Jump to content

large prints from 35mm film?


Recommended Posts

Ron, I respect your knowledge on film emulsion technology, but I have a question. You said:

 

"Color negative and positive films can and are made to reproduce the same tone scale in the final print. The use of Colored, DIR, and DIAR couplers ensures this fact in the respective films that use them."

 

If this is the case, then why do we choose different films for different situations? If there is a Velvia or E100VS equivalent in color print film, why haven't we found it yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Rob;

 

For photomechanical production (illustrations in magazines) the editors like to work from positive originals for two reasons. First, they can composite the page more easily, and second, they can apply their preferred method(s) of color and image correction or masking.

 

Some editors like the higher contrast offered by some slide materials such as Kodachrome, and others like lower contrast materials such as some of the Fuji products.

 

Some users here like to view slides or scan them, and scanning software seems to be beter developed for positives than negative materials.

 

And, some people just prefer positives. You see that here in this thread.

 

I like both. As Scott Eaton said, you use the right film for the right job, and in that I have no disagreement with him. (Scott, sorry for paraphrasing you).

 

I prefer prints however, and since negative materials were made for printing, I use it to produce most of my prints. One of my favorite prints however, is a 16x20 from an Ektachrome 35mm slide, and it graces the wall next to me.

 

So, it is a matter of preference, job, and film type that leads any open minded photographer to select a given film. That is why, for prints and economy, I suggested to David Buck that he use a negative film and get traditional Endura Supra or Crystal Archive prints.

 

Now, going beyond that, each film based on type or speed has the levels of those chemicals adjusted for yielding different levels of contrast and color tone scale. There are fewer knobs to turn with reversal films, and correspondingly more to turn for color negative films. Therefore, there can be subtle differences between films, or even not so subtle differences.

 

A portait film, whether negative or positive, is going to have a different tone scale than a consumer film. We have discussed that elsewhere. But, basically, a given film for a given purpose usually has exactly the same final image producing capability whether negative or positive. The negative, since it is masked and uses DIR and DIAR couplers tends to have better color reproduction with finer grain and better sharpness. Again, people here will disagree with that statement along with others I have made, but unless they can offer side by side comparisons, it remains opinion.

 

Obviously, you can label my comment as opinion as well, however, in my time designing products at EK, I did run those tests and have proven it to my own satisfaction. I just cannot walk out the door at EK with the test results though and post them here.

 

That potential for similarity in negative and positive films is illustrated in the examples that I posted above on this thread. With the exception of the Kodachrome, both of the positive examples compare well with the negative film. These were straight scans with no photoshop retouches except to adjust the grey scale of the negative about 10% IIRC.

 

One last note. For me, the E6 process is a pain with all of the steps it requires and sending reversal film out for processing is relatively expensive and sometimes not too good. That is another reason that I have gravitated to negative.

 

Hope that helps.

 

Ron Mowrey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron,

 

Great response, thanks. I do use transparency material for my serious personal shooting, but I have no particular dislike for negative materials, I'm just familiar with shooting slides. In fact, I have been trying negative materials again for their relative cost effectiveness and wider latitude but in the tests I have been conducting, I simply can't get a scan that is anywhere near as good as I can for slides. I've tried the manufacturer's software and Vuescan with it's profiles, but neg scans just come up rather dull compared to the slide shots and usually have a more granular look. Slides with Vuescan come out beautifully with almost no tweaking. Anyway, if I were printing under an enlarger, I would no doubt choose negs, as direct positive printing in my experience can be rather frustrating.

 

By the way, are there any good online resources about film technology as I find this rather interesting? Funny, I should shoot with film for so long and not be interested in the underlying technology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What did Daniel Buck say when he started this thread? <BR>"<I>I am a new film shooter (coming from digital)...</I>" <BR>If all this doesn't drive him back to digital nothing will. The poor guy just wants to shoot some pictures for the guys in his Camaro club. I think the very first response that he got from Jean-Baptiste Queru is sufficient for his needs. If he asked which is the best route from Boston to New York that may have triggered a hot debate on the the benefits/deficits of truss,trestle/ suspension bridges, cement/asphalt and the desired qualities and quantities of aggregate that should be used. Still, it has been interesting.

 

<P>"<I>In a negative, a properly exposed image is a straight line which scanning turns into an "S" shaped V-Log E curve. In scanning a transparency you have an original with an "S" shaped D-Log E curve being multiplied by the scanner V-Log E curve and the algorithm cannot fix what really does not exist in the toe and shoulder. That missing detail can be 'compressed' out of existance in positive - positive rendering. In negative - positive rendering, there is minimum loss as there is only one compressive step in curve translation.</I>"<P>

 

Daniel,

 

<BR>         Did you get all that?

James G. Dainis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The guy just wants to optimize his amateur pics of his mates' cars. He has a limit of around $25 per large print. He's using a tripod, so he can make good use of a sharper film. He just wants some advice at his level.

