large prints from 35mm film?

[jeffrey moore]

Ron, I actually have Ctein dye transfer print framed and hanging on my wall. It is indeed a beautiful process. I also have a Bill Atkinson print made on an Epson 9600 with UltraChrome inks on Epson Premium Semimatte paper. It is also a beautiful print, in my view matching the Ctein print in every respect. They are different though, and some will prefer one over the other.

 

A couple of points to be made, however. First, there are very few people on the planet that can extract from the dye transfer process what Ctein can. Even some of the most talented photographers and printers cannot make this process work. And while the highest level in digital printing is not at all easily attainable, it can be reached for those that are willing to work through the learning curve. And second, there will soon come a day, if it is not already here, that even Ctein won't be making dye transfer prints because the materials won't be available.

 

Cordially,

[EricM]

You can't use a motion picture screen as an example here. No one is arguing with you on the quality of a projected image with superior developing and printing versus Daniels expressed goal. Daniel is asking about making enlargements from a small still camera, c-41 or e-6, and doing outputs to hang on the wall. He's not asking about projection or viewing in a theatre. It's safe to assume that this output print is going to be digital of some sort, from a Frontier to an Epson to a CSI, whatever. The digital manipulation you speak of to get there is the given traveled path today. How else is he going to hand out his prize images to his car buddies? Order custom colour wet prints? No. If he shoots colour neg it's still going to be scanned at some point. If it's an average job for friends and family, then go with Reala in this case on a Frontier, i might as well say IMO. If it's for a top of the line job, then a drum scan and through an equal printer, like the rest of the professional world.

 

Once again Rowland, how would you preform Daniels task?

[jeffrey moore]

A follow-up to my last post: Just out of curiosity, I went to Ctein's website, and in fact, dye-transfer materials have long since been discontinued. Ctein purchased the last of the remaining materials and says he has enough to contiue printing for the next ten years or so. Just in case you were interested and/or curious as I was. (I know this has drifted way off the original topic.)

[maylon_roberts]

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film.htm#slideorprint

 

That 4-film comparison link doesn't speak for itself. What is that meant to show? The only whites that show up as white are from the Kodachrome.

 

As far as the positive vs negative issue, the color balance built into the color-negative film is the very reason why many serious photographers don't use it. If you want an in-your-face, color-popping image, you can't use a film that is riding the gainer on your color like negative films do. With color-positive film, YOU create your color balance; with color-negative film, limits have already been placed on the film, in essence, telling you what your image should look like.

 

A better argument is made by www.kenrockwell.com. Everything you see on his site is from Velvia,(no photoshop) and the colors he gets are simply not possible with color-negative film. Visit his "how to" section for the discussion.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film.htm#slideorprint

 

For all the rest of you, keep on using color negative film. My 6x7 chromes will beat anything you have into the ground, every time.

[rowland_mowrey]

Jeffry;

 

Jim Browning makes his own Matrix film from his own formula. I have one of his outstanding prints here. There are still pockets of original dye transfer dyes and chemistry out there and Jim has worked up a very nice dye set. I have several boxes of Pan Matrix film myself all tucked away in my freezer. I also have a set of original dyes. I have not done any myself for about 10 years though, and I was never even near Ctein in ability.

 

Eric;

 

Dan wanted to know how sharp he could expect 35mm prints to be. My answer is that negatives would be the sharpest, lowest in grain, and best in color quality regardless of method used for printing, all other things being equal. My proof is the quality of motion picture projection which is both sharp and low in grain. Perhaps you miss that point. That is the reason I brought motion picture into the argument. In any event, prints up to 30x40 can be obtained from 35 mm negatives with excellent quality at standard viewing distances.

 

Any digital manipulation of scanned negatives or transparencies muddy the waters, but in general, scanned manipulated images from either negatives or transparencies will also yield very good prints. IMHO, having seen some results, I would say that they vary considerably and can be much lower in quality to nearly equal, but lacking exact side by side comparisons, I can't truthfully say I have seen any that are better than a very good 'wet' print or dye transfer.

 

IMHO, the cost of digital print materials is very high compared to conventional silver halide photographic papers when you consider the levels of technology represented by the two products. Image stablity of digital prints are about equal to or less than the Endura or Crystal Archive class of papers. Digital images on disk or CD as magnetic, Aluminum, or Dye recordings (HD or CD) have an expected half life of 10 - 20 years according to recent articles.

 

Non-digital prints from transparencies are not very good, even in the best instances unless they are dye transfers or magazine illustrations with highlight and sharpness masks (which are standard in digital prints, magazines, and dye transfers).

 

Peace. Enjoy photography.

