Poor Prints From Slides: A Myth?

Recently I compared 4x6 prints. Prints-from-slides versus prints-from-print film. I used the two best exposures from the slide film and the two best from the print film.

The prints-from-slides look far better and sharper. Why? I also got more correct exposures using slide film. Even the jpeg files from (scanned) prints from slides look clearer and sharper on the client's internet site. This is my first direct comparison of prints from slides versus print film since about the year 2000. Has technology improved such that �poor prints from slides' is now a myth? I know I'm comparing 800 speed print film with 100 speed slide film. But are there any other variables I'm missing? (See details below).

I shot an automobile show. Harsh daylight. Used a Tokina ATX 28-70 zoom, Nikon body, 100 speed Sensia slide film, Fuji Superia 800 print film, a flash and a tripod. I used aperture priority and made all shots at F9.5. I let the camera set the shutter speed. I mainly used matrix metering. Both slides and prints were processed at a pro shop. The pro shop scanned all the slides at "low" resolution. It charged me $2 for each scan. It saved the scans as bmp files and put them on a CD ROM. The two best exposures on slide film were scanned at "high" resolution and made into 4x6 prints (the shop could not tell me what the "high" meant but it said it does not use a drum scan. The shop charged me $6 for each high resolution scan.) All prints had a matte finish.

I asked a friend to scan every print at 1600 dpi and save them as bmp files. She tweaked all bmp files using the exact same settings with a photo software. She converted all final files to small jpeg files. The client posted the jpeg files on its internet sight.

Yes, it's now a myth, and yes, things have changed that much.

The old, pre-digital, print from slides issue was terrible. Now you're looking at far advanced scanning AND printing technology from even 3-4 years ago. There's still no way to get a true rendering of most slides with Ilfochrome, C-type or R-type methods.

Also, you still aren't going to have the exposure latitude you do with print film--but clearly if there isn't much contrast that won't be noted, but wait until you have a contrasty image compared side by side.

Finally, 800ISO just isn't going to come close in comparison to ISO 100 slide film--that part of your comparison isn't fair.

It wasn't that long ago that digital prints were an oddity handled only by specialty shops. Now for $300 you can get a 4000dpi scanner and for another $300 a very good photo quality printer and print away making stuff as good as you could get 3-4 years ago for nearly that much for a single print.

What Ellis said. It's always been a myth.<p>Karl Lehmann <a href="http://www.lostworldarts.com/new_page_3.htm">Lost World

Arts</a>

Let me get this straight. Your evaluation of slide vs prints was based on:<P>

Subject matter = car show <br>

Film types = Sensia 100 vs Fuji Inferia 800<br>

Scanning = Unknown (commercial based)<br><P>

Next time:<BR>

- Try shooting a little better print film such as Reala or Kodak UC 400<P>

- Try shooting human beings under variable contrast conditions other than static subjects with limited dynamic range such as automotive paint jobs<P>

- Use a slide film that isn't designed for portraiture and actually requires a brain to scan like Provia<P>

I'm not disagreeing with your results because I'd expect Sensia/Astia to trump print film given this scenario, but please give me a break in regards to your conclusions.