With photoshop: slides vs. negatives (prints)

[drjoke]

If you scan negatives then jack up contrast, it's pretty close to slides. Plus, you get expanded dynamic range. You can also jack up saturation. It is also much easier to scan. It's all quite easy to do in Aperture.

With this assumption, would you say negatives get you better results than slides? Or negatives gets you good results easier/more consistently than slides?

 

[payasam]

Haven't found much difference. Don't use Aperture, though.

 

[mobilexile]

Getting a good scan from a negative isn't easy. Doesn't matter if you're using a flatbed scanner or a drum.

 

[rogue_designer]

It depends™

Your scanner, scanning ability, software ability, output etc. Too many variables.

I like the flexibility of negatives, especially in regards to dynamic range. But it does take longer to get the files where I want them for output, and despite being very very good, they are still not quite as clean as transparencies at the same film speed.

It's easier for me to get a good looking print from a slide.

But I need the dynamic range for my architectural work - so I shoot negative film.

Horses for courses. Use what makes sense for the look you want. If you want high contrast, high saturation shots - shooting most neg films is just eating time to get there.

 

[slm]

Well, I really like slides and initially thought they scan better than color negatives, but lately, I've been getting ok results with color negatives (Canon 8400F scanner). Something to consider though, depending where you live, it might be difficult to find a photo lab that does E6 processing. I shot a few MF rolls of slide this winter, and when it came time to get it processed, my regular shop had stopped all E6 ! Seems there is now only one lab in Montreal that does E6, and all the other labs farm out to them. What a drag. And something else thats a drag - you can't scan directly from Aperture, even if it was simply twain and just encapsulated the vendors driver.

 

[mobilexile]

It depends™

Your scanner, scanning ability, software ability, output etc. Too many variables.

I like the flexibility of negatives, especially in regards to dynamic range. But it does take longer to get the files where I want them for output, and despite being very very good, they are still not quite as clean as transparencies at the same film speed.

It's easier for me to get a good looking print from a slide.

But I need the dynamic range for my architectural work - so I shoot negative film.

Horses for courses. Use what makes sense for the look you want. If you want high contrast, high saturation shots - shooting most neg films is just eating time to get there.

In my experience scanning negatives is extremely difficult. Even people who run drum scanners as their occupation have trouble getting good results.

I've had negatives sent out to color houses for print production and had to send the scans back several times until they looked good. These instances have been for print production of ads, not for newsprint, but for high end publications and for jobs I had going up on Web presses.

One ad agency I worked for had an offshoot pre-press company complete with drum scanner. They run a 24/7 scanning operation and do outstanding work. Every time I sent them negatives I feared for my life -- they HATED negatives.

 

[rogue_designer]

One ad agency I worked for had an offshoot pre-press company complete with drum scanner. They run a 24/7 scanning operation and do outstanding work. Every time I sent them negatives I feared for my life -- they HATED negatives.

Wow. I've never had that experience. I've used a few labs around here for agency work and have not had any trouble. One scanner operator I ran into actually prefers negs.

*shrug*

 

[mobilexile]

Wow. I've never had that experience. I've used a few labs around here for agency work and have not had any trouble. One scanner operator I ran into actually prefers negs.

*shrug*

That's cool.

In the interest of full disclosure, I'm tough on separators. I don't let them slip anything by.

Was just checking out your shots. I especially like your B&W work ... beautiful stuff.

 

[Pablito]

I shoot a lot of b&w film and make repro darkroom prints and scan them. This gives wonderful b&w files, far nicer than scanning negs.

but for color, I shoot DSLR. HUGE timesaver and great results...RAW gives great dynamic range...

 

[rogue_designer]

That's cool.

In the interest of full disclosure, I'm tough on separators. I don't let them slip anything by.

Was just checking out your shots. I especially like your B&W work ... beautiful stuff.

Thanks - also in the interest of full disclosure - I'm very trusting of most prepress and art departments - and to date haven't found a reason to push back. But I also know I've been lucky, and am very selective about who I do work with. And even more luckily - shooting mostly architecture, the people running those materials are at least as picky as I would be.

And thank you for the compliment. Much appreciated.

 

[mhv]

Seems there is now only one lab in Montreal that does E6, and all the other labs farm out to them. What a drag.

No, I know of at least five different ones: Pros de la photo (who receive all the drugstore orders), LL Lozeau, Photo Service, DAFO éclair, and Royal Photo. Just look harder next time.

 

[Ronald_H]

The last 10 years I have used (up) three different scanners and scanned hundreds of rolls.

Negative scanning is much more difficult. Slides are good or they aren't. If they look bad when projected they won't scan well. If they do, they will. Color is also pretty much 'as is'.

And indeed, E6 processing is getting extinct here (Netherlands) too. My pro lab stopped doing it altogether, I now rely on drugstore processing (which is fine btw).

Scanning is quite an art if you want to do it well. Like the fact that some films and some developers don't go well together, some films don't scan well, while others are wonderful. There are also a zillion parameters that you can influence, especially with Vuescan.

 

[Robin P]

I use an Epson 4490 and my experience is that B&W and colour negatives are very easy to scan but slides are VERY HARD WORK!
I tried some Velvia and could not get a decent scan whatever I did, my usual EliteChrome is easier but only if exposure is spot on and the scene is of moderate contrast. Even then straight from the scanner the colour is horribly blue, I found the best fix is to save as a .tif and then use Photoshop's "open as" to do adjustments with the RAW converter.
Here's the first slide scan I've ever been happy with (about 20 minutes work to get it this far).

Cheers, Robin

 

[aparat]

With this assumption, would you say negatives get you better results than slides? Or negatives gets you good results easier/more consistently than slides?

I think it's about the look of a particular emulsion. Sure, you can post-process any digital file, but what I like about film is that each type of film is unique. I don't want to make color negative look like slide, and vice versa.

I find that. on average, scanning color slide film produces more consistent results than scanning color negative film, especially using Vuescan and saving as dng and then converting in Adobe Camera Raw (I use the Coolscan 9000 scanner).

aparat

 

[bhop73]

Maybe i've just been lucky but my epson 4490 makes it easy to scan color negatives.. I just turn off all the extra settings and run it through. I might adjust the levels slightly on the preview and I do have to tweak the color a little once it's in Photoshop, but it's not really difficult.

This is from my canonet, fuji 800z film..