 

Ron Mowrey

[rowland_mowrey]

Jonathan;

 

I respect your position very much, however the statement you made which is reproduced below is not correct.

 

"As far as the positive vs negative issue, the color balance built into the color-negative film is the very reason why many serious photographers don't use it. If you want an in-your-face, color-popping image, you can't use a film that is riding the gainer on your color like negative films do. With color-positive film, YOU create your color balance; with color-negative film, limits have already been placed on the film, in essence, telling you what your image should look like."

 

Color negative and reversal films intended for daylight balance have close to the same speed relationships. They have inherent in them the same color gamut. Color negative films have correction for unwanted dye absorption and inter and intralayer interimage to enhance color and sharpness. Reversal films have some of the interimage effects as well.

 

Many serious photographers do use color negative. And, many of them get eye popping color.

 

As far as the posted example above, it was used to illustrate color reproduction of Kodachrome vs the other films. In point of fact, the Kodachrome does get a whiter white, higher contrast, duller greens, and muddy flesh tones. You didn't mention that. Also, the other two reversal films were a close match to the color negative. Which is really what the aim was in the first place.

 

Printing the negative though will give better results than printing the transparencies for the reasons cited above. The straight line of the negative material will reproduce well on any print material via a D-log E curve or a V-log E curve (traditional or digital). The reversal materials will suffer image degradation unless contrast, dye, and highlight masking are used either in the traditional or digital print stage.

 

If you don't understand this, perhaps you should look under another thread where I uploaded some curves of dyes and sensitometry to illustrate this point.

 

I direct you to Chapter XIV "Reproduction Characteristics of a Hypothetical Subtractive Color Process" and the following chapters of "Principles of Color Photography" by Evans, Hanson, and Brewer. If you don't believe me, you might believe them. They show the H&D curves, dye curves, and mathematics to substantiate my claims.

 

After asking people to offer proof, do you think I would come up with my comments out of thin air? I have several textbooks on my lap while typing out these answers, along with prints in some cases, to make sure I'm not just giving an opinion.

 

So, Jonathan, while I respect your opinion above and reputation, I ask you as well, have you done an exact side by side comparison? Or are you reporting single stimulus qualitative 'data' which reduced to English means 'opinion'.

 

I have shown in the upload above that Verichrome film can match Ektachrome and Fujichrome (those were done about 10+ years ago unfortunately).

 

The other comparisons in the test included Agfachrome, and the shots were done in 4x5 and 35mm for all films. Included with it were portrait and outdoor photography. So I have done the tests, and have done it more than once. I have run the following print materials: Supra, Endura, Plus, 37, and 30 prints as well as 1993, 3000, and Ciba/Ilfochrome comparison prints of the same subjects.

 

Regards.

 

Ron Mowrey

[steve_levine]

Rent or borrow a medium format camera.Properly exposed 35mm color negatives,can be blown past 11",but the small format betrays itself if you view too closely.Conventional wisdom says that 10X's enlargement is about all you get from any negative.

[maylon_roberts]

Rowland, do you work for the color-negative film world headquarters?

You're own words are comming back to haunt you...

 

"That is because color negative has built in correction that starts the image out with the best tone scale and color rendition."

 

My point is, who is to say what the "best tone scale" and "color rendition" is? It better not be some Kodak tech in Rochester, NY. They don't know what type of tonal scale or color rendition I am looking for. That's my fundamental gripe with color-neg films. It's like having training wheels on a BMX trick bike. Afterall- the training wheels do automaticly place the bike in the "best" position for riding.

 

If it is your preference, fine. I'm done, peace out.

[rowland_mowrey]

Jonathan;

 

Color reversal films start out with a given tone scale and color rendition as well. As you can see from my uncorrected scan posted above, the reversal and negative materials are close together.

 

The aim is to have them both (negative and positive) reproduce the real world. Due to the corrections built in, negative recreates the original image better than the positive material, especially when reproduction is intended.

 

Read the reference I gave above and you will understand more fully what you are missing right now.

 

I have absolutely no doubt that you take stunning transparencies. I am also sure that if you took some negatives, and then printed your transparencies and negatives side by side, the negative prints would look better. I have seen this done time after time.

 

The tone scale compression inherent in pos-pos printing just does not exist in neg-pos. If you don't understand the technical details, or if you are unwilling to run such a test, then I cannot explain pictures to you in words here.

 

Again, I repeat, transparencies may make very stunning originals. They are not intended to be optimum for printing. Negatives reproduce the same tone scale as a slide, but have been optimized for printability by having a longer tone scale and color masking. This does not degrade color, it enhances it. It makes individual colors more pure. Again, read Evans, Hanson, and Brewer for a mathematical and graphical description of this.

