Slide Film more accurate?

[nikonhswebmaster]

Folks shot anything and everything. Some choices certainly were more popular than others, but as usually it was job dependent.

I'm sure, just never saw anything but chromes.

Chromes are just so great to look at.

 

[dmr]

Probably just me, but I never knew anyone shooting neg color.

For years I shot mostly color slide film and I'm glad I did. I preferred color to B&W, and I know this sounds silly but I just did not want to pay for color prints of the shots I had taken but did not want printed. Back when I was in HS and college there was no such thing as a contact sheet from a consumer processing lab.

Anyway, I would do slide film and just order prints of the ones I wanted, which was maybe 10% of what I shot.

I'm glad I did that, as it forced me to pay attention to lighting, exposure, and such.

In later years I switched to color negatives and I do appreciate the latitude it gives.

 

[gnuyork]

I don't know about accurate, but slide films in my experience, the ones I shoot anyway, seem to give me a color more true to life of what my eye sees compared to negative films (with the exception of Kodachrome). I don't shoot negative color film much, but when I do, I like it for the novelty of the character of the film (Portra). That being said, I do think of Kodachrome in the same way - it has a very special character and was one of my favorites. Too bad it's gone.

 

[Calzone]

I'm sure, just never saw anything but chromes.

Chromes are just so great to look at.

I believe the Pro's shot color chromes mostly for economic reasons, meaning slides not only gave positives but were less costly per image capture.

Contacts for B&W is a different story...

Cal

 

[waileong]

I don't rely on the internet for my info on slide film. I've blown the highlights many times.

Once they're gone, they're gone. And the midtones go with them too! They don't look good any more.

My post is not about shadow detail, but if you underexpose slide film, it looks crap too.

Yes and no.
The very important point is, that reversal film is recording much more detail in the shadows and highlights than most people think.
There is a lot of misinformation on the internet, e.g. that reversal film could only record 5-6 stops of dynamic range.
That is completely wrong!!
Reversal film has, principially in the same way as negative film (but to a lesser extent), also a shoulder in the characteristic curve (highlights).
How much detail can be seen or can be recovered in the shadows and higlights is depending on the viewing methods.
The test results differ from 8-11 stops depending on the used method and the film (Astia or Provia have a higher dynamic range as the Velvias).

Look at the example and the link I've given in my post above: It is absolutely outstanding what can be recorded from the shadows in the underexposed slide by the drumscanner.
The detail is there, it is on the film! Despite the huge underexposure.
You may also have a look at the excellent test results of Tim Parkin (onlandscape.co.uk).

But again:
Exposing correctly is extremely easy. Especially with the curent metering and exposing systems, or a separate lightmeter.
So nothing to worry about.

Cheers, Jan

 

[nikonhswebmaster]

I believe the Pro's shot color chromes mostly for economic reasons, meaning slides not only gave positives but were less costly per image capture.

Contacts for B&W is a different story...

Cal

I mostly shot B&W for small non-profit magazines and academic presses. They would send out want lists, and after a while I could almost guarantee a half dozen photos a month, which would pay my rent. There was a time when living was cheap.

 

[SaveKodak]

If you want perfectly exposed chromes, my advice would be to buy an F6! I used to auto bracket more but I'm finding that's not even necessary most of the time. The camera just nails it.

 

[Calzone]

I mostly shot B&W for small non-profit magazines and academic presses. They would send out want lists, and after a while I could almost guarantee a half dozen photos a month, which would pay my rent. There was a time when living was cheap.

N,

Takes a lot of courage to have done that, even back then. I'm thinking the 70's.

Cal

 

[HHPhoto]

Excellent post, Jan. Spot on!

You and Cal (Calzone) are welcome .

Cheers, Jan

 

[nikonhswebmaster]

N,

Takes a lot of courage to have done that, even back then. I'm thinking the 70's.

Cal

it was this kind of stuff (scan from a proof sheet).

Not much about art or courage, all from an F and a 50, and an M and a 21. Simple kit. Always Tri-X. The first from the Post Dispatch and NY Times, the second from Transaction Magazine. And most definitely the '70s

 

[kb244]

it was this kind of stuff (scan from a proof sheet).

