The big difference in generality, again, in my opinion, is that slide films cannot take a joke as far as marginal exposure is concerned, and negatives tend to produce a usable image if you are somewhere close.

I would avoid slide film for higher contrast and available light work.

My guess is that very few people would be able to tell from a final print, well exposed and properly printed, whether the original is slide or negative, just like very few can tell whether prints originated as film or digital, or whether a rangefinder, SLR, or disposable single-use camera was used.

 

[pab]

I've never been satisfied with scanned negatives for landscape and travel- I always have to work too hard on colour and saturation to get the result I want. With slide film all I have to adjust in PS is levels. Conversely the lower contrast and saturaton from eg. scanned negative film such as Kodak 400UC or Fuji NPH is perfect for people shots.

 

[nwcanonman]

I'm guessing his comments are aimed at the typical amateur photographer who may use one or two rolls a year. Using slide film for many years, I probably only toss one slide out of 10 rolls for bad lighting and rarely use flash with slide film (except for weddings).
Since I make my shots for me, I can tell the difference in a print made with slide film. And sometimes getting a print "properly printed" can be a crap-shoot.

 

[Kim Coxon]

I am not sure this is true. When I was in the Falklands doing some wildlife photog, I had several bodies with me, generally so I could keep both slide and print loaded. One of the pictures I took was of a hawk (http://pentax-manuals.com/gallery/gallery6.htm) As he/she was sat on the tussack of grass, I took a second one with print. (The one on the website is Velvia, the other was Reala) I have had both of these printed to 11x14 and the 2 prints are very very different.

Up to about 2 years ago, I tried to turn one into the other having scanned them and found it almost impossible. (It was the main reason that kept me away from Dig). The differences you could get with a change of film and the intensity of colour from slide couls not be achieved in Dig. With better programmes and more computing power, I suspect it is possible to do these days. However, I still find it easier to change film than to spend hours in front of a PC 😉

Not only are there differences in slide and print but also between different slide films and different print films. It is part of what makes it so much fun.

Kim

My guess is that very few people would be able to tell from a final print, well exposed and properly printed, whether the original is slide or negative, just like very few can tell whether prints originated as film or digital, or whether a rangefinder, SLR, or disposable single-use camera was used.

 

[sf]

In my experience, E6 and C41 are two very different animals. In almost every way.

Color balance is different, if only slightly, for the various films. Slide films are specialized. Astia is skin tone E6, Velvia is warm and punchy for landscapes, Provia 400 is very neutral but slightly cool in my experience. Provia 100 is a nice neutral slide film without any real unique charateristics. Kodak E100 series are very nice. Very expensive too. About twice the cost of the Fuji E6 in shops near me.

E6 is, as you said, not as flexible in terms of latitude. It has much tighter "grain" than C41 when you're talking about ISO 100 films.

I find that I get more pleasing tones and colors with properly exposed slide film - especially with the Provia films for street and landscapes, and Astia for portraits.

I don't know too much about Pro C41, but that Fuji's reala and superia are amazingly low grain and very punchy. I have found Fuji NPS and NPH to be very similar to the Provia 100 and 400.

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

Kim,

In the end, which shot of the hawk did you prefer, the shot with slide or print, and what were the differences in your opinion?

Thanks

 

[Kim Coxon]

It's not really an answer but I like both! The one from Reals is on the wall along with some of the penguin ones. The Reals gives what I think is a much more natural print for the wall. The Velvis ones are much more "in your face". They are what I think most publishers would want for a magazine etc.

For Air to Air shoting, Velvia wins hands down because I think that is they way we "see" aircraft (if that makes sense) For Railways, I will use Velvis for a locomotive study but Reala for a more atmosperic shot of a train going through the countryside.

If you go to the gallery here http://pentax-manuals.com/gallery/gallery.htm then of the wildlife shots, the penguins are Reala and the seal and cara cara are Velvia.
Of the aircraft shots, the first F15 shot is Velvia and the rest are C41 (mainly Reala). Even with the scans, the difference is noticeable.

Kim

Kim,

In the end, which shot of the hawk did you prefer, the shot with slide or print, and what were the differences in your opinion?

Thanks

 

[visiondr]

Many modern slide films seem to be creeping toward the outrageously oversaturated and contrasty. Real life does not look like a neon sign (unless it's a photo of a neon sign). My preference has been to shoot mostly Portra NC ("normal or natural conrast" negative film) with the bulk of my photos with B&W. Does anyone else out there think that some of today's E-6 films are just too punchy?

 

[sf]

Many modern slide films seem to be creeping toward the outrageously oversaturated and contrasty. Real life does not look like a neon sign (unless it's a photo of a neon sign). My preference has been to shoot mostly Portra NC ("normal or natural conrast" negative film) with the bulk of my photos with B&W. Does anyone else out there think that some of today's E-6 films are just too punchy?

I think Velvia is too punchy for most uses. I have found Provia 400F to be very nice to work with. Very neutral. Like Fuji NPH400. Velvia 100 is much better than 50 for most applications. Velvia 50 is best for sunsets and instances where color saturation is the idea.

I think the Kodak E6 has been the most realistic in the low ISO range. Provia 400 is the most realistic in the higher ISOs.

 

[Kim Coxon]

I think in the end it comes down to the preference of the final "client" and the subject matter. Many publishers prefer the more punchy look as it sells better. As to subject matter, there are some colourful subjects that benefit from the extra saturation of slide whereas some are better suited to a more subdued look. We change lenses to get different perspectives, why not film as well?

Kim

Many modern slide films seem to be creeping toward the outrageously oversaturated and contrasty. Real life does not look like a neon sign (unless it's a photo of a neon sign). My preference has been to shoot mostly Portra NC ("normal or natural conrast" negative film) with the bulk of my photos with B&W. Does anyone else out there think that some of today's E-6 films are just too punchy?

 

[dmr]

Real life does not look like a neon sign (unless it's a photo of a neon sign).

Excellent quote! 🙂 I like that one! 🙂

Does anyone else out there think that some of today's E-6 films are just too punchy?

I agree that many of today's films are more saturated and brilliant than yesterday's films. I think it is, however, a result of commercial darwinism. People want punchy colors. The more saturated films seem to sell better.

In my early photo days, I always thought of Kodachrome being brilliant, particularly in reds and yellows, and Ektachrome being partial to bright blues and greens.

Now in the 21st Century we hear adjectives such as "muted" and "subdued" (as well as "natural") to describe those films.

 

[DougK]

I love the vibrancy of a well-shot slide and I've been hooked on that look ever since I got my first View Master reels as a kid. I also like knowing that what I get back from the lab, barring a disaster in development, is exactly what I shot. Finally, I've had more consistently good results with scanning slide/transparency film than negative. Because most of my shots are destined for the web and not printing, this is hugely important to me.

35mm negative film has always seemed somewhat flat to me with lackluster color and contrast. I haven't seen that when shooting negative film in medium format, though, and I don't really understand why that should be; after all, the film is the same, only the size changed. Even so, now that I have a scanner that can handle medium format I'll probably go back to transparency once my current 120 stock is used up.