 

And remember that those stunning Ctein dye transfers, and the stunning photo illustrations in magazines have had the same color masking and tone scale adjustments applied to them that is built into color negative. Color negatives, you might say, have a built in Photoshop.

 

Many professionals that I knew, took color negative originals and supplied transparencies to the magazines by using print film. That way they got the best of both worlds. After all, this is what Hollywood does, right? Do you complain that their images are not stunning? Are the scenes in major motion pictures dissapointing? Dull? Flat? Lifeless? ECN is basically a Portra like color negative film printed onto ECP, a print film to give the theater positive.

 

So Jonathan, think over what you have said and go to a movie sometime. Look critically at the color reproduction of masters of the trade using color negative film.

 

I uses both types of film BTW. Not just negative. And, I cross process both films and color paper as well.

 

Regards.

 

Ron Mowrey

[lex_jenkins]

You folks really should read Ron's statements a bit more carefully and with less prejudice.

 

You like your chromes, fine. I like 'em too. I've had some outstanding prints made on a Frontier machine from my Provia slides. But the best were of a very limited dynamic range.

 

I can't speak for him now but several years ago when I was a participant on CompuServe's photo forums where Ctein has been a longtime member I used to read many of his inarguably authoritative comments on making high quality color prints. (For those who aren't familiar with Ctein he's among the handful of darkroom wizards remaining making dye transfer prints - not dye *sublimation*, different process - the process for which Eliot Porter is famed. There's some excellent info about him and his process on his own website, including a freebie excerpt from his book "Post Exposure".

 

During the entire time I participated on CompuServe's photo forum I never once read a statement from Ctein that he used or preferred making his personal prints from chromes. At that time he was very fond of Reala (and, at that time at least, used Pentax 67 medium format SLRs for most of his serious work), which admittedly factored in my decision to stick with Reala for my own medium format photography. In addition he used Fuji NPS and was also beginning to make some favorable comments about Kodak's then-new Portra films. No chromes/slides/transparencies.

 

I once asked him about printing one of my favorite 35mm Kodachrome slides. He was polite enough (he's almost unfailingly polite) but I could infer from his response that he wouldn't encourage the matter. The gist of it was that the slide probably wouldn't translate into a print worthy of his reputation - which is naturally an important factor - and I'd be disappointed with the result if my expectations were too high. He also preferred to print only his own work, at least as of that time.

 

And I couldn't afford him anyway.

 

The point is that some folks with considerable expertise have typically advised that the best color prints come from the best color negative films.

 

BTW, if color negative film is so great, why do I continue shooting 35mm slides in general preference to color negative film (when I do shoot color)?

 

Because I have some work I'd like to see published and traditionally art directors prefer slides. Sure, digital - whether scanning or capture - is changing that quickly. But I don't shoot digital and there's no point fighting a long established tradition of preference for slides in the publishing biz. And colorful transparencies look fabulous on an art director's light table. (I suspect that many photographers spend way too much time hunched over a light table with a loupe in order to arrive at the conclusion that slides are the best.)

 

When I shoot stuff like weddings and portraits in 35mm I use color negative film. And the only color film I use in MF is Reala.

 

(And I really don't wanna get into the film vs. digital debate here because I get the impression that Daniel preferred to limit the focus of this discussion to the merits of film.)

[EricM]

Lex, I read all of Ron's posts like a hawk. I feel I read him correctly. I feel you dismissed half of this thread before contributing.

 

His suggestion is to go an esoteric fine art route that is backed by a "I told you so" attitude and reference to motion picture stock. I don't even recall an argument about what is sharper, colour neg or E-6, but it's here anyway. Daniel just wants to hand out some enlargements to his buddies from a car show and keep it under $25. Is anybody else reading his posts? How does he get decent results within this budget? There's only a couple ways to skin this cat, I've already given a fitting answer a few times, and have yet to see Ron's instructions to Daniel.

 

Although I've never pretended to know more than Rowland, but the condescending vibe like this ("The tone scale compression inherent in pos-pos printing just does not exist in neg-pos. If you don't understand the technical details, or if you are unwilling to run such a test, then I cannot explain pictures to you in words here.") ...does little for anyone's patience. Rowland's the only one that has ever introduced the notion of positive to positive, and has argued for the sake of c-41 throughout from this stance. I couldn't give a sh*t about the tone scale compression inherent in pos-pos printing in this thread. It's way off topic.

 

In my very first post I mentioned Reala, directly underneath my post Ron accuses me and one other of forgetting colour neg. It's been downhill ever since. If you're serious, and think that 35mm colour neg to positive, wet print, can hold up against a high rez scan of 35mm Velvia or Astia, and taken to poster size, and I do mean poster size, you should spend the $100 and try it. No other process can provide the stunning results of 15,000 dpi and 13 f stops. End of story, I'm out too, peace.

