Slide Film more accurate?

[dmr]

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

Very interesting, thanks.

Score: 0

Gender Female
Select Age Range 60 - 69
Best Score for your Gender 0
Worst Score for your Gender 1010

Edit: Looks like that was a promo for a more elaborate commercial version.

 

[teddy]

Following up on my previous post, what exactly is accurate sharpness?

But back to colour accuracy, slide films are no more accurate than negatives. If they were accurate, then Kodachrome would look exactly like Velvia which would look exactly like the scene. But they don't. All photography is a representation, choices made by hardware and software engineers dictate which version of reality the photograph will depict but none are perfect.

I've almost given up on colour negatives. They just don't give me the colour and sharpness that slide film does and the crispness that I need. E6 is unforgiving, and great care needs to be taken into exposure. Practise makes perfect, or close enough. E6 needs LOTS of light.

I'm not saying negatives are bad, but the sharpness of C41 (for 35mm) isn't there for me or my lenses.

Leica M3, Leitz Summicron 50/2 Collapsible (1954), 81a Warming Filter, Fuji Velvia 50

Leica M3, Leitz Summicron 35/2 (1965), 81a Warming Filter, Fuji Velvia 50

Leica M3, Leitz Summicron 50/2 DR, 81a Warming Filter, Provia 100F

Storm Coming, West Beach - Robe - South Australia
Leica M3, Leitz Summaron 35/2.8 @ f11, 81a Warming Filter, Provia 100F, 30 seconds

 

[teddy]

That's spot on.
Extremely precise explanation!

@Skiff - Very well explained. Thank you! Your explanation gives me more reason to shot E6. I feel better about this than before.

 

[Kamph]

Interesting. I find that color negatives hold far more potential for a realistic rendering than slide film. Slide films limited dynamic range does not look real to me. I scan on a drum scanner and negatives simply blows slide film away in dynamic range. Yes, negatives are slightly grainier than slides, but if you wet mount the difference becomes moot.
I always err on the side of overexposure when shooting negatives, and at times I've deliberately overexposed with two stops. I've yet to see color shifts in the highligts. I've seen cyan skies with Ektar 100, but that was due to underexposure.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Back in the early 1980s there was an article in one of the major photo magazines showing test made from the current batch of color transparency films. The conclusion was that Kodachrome 25 professional (PKM 25) was the most accurate of all the color transparency films. You needed to keep it refrigerated until you were ready to shoot it and either get it processed right away or put it back int he fridge or freeze until you were able to get it processed. Most color trans films that were not designated pro had what was called a ripening time. The manufacture (Kodak) would estimate how long before the film would sit on the shelf in store before it was bought and shot and then processed so the would guess at the time the film should be color neutral or ripe as apposed to not doing that with the pro films. Thats why the were refrigerated. The were already ripe.

I did my own tests back in the day and also found it to be the most accurate color. In my opinion as close to color neutral as I think a color film can get with the pumped up colors that some color trans film exhibit. It seemed to blockk up a bit in the reds but less than 64 and the color was a lot more neutral than the other color trans films especially the E6 films. Kodachrome 25 pro (PKM) was the standard until it was dicontiued long before regular Kodachrome 25 was discontinued. Also because of the process (K14) and Kodachome film itself, it was considered archival. Unlike almost all other color film processes.

 

[HHPhoto]

Slide films limited dynamic range does not look real to me.

In terms of dynamic range no photograph looks to 100% "real" in the sense that it is a 1:1 copy of the reality.
Because our eyes can record much higher contrast ranges than any photographic medium, no matter whether reversal film, negative film or digital.
I find the topic of dynamic range much overrated in todays discussions, because the dynamic range of reversal film is high enough to record 95% of the scenes properly.
You very seldom have contrast higher than 1:64 or 1:128 in scenes, so in most cases you are absolutely fine with reversal film.
And if the contrast range of the scene is higher, than you have several techniques to simply manage and reduce the contrast, like fill-in flash (gives excellent results in even very high contrast situations), reflectors, gradual filters, diffuse pre-exposure, pull development.
Some of my best slides I've shot in high-contrast situations using some of these easy techniques.

I always err on the side of overexposure when shooting negatives, and at times I've deliberately overexposed with two stops.

At two stops overexposure you loose sharpness and resolution with negative film compared to exposure at box speed (due to halation effects in the emulsion). And with most negative films colour changes compared to exposure at box speed.
And you have less highlight detail compared to box speed.
As already explained above, the best results concerning all quality parameters you get at box speed.

I've seen cyan skies with Ektar 100, but that was due to underexposure.

I've had it often with the Portras, Gold and Ultramax and Ektar, especially with sky rendition.
At apug this weakness of the Kodak CN films was explained by former Kodak engineers: It has to do with the Kodak colour couplers for yellow, they are influencing the rendition of blue.
The Fuji reversal films don't have that problem.

Cheers, Jan

 

[HHPhoto]

Back in the early 1980s there was an article in one of the major photo magazines showing test made from the current batch of color transparency films. The conclusion was that Kodachrome 25 professional (PKM 25) was the most accurate of all the color transparency films.