 

I asked a similar question about a year ago about a group photo (20 people) using 35mm and got some good advice about a colour neg film. I was happy with my results (12x16inch prints).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would add that you should think about composition. The shots of the car should be taken in an open field or area with no buildings or other distractions in the background. You want to take the photos higher up so the field is also showing behind the car, no trees growing out of the hood or roof. An overcast day or an hour around sundown would be best to get even lighting and no hard black shadows.
James G. Dainis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

James;

 

Taken out of context, you seem quite correct.

 

Please note that this thread raised several other questions along the way, and some answers were addressed to these questions. The one you quote was directed to a question by Ilkka.

 

Daniel has been answered, as have others. If you want one question per thread, then you seem to have the power to put that into effect.

 

In fact, I have even given multiple answers to questions in one reply. So, let me know, what do you want?

 

Rob;

 

The RIT website has some interesting articles. Since this appears to be off the topic according to some, e-mail me and I'll give you some URLs to start with, but the resources are dissapointingly limited.

 

Ron Mowrey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"In fact, I have even given multiple answers to questions in one reply. So, let me know, what do you want?"

 

With his power of moderation, I want a better attitude. "Did you get all that?" Maybe Daniel didn't, others did. Great information in this thread, above and beyond the call of duty, like all threads should be. Ashame, future efforts may be curbed with this condescending response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having made: prints from color negatives using a variety of color papers; prints from transparencies using Ilfochrome; prints from transparencies using dye transfer; prints from color negatives and transparencies using a Lightjet; and prints from color negatives and transparencies using an Epson 9600, I will offer my opinions from my experience - since "facts" can be pretty much manipulated to support whateve contention you want.

 

Dye transfer: this is a frigging joke since what Ctein does or someone else who apparently manufactures his own materials is totally inapplicable to what anyone else attempting to get a print made commercially can expect. Dye transfer materials are not commercially available, and so this has little relevance to someone trying to get a print made at a reasonable price.

 

Sidebar for the esoterica mavins: where would you get that poster size matrix film or receiver paper even when dye transfer materials were available? The largest size I could order in 1978 was 16x20 - which was discontinued in 1982 and the largest became 11x14 until it was discontinued completely. It would be nice if people would limit their esoterica to something faintly relevant to the question, instead of demonstrating the depth of their apparently, limitless knowledge - to little practical effect.

 

Negative Vs. Transparency prints: on standard wet darkroom materials, prints from negatives are easier to make and will have a longer tonal scale, as positive film and print materials have more contrast causing the shadows to block and highlights to blow out.

 

For the esoterica mavins: through the use of masking on both dye transfer and Ilfochrome, you can make prints that are every bit the aesthetic equal of a negative print. Further, by making B&W separations from transparencies and printing the separations with masks onto Ilfochrome, you can make prints that are the equal of dye transfer in scale and color rendition. It's a lot of work - but, it can be done -and the final results are far, far different than the standard blast a slide to Ilfochrome material and then complain about the inferior results you hear about so often from "experts."

 

You won't find an Ilfochrome lab that will do this either - so, it's mostly a moot point like dye transfer. Ilfochrome has it's own aesthetic, and if the lab makes contrast masks, you can get very nice looking prints. But, in my opinion, with today's technology - not as good as a digitally generated color print.

 

Digital prints: I own an Epson 9600, I also have prints made on a Lightjet. I do all my own scanning using an Imacon. Not the be-all, end-all in digital imaging, but a bit further up the scale than scanning with an Epson flatbed and using those results as some sort of definitive indication of what can be expected from scanned film in digital printing.

 

In my experience, it is easier to get a good looking color print from a transparency than from a negative. Negative scans, even with the best scanners (drums, whatever you think is "best"), are problematic because you get some interacation of the scanner with the image construction found in negative film.

 

Some scanner facts: most scanner software is better optimized for color transparency film; you can compare the scanned image with the transparency for color fidelity, color balance, etc. Negative film requires someone's best guess as to what is correct for final color (unless you include a grey card or grey scale somewhere in the image).

 

Whether negative film has the best inherently built-in color reproduction capability is, in my opinon, a moot point since I'm looking for the best print - not the best theoretical color reproduction. Can you make a good digital print from a negative? Yes, it just takes more work and care than a digital print from a transparency. Just the reverse of wet darkroom printing - interesting, eh?

 

If you take your work to a color lab, and ask for a digital print, will you get better results from a negative or transparency? Depends on the level of print you want and the lab's experience.

 

My advice for your problem.

 

Shoot a 10mp or higher digital camera for the easiest and most direct method to the final print.

 

Choose a 100 speed transparency film for the easiest most direct method on film. This will give you a positive film image that both you and the lab can talk about for color, image qualities, etc.