Not much about art or courage, all from an F and a 50, and an M and a 21. Simple kit. Always Tri-X. The first from the Post Dispatch and NY Times, the second from Transaction Magazine. And most definitely the '70s

Good stuff. I wonder what today's equivalent to that kind of work would be.

 

[Calzone]

it was this kind of stuff (scan from a proof sheet).

Not much about art or courage, all from an F and a 50, and an M and a 21. Simple kit. Always Tri-X. The first from the Post Dispatch and NY Times, the second from Transaction Magazine. And most definitely the '70s

N,

Great stuff to be proud of. Still took a lot of guts to sustain yourself as a freelancer. Much admired for all the risks taken.

Anyways this is from a guy who went to art school during those times, and decided to play it safer and work day jobs rather than put myself out there like you did.

Cal

 

[sevo]

I believe the Pro's shot color chromes mostly for economic reasons, meaning slides not only gave positives but were less costly per image capture.

Lower cost probably did not make it into the considerations. Or rather, it worked the other way around - while slide was cheaper, halftone printing was still seriously expensive, and photography cost in general was a minor consideration, compared to the money pre-press and press devoured. Colour halftone processes were incredibly complex in the pre scanner era (and far from easy for the first decade of scanning), and the latitude was tiny, so everybody preferred slide as that avoided the extra generation of a print - even with slide it was hard enough to have consistency.

 

[Calzone]

Lower cost probably did not make it into the considerations. Or rather, it worked the other way around - while slide was cheaper, halftone printing was still seriously expensive, and photography cost in general was a minor consideration, compared to the money pre-press and press devoured. Colour halftone processes were incredibly in the pre scanner era (and far from easy for the first decade of scanning), and the latitude was tiny, so everybody preferred slide as that avoided the extra generation of a print - even with slide it was hard enough to have consistency.

Thanks. The backdrop of technology really makes sense of why in the 70's there were opportunities that no longer exist today. Good information.

Back in those days Annie Liebierwitz freelanced at the Village Voice...

Cal

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Just curious; years ago I noticed that my eyes had a slightly different colour balance; easily seen if you look at a colour print with one eye and then the other. So I wonder how accurate is accurate, since others may have the same mismatch or worse...

Regards, David

 

[nikonhswebmaster]

Hi,

Just curious; years ago I noticed that my eyes had a slightly different colour balance; easily seen if you look at a colour print with one eye and then the other. So I wonder how accurate is accurate, since others may have the same mismatch or worse...

Regards, David

David there are color tests on the web, where you arrange tints to see how accurately you can see colors.

After my cataract operation my eyes are close to 100% accurate. I think I only miss due to getting bored with the tests. Before I had a hard time seeing blue, it always seemed green because of the yellow in my eyes.

Here is a very simple one you can start with, but there are ones with hundreds of chips. http://www.xrite.com/hue-test

 

[kb244]

David there are color tests on the web, where you arrange tints to see how accurately you can see colors.

After my cataract operation my eyes are close to 100% accurate. I think I only miss due to getting bored with the tests. Before I had a hard time seeing blue, it always seemed green because of the yellow in my eyes.

Here is a very simple one you can start with, but there are ones with hundreds of chips. http://www.xrite.com/hue-test

Got a perfect score on that... but I've always been curious about tests that are reliant on an electronic display, versus printed hues/etc.

Interesting thing though, I usually seem to score perfectly on anything in regards to seeing hues, or tinted changes.

Yet if I try to use this one specific fountain pen ink called Noodler's Baystate blue, something most the community swears is a rich vibrant blue, or as some people would call a "True blue", I always see it as purple, almost a royal purple, even if I photograph it next to a color chart, it matches blue when photographhed/scanned, but to my eyes right in front of me, that very specific shade of blue looks purple to me, I can't quite explain it. No other specific shade of color does this to me.

 

[nikonhswebmaster]

Got a perfect score on that... but I've always been curious about tests that are reliant on an electronic display, versus printed hues/etc.
...

The test I linked to tests against yourself, it could of course, be that you see blue differently than I do. You are arranging tints, which I also can do perfectly.

You need to also test yourself for being color blind, which is very common. That is best done by a doctor, but there are online tests.