At that time it was indeed the benchmark.
But technology in E6 reversal film developed very fast, and at the end of the 80ies E6 already matched Kodachrome. And in the 90ies E6 surpassed Kodachrome. Most photographers then switched to E6, and the latest, outstanding quality new E6 films which were introduced from 1999 to 2007, were than the last nail in the coffin for Kodachrome.
They were much better in every respect compared to Kodachrome (also a reason I switched from Kodachrome to E6 in the 90ies).
E.G current Provia 100F has a much more natural and precise color rendition compared to Kodachrome, much better resolution, sharpness, finer grain, better latidude, better capabilities for pull and push-processing.

Also because of the process (K14) and Kodachome film itself, it was considered archival. Unlike almost all other color film processes.

Kodachrome has only a bit better archival qualities if it is stored completely in the dark. E6 films have much much better stability when exposed to light (and that is the purpose of slides, we want to see them).
Due to Wilhelm imaging research, properly stored E6 films can last more than 200 years.
That is quite a lot!

Cheers, Jan

 

[sevo]

At that time it was indeed the benchmark.

Well, it had the highest resolution. But it had considerable difficulties on the green to magenta axis compared to EPR - Kodak had already phased it out as a medium format and sheet film by the mid seventies, so the studio pros obviously had already voted with their feet.

By the way, at that time, the benchmark for pro film in Germany was not Kodak at all (and not E6 either) - it was Agfachrome 50S and 50L (the silver boxes), which had overall the least flaws in its colour rendition of all colour film until it was retired by the mid 1980s. By which time Ektachrome was almost as good, much better suited to scanning, and not as subject to fading in storage (Agfachrome was MUCH worse than even E4 Ektachrome).

 

[Kamph]

I find the topic of dynamic range much overrated in todays discussions, because the dynamic range of reversal film is high enough to record 95% of the scenes properly.

That isen't my experience. Perhaps the weather is favourable for slides where you're from? Here in Scandinavia the light gets very bright and I have to choose if I want deep shadow detail or some blown highlights when I shoot slides and it's sunny. I never have this problem with negative film. Portra 400 has such a great latitude that you can easily overexpose without blowing any highlights. It's true that you loose a bit of resolution and sharpness, but it isen't much - and I'll rather take that small loose than blow my highlights 🙂 Sure you can use filters and such, but you dont always have time for that.

Best regards

 

[airfrogusmc]

At that time it was indeed the benchmark.
But technology in E6 reversal film developed very fast, and at the end of the 80ies E6 already matched Kodachrome. And in the 90ies E6 surpassed Kodachrome. Most photographers then switched to E6, and the latest, outstanding quality new E6 films which were introduced from 1999 to 2007, were than the last nail in the coffin for Kodachrome.
They were much better in every respect compared to Kodachrome (also a reason I switched from Kodachrome to E6 in the 90ies).
E.G current Provia 100F has a much more natural and precise color rendition compared to Kodachrome, much better resolution, sharpness, finer grain, better latidude, better capabilities for pull and push-processing.



Kodachrome has only a bit better archival qualities if it is stored completely in the dark. E6 films have much much better stability when exposed to light (and that is the purpose of slides, we want to see them).
Due to Wilhelm imaging research, properly stored E6 films can last more than 200 years.
That is quite a lot!

Cheers, Jan

Well that's a lot better than I've gotten with e6. I have both E6 35mm, 2 1/4 and large format transparency that have not held up well over the years and Kodachrome 35mm transparencies that are 40 years old both stored in the same place in arrival sleeves and the Kodachome looks like the day I shot it. Can't say that for the a lot of the E6.

 

[sevo]

the Kodachome looks like the day I shot it. Can't say that for the a lot of the E6.

Kodachrome was processed by a few select laboratories - outside the US only by Kodak themselves or their contractors. And even in the US, where a court had forced Kodak to sell chemistry and documentation to independent labs, it required a scale where full process control by an in-house chemist was standard. By contrast, every camera shop or drug store had its sales assistants run a completely uncontrolled (and often filthy) E6 minilab in the basement during the peak film years...

 

[airfrogusmc]

I think the death of Kodachrome started when Kodak started licensing out the process in the late 1980s. And Kodak at one time had several processing facilities in the states for K14. The death blow was digital. But there are rumors Kodak is looking to bring it back. They had reintroduced 120 Kodachrome 64 professional in the 1980s. I have some amazing 2 1/4 transparencies from that time shot with a 500 C/M.

I did some of my own E6 back decades ago. Even did 4X5 transparencies by hand in trays IIRC 14 step process first 3 steps in complete darkness.

And most people liked the over punched up colors of some E6 films. Ektachrome was usually a bit blue.

 

[HHPhoto]

I think the death of Kodachrome started when Kodak started licensing out the process in the late late 1980s.

No, that has nothing to do with it. Because no one else except Kodak used the process anymore at that time.

Kodachrome sales dropped siginificantly in the 90ies because E6 surpassed it in quality, costs and convenience.
And with the latest generation of Provia 100F, Astia 100F, Sensia III, Ektachrome E100G(X), Elitechrome 100 which all were introduced between 1999 and 2003, the difference between Kodachrome and the competition was so big that only some die hard Kodachrome users kept using it.