 

If you want the longest scale with the most accurate color, shoot negative film and be prepared to go through 2-3 iterations of proofs with a lab to get a the best final result.

 

Lightjet or Inkjet? Glossy - Lightjet; matte print - inkjet with pigment inks. Choose the aesthetic you think is correct for the images. Choose the imaging method that best fits your style.

 

Forget all the arguments about what is best in motion picture film - this really is inapplicable to getting a reflective print made. It's really nice nickle knowledge, but what studios use for motion pictures is as much driven by the release print process/requirements as it is for the original image color fidelity and tonal range.

 

Therefore, make YOUR choices based on your requirements, workflow, and most importantly - budget.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Sidebar for the esoterica mavins: where would you get that poster size matrix film or receiver paper even when dye transfer materials were available? The largest size I could order in 1978 was 16x20 - which was discontinued in 1982 and the largest became 11x14 until it was discontinued completely. It would be nice if people would limit their esoterica to something faintly relevant to the question, instead of demonstrating the depth of their apparently, limitless knowledge - to little practical effect."

 

Sidebar for those interested: check here please;

 

http://www.jandcphotography.com/

 

http://www.dyetransfer.org/

 

http://vernclevenger.com/process.htm

 

http://www.iipa.org/process/index.html

 

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/hmpi/AltProcess/Articles/DyeTransfer/dye_trans.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I see nowhere in any post that recommends that Dan use dye transfer. I only see comments that dye transfer prints are beautiful and hard to make. In any event Shannon, thanks for the information.

 

Steve, I do see a number of posts that recommend just what you do, but in different orders of priority or with slightly different emphasis.

 

 

Ron Mowrey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A little levity goes a long way. My above post was a desperate attempt to get the thread back on track regarding Daniel's question. I had hoped that his question would have generated more specific recommendations, not only by film <U>names</U>, but also a few suggestions as to shooting techniques, perhaps recommendations for polarizing filters, shooting angles, speed ratings, etc. Maybe some examples of cars taken with Konica Impresa. (I know they are out there).<B></B><BR>        

The man is only starting with film so I don't think he has a film scanner. Arguments about the home scanning results of negative/positive films are moot in his case. He wants to take some shots and go to the lab to have the film developed and some 16 x 20 inch prints made for less than $25.

<B></B><BR>        

James G. Dainis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel's web site shows some of the car pictures that he's already taken. I think that they're quite decent already, and wouldn't consider it necessary to advise him on photographic technique per se.

 

The discussion about negatives vs. positives, although necessarily deep, is quite valuable in itself. It would be nice to back up a level however, and deal with those issues from the level of mere mortals instead of legendary figures such at Ctein.

 

I think that there are many more observers such as myself pondering these questions for their own purposes, and wondering what combination of techniques will make film work for us.

 

IMO, digital is well-suited to the masses, and it will be those who either don't care for digital for various reasons, or those who are well-equipped to deal with the difficulties with film who will continue to use film into the future. Discussions such as these do much to inform us along the way.

 

My sincere thanks to Rowland Mowrey for championing negative film here -- I'm sure that there are quite a few of us wondering now about how we can take better advantage of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still project my slides...to me, the best way of showing a roomful of relatives my pictures, and yes, I keep it short! Projected slides look awesome, probably because of the light being shined thru the slide...but much more sharp and colorful than the uncalibrated and out-of-focus video projectors that are in every office now. I only do photography for fun, and will do an occasional shoot for a friend for a nominal fee, but i'm in it for the enjoyment, so I end up shooting both slides and negatives...I gotten some really good suggestions here, the Kodak Portra 400UC is as great as everyone has said. Also have found I like Ektachrome E100G alot too...If I want prints to give to relatives, I shoot the print film...but slide film is a good way to save money too, as having a roll of slide film is a lot cheaper than having a pro lab develop/print negative film. And yes, I do still shoot Kodachrome...no, it's not as colorful in some cases as E6 films, but it is sooo sharp, and I like it's look...just my preference, that's all...but I do use other films too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

James;

 

I would be happy to recommend a specific film, but what if I recommended a Kodak film? After 32 years there, where would my credibility be even if I were right?

 

Mad Wand;

 

You are welcome.

 

Using negative film properly has a learning curve just as using reversal film does. You find yourself mentally adjusting to conditions based on the film type and speed in your camera. Even though negative film has more latitude, there are other things about it that make you do things differntly. Just as when I use Kodachrome, I shoot differently than when I use Ektachrome.

 

Today, I shot Polaroid test shots, Portra VC 4x5 and 120, Ektachrome 4x5 (to be cross processed), and Tri X and Ilford Delta. I shot in 3 different sizes. Each format and film made me 'feel' different about the scenes I was faced with in the game preserve where I was shooting. When taking the portrait of a fisherman on the pier there, I shot differently than when I shot the water scenes. Different angles, but in some cases, the same exposures.