 

[Skiff]

I believe the Pro's shot color chromes mostly for economic reasons, meaning slides not only gave positives but were less costly per image capture.

As a professional who has worked at that time (and is still working with reversal film, too) I can assure you the cost advantage of reversal film was (and is) an important factor.
But it was not the only or decisive factor.
Other advantages were / are also important: Finer grain, better sharpness and higher resolution of reversal film compared to CN film.
And that you always have the slide as an optimal reference for the following reproduction and printing process for pictures in advertizing campaigns, on product packagings, in books, in product catalogs and so on.

For lots of photographers also the much better versatility was / is a reason for using reversal film. For example adventure, travel and nature / wildlife photographers: They can use the slides both as optimal medium for their AV shows for big audiences, and have at the same time an excellent base for their printed books.
Current example:
The current book of famous wildlife photographer Norbert Rosing has exclusively only pictures from reversal film in it.
No digital at all, no negative film shots at all.

 

[Skiff]

Reversal (slide) film has finer grain, higher resolution and better sharpness compared to negative films of the same speed.
Velvia 50, Velvia 100, Provia 100F, AgfaPhoto CT Precisa 100 deliver all that. With this better detail rendition compared to Ektar 100, Portra 160 you can make bigger enlargements from reversal films.

Concerning contrast:
A slide on a light box or in projection has a higher Dmax / bigger contrast range (more stops) than a print from a colour negativ.

Concerning accurate colors:
Two aspects are very important:
1. If you want most neutral, natural, precise colours than Provia 100F / AgfaPhoto Precisa are currently the best films on the market.
Followed by Fuji Pro 400H (which is slightly on the warm side).
If natural/neutral colors are needed, you have to exclude all current Kodak negative films, because they all have a significant bias on yellow and a warm colour rendition (that is general policy at Kodak, the films are designed that way). This Kodak design also leads often to a certain cyan cast in blues with Kodak films.

2. With reversal film you already have a finished picture after development. With a proper development the results are perfect.
Send identical exposed slide films to several excellent labs and your results will be all identical.
Therefore you have a perfect accuracy in terms of reliability and consistancy.

But that is not the case with colour negative film:
After development you need prints and / or scans to have a usable, finished picture. Scanning / printing are interpretation processes. And therefore depending on the lab operator, the scanner, the software, the printing paper you will get different results.
Send identical exposed CN films to several excellent labs and your results (scans, prints) will be all different.

All the reasons above (and several more) are the reasons why in professional photography reversal film has been the preferred medium (in most cases exclusively used) for decades.



It is correct that negative film has more exposure latitude than reversal film, but
1. Negative film has no latitude concerning the other important quality parameters:
If you underexpose it, you get significantly more grain, worse sharpness and resolution, lack of shadow detail.
If you overexpose it, you are loosing sharpness, resolution and highlight detail. And you get colour shifts.
Result:
If you want optimal quality concerning all quality parameters, you have expose right. There is no difference concerning that between negative and positive film.
2. Getting a correct exposure is easy. For decades we have excellent metering systems in our cameras.
3. There are lots of excellent tools to manage even very high contrasts before / with exposure:
Fill-in flash, gradual filters, pre-exposure / pre-flashing, pol filter.
Get it right before you press the shutter. Then you don't need post-processing.



Concerning scanning of reversal film the following aspects are important:
1. One further big advantage of reversal film is, you don't need to scan. After development you already have a perfect, finished picture. Look at it on a light box with an excellent slide loupe or in projection and you have a much much better quality than any (scanned) picture on a computer monitor.
2. Next advantage: With the slide you always have a reference, the original. You know how the scan have to look. That is impossible with colour negative film, because our brain cannot convert the negative colours.
3. Most scanners (with the exception of drumscanners) increase film grain by scanner noise. Therefore you benefit with reversal film from its finer grain (see above).
4. Reversal films have a very high contrast range (high Dmax). Most cheap scanners cannot fully record this high Dmax.
5. With drumscanners you can even get lots of detail from strongly under- or overexposed slides.
For example have a look here (scroll down to the portraits):
https://www.fineartdrumscanning.de/bilder/

Cheers, Jan

That's spot on.
Extremely precise explanation!