But there are rumors Kodak is looking to bring it back.

They will not. It is impossible. Kodak made that clear in an extra statement.

Ektachrome was usually a bit blue.

Not the latest version. It has had - like all current Kodak films - a bias on warmer colour rendition = yellow.

Cheers, Jan

 

[HHPhoto]

Well that's a lot better than I've gotten with e6. I have both E6 35mm, 2 1/4 and large format transparency that have not held up well over the years and Kodachrome 35mm transparencies that are 40 years old both stored in the same place in arrival sleeves and the Kodachome looks like the day I shot it. Can't say that for the a lot of the E6.

My old Kodachromes which I've often projected have siginificantly faded.
Wilhelm Imaging Research have got the same results in their tests. The weak colour stability of Kodachrome when it is exposed to light is very well known and documented.
Those of mine which were stored exclusively in the dark are still fine.
My Fujichrome E6 from the 80ies are all fine - those which were often projected and also those stored only in the dark.

Cheers, Jan

 

[HHPhoto]

That isen't my experience. Perhaps the weather is favourable for slides where you're from?

Well, I am from Germany. But I am shooting reversal film also on my travels around the world.

Outdoor, in landscape photography, the success factor in my experience is always to look for the best light (no matter whether you are shooting slides, negatives or digital).
And the best day time at the location you are.
Mostly that are the first hours on the day, and the later hours on the day. And very seldom at noon, midday, when the sun is at its peak, the contrast is highest and the light is the flattest and the coldest (highest colour temperature).

Cheers, Jan

 

[airfrogusmc]

Well yeah it did. There was a significant decrease in quality when labs like Lasalle here in Chicago got a license from Kodak to process Kodachrome. There were others nation wide in the late 1980s early 1990s. QA had gotten so bad Kodak pulled all the licenses mid 1990s IIRC and took it all back but a lot of damage to the brand was already done.

The reason for Kodachrome being more stable is the dies are added in the process where as the dyes are in the E6 films from the beginning. Dyes are vegetable based and will detonate over time. Kodachrome transparencies and die transfer prints were the only color processes that were excepted as color archival by most museums in film days.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodachrome

http://www.digitalrev.com/article/don-t-take-our-kodachrome-away

 

[lukitas]

To really understand the reversal process, one must keep in mind, that for all intents and purposes, a slide is basically a contact print.
First, the film is developed as normal negative film : the exposed particles become black.
Then, the exposed part of the film is washed out. All the black particles disappear. Now, the remaining sensitive particles are exposed, developed and fixed, leaving a positive image. Colour film is the same, with the addition of chemical tech to fix colours to the exposed particles.
This is the true reason why correct exposure is so important in slide film : the process does not leave any wiggle room. Over exposed areas are just washed away, under exposed ones stay opaque. One should think of it as polaroids, or one shot contact prints : It has to be right the first time.
Reversal film shouldn't show any loss of latitude; they are well calibrated : leeching out the exposed particles leaves a quite exact reversed image, with the same latitude, only in reverse.
The negative to print process is by definition lossy : there is more latitude in the negative than can be shown in the print. On the other hand, dodging and burning allow for a measure of control impossible in slides.
To clarify (or muddy) the point one could compare Out-Of-Camera JPEG to slides, and negatives to RAW files. But this is wonky : A slide has all the latitude of the negative, whereas the print is reduced to the latitude that can be reproduced on it. A raw file, on the other hand, has such more information to play with than a JPEG, and allows for much more freedom than a negative would par rapport à the slide.

 

[Finglas]

Jan,
thanks for sharing all your thoughts and knowledge here, very useful to have such information.

I got 2 rolls of Agfa Precisa CT100 in their mounts - back last week and although one roll was exposed last summer in Ireland - the other was in December in Costa Rica. Images from both rolls look excellent even if the film expiry date was 2015.

I was careful on exposure but the in-camera meter nailed it each time.

John

 

[HHPhoto]

Jan,
thanks for sharing all your thoughts and knowledge here, very useful to have such information.

You are welcome, John.

I got 2 rolls of Agfa Precisa CT100 in their mounts - back last week and although one roll was exposed last summer in Ireland - the other was in December in Costa Rica. Images from both rolls look excellent even if the film expiry date was 2015.

I've shot Fuji Provia reversal film which was about two years over the guarantee date (it is not an expiry date on film: the manufacturers give a guarantee that until this date the film is perfect, but it does not mean that film after that date is (suddenly) bad).
And this reversal film was just stored at room temperature.
It was absolutely fine.
If you cold store reversal film, it will be perfect for quite a long time after the guarantee date.

I was careful on exposure but the in-camera meter nailed it each time.

John

Most internal meters, especially those of modern film cameras, do an outstanding job. And if you know the basics of exposure and use the meter in the best way for the scene, perfect exposures are extremely easy.

Cheers, Jan

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

As I remember it, anything being printed in books, magazines and so on that was in colour had to be on slide film. My guess is that the equipment used for the colour separation was designed around it. For B&W reproduction prints were OK.

Regards, David