 

The shot of the fisherman would have been impossible with Kodachrome or perhaps even Ektachrome, as I would have had to pose him. With the Portra VC, I don't believe there will be any problem. The polaroid was excellent. I gave it to him.

 

Regards.

 

Ron Mowrey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike,

 

I thought I was the only one who still projects slides and shoots Kodachrome!

 

Ilkka, there are at least TWO people here who do project slides.

 

Why do I like Kodachrome? Because growing up I saw my Father's Kodachrome slide, and my Grandfather's Kodackrome slides, and my kids still like to see my Kodachrome slides. The Kodachromes from the 50's and 60's still project well. It's just what I'm used to seeing.

 

But I've come to the conclusion that for the home darkroom printer, making color prints is easier if you start with color negative material.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anthony;

 

By the very nature of the Kodacrhome process it is less stable than other processes without constant throughput. That is why so many Kodachrome labs are going dark.

 

Kodachrome is also subject to dye contamination. See the post of MacBeth charts I made above. It is high contrast and dull, by comparison to modern reversal films.

 

It gained notoriety because back when it was introduced, it was the absolute best color around, well, actually, it was the only color around. Now there are others that equal or rival Kodachrome, notwithstanding preferences or nostalgia.

 

Properly used, many other color films, both negative and positive rival Kodachrome for overall quality. Kodachrome still excells in sharpness though.

 

Ron Mowrey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will add to this great discusion my own findings from scanning at home with my Canoscan FS4000US film scanner.

 

If I have a well exposed Fuji Velvia slide that is not very contrasty I can get an extremely good scan. Contrasty Velvia reveals almost no deep detail when scanned at home- I have to resort to the local pro lab. Astia looks to be finer grained in the few images I've scanned but Velvia's color is much more intense if that is what you like.

 

I have had much better luck scanning film negatives as far as being able to get a good scan from even highly contrasty negatives. The two films I have settled on, depending on lighting situations, is Fuji Reala at ISO 100 and Press 400. Both films scan beautifully and, once I've made a few corrections through Photoshop, print out very smoothly with great sharpness through my Canon i960 inkjet printer. The 4000 DPI scans, which are approximately 5711x3880 could go to 20x24 at 200PPI without any interpolation and I am sure would look great. I will be testing that theory out with some of the images I have posted in my portfolio on this website in the folder titled "Dallas Arboretum". Almost all those images are scanned Reala or Press 400.<div>008Yhi-18397384.thumb.jpg.7299f5e8950a8222901651c27ebca738.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inherent in the choice to use a slide film is that the light must be such that the film works well for the subject in the light. I don't use Velvia 50 because I found it difficult to scan and I don't like the colours. There are many lower-contrast slide films such as Astia and Kodak E100G/GX which usually scan well even if the subject is in contrasty light.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the subject of Kodachrome (and other) colour stability: There is a source on the Internet which provides information on techniques for long-term storage and preservation. No doubt, you are much better off with materials that are inherently more stable. And the materials, given attention, are improving in this regard. However, if you already have less stable materials, then you could look at options to minimize loss.<p>

 

Techniques for minimizing loss are themselves potentially dangerous. E.g. some materials are much less stable in sealed containers than in free air. And some of the information in contradictory, and naturally difficult to evaluate. That said, if you choose to try to inform yourself and make best efforts towards preservation, the following source can help.<p>

 

This book is available for free download.<p>

 

<a href="http://www.wilhelm-research.com/book_toc.html">http://www.wilhelm-research.com/book_toc.html</a>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Mad Wand;

 

The Wilhelm site and book are both out of date, sad to say.

 

They don't address newer products from Fuji or Kodak which are far more stable than the results they publish.

 

Their storage recommendations are about the only reliable information, as that does not change.

 

They have also not addressed the keeping properties of digital originals, although they have addressed some aspects of digital print materials.

 

I have slides of all types and negatives of all types along with corresponding prints dating from the 40s. The interesting thing is that all color negatives and Kodachromes keep the best and are still in good condition. Ektachromes and prints vary depending on the processing lab and version of film or paper. The same goes for other brands.

 

Surpisingly enough, old Anscochromes and Printon prints that I made as a teen still look unfaded today, although their original quality was never very good.

 

I would say that for Ektachromes and Fujichromes, as well as any paper print, it depends in part on the lab doing the process as to how stable the final product might be. Fading varies considerably based on storage: local atmospheric contaminants, humidity, temperature, lighting, etc. and the procssing conditions: good wash, adequate stabilizer, etc.

 

I would have to estimate that todays print materials, Crystal Archive and Endura Supra, should last at least 100+ years under normal conditions. The last I looked, I could not find where Wilhelm tested these two products for comparison with previous print materials from the same manufacturers.

 

Ron Mowrey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...