[john_photo]

Jonathan,

 

Many photographers would dread the thought that their work would end up looking like the wacked out calendar type colors that Ken Rockwell has. Nothing original in his use of color other than using highly saturated amateurish emulsions like velvia ( amatuerish in the not used widely in professional photography vein ). His site is very opined and he is speaking mostly to people who are just starting in photography. Either he is unaware, or chooses to ignore that most of the great gallery fine art icons of this century who work in color utilized color negative materials ( no, not the "I have a gallery" guy from Jackson Hole or Vail who sells his chrome landscape prints ).

 

In my opinion Rockwells site is a argument FOR color neg film or at least Astia.

 

That being said his site ( gear stuff ) is a valuable resource that I have supported in the past.

[StuartMoxham]

To be honest Daniel you could do a lot worse than shoot a negative film and have them printed at a decent lab. Yeah you could use slide film and have drumscans made and then lightjet prints made but do your buddies really want to pay for all this, probably not so make your life easier shoot a decent color neg film and have a good lab do the prints for you.

[marshall]

This thread is the best and the worst of photo.net as an educational resource.

 

There is a lot to learn here. There are a lot of posts that say one way will "beat" another way, or is "better" than another way, including posts from the most experienced printers in the thread. No offense, but I don't really care what you think is "better" any more than you care what I think is "better". If you have experience or evidence that says one way is sharper, or the color is "purer" or "more vibrant" or whatever, then that's more helpful information. "Better" is a decision we each make based on our own personal preferences and vision for our own photography, whether it's based on how we want our walls and our family albums to look or whether it's based on what we can sell to a publisher or advertiser.

 

Rowland, I thank you for your expertise in this thread (and others), but would like to question one point. You said, "By manipulation, I mean that the tone scale should not be manipulated in the scan. No lightening or darkening, no contrast adjust." Aren't the best prints in part the result of good, creative control of contrast in the processing? Now, it may be more of a requirement in slide film than in neg film to do some contrast control (correct me if I'm wrong, but crudely put, slide film captures less and holds more contrast, yes?). But doesn't neg film also hold more contrast range than most printing materials?

 

All of which is about getting the absolute best possible print, time spent be damned, while the original question may not be getting at that level of work. And for that, neg film, with its easier-to-print-with-no-manipulation range, may well be the best answer.

[steve_levine]

This thread is an example of the type of ball busting that goes on,that chases valued resources like Ron away!

[rowland_mowrey]

Marshall;

 

I was trying to illustrate that you can manipulate any image digitally to improve the apparent quality. Sharpening and grain reduction are among those used.

 

Since many people don't have good algorithms or know how to scan negatives, often negative scans suffer in comparison to postitive scans.

 

If you want to make comparisons of reversal and negative color printing, the same levels of correction should be applied, or best of all, none. You cannot sharpen and reduce grain in one and leave the other untreated and then say the first example is sharper and finer grain. See my point? It must be a level playing field.

 

Eric;

 

You have a point in that I have not posted a specific answer to Daniel's question. But then, I don't see much in the way of good factual answers here from others either. However, you can get at my bottom line by reading my posts. Here it is anyway. And Lex stated it as well.

 

Dan;

 

Color negative and B&W negative are designed for giving optimum prints to those who wish them. If you want prints, shoot negative.

 

An additional factor is finding a reliable stable E6 process (read other threads if you don't believe this). The C41 process is more reliable and repeatable due in large part to the greater volume. Also, turnaround is faster due to the prevalence of labs doing C41.

 

Shoot negatives and pick a good lab. Either get them 1. (hopefully) drum scanned and digitally printed or 2. printed traditionally - which I prefer, but get tests run first at different labs and compare prices and quality.

 

If you must use transparency, check with your lab to see if they want the slides unmounted or not. Check prices and quality. Often, slide prints are contrasty and have unreal color rendition unless a lot of correction is applied during the printing process. This is because slides were not designed to be printed and so need the heavy correction during the printing process. No matter how a slide print is done, if they have to do a lot of manipulation, you pay for it.

 

Slow films are better for grain and sharpness than fast films. I useually expose negative film about 1/3 stop under rated speed. I don't do this for slide film. The consensus here, from what I gather, is that Fuji slide films are better, and Kodak negative films are better. I have no personal proof of this either way, it is just what seems to be a consensus here and what I have learned talking to my professional friends.

 

As a final note to all of you reading this thread.

 

Many of you are like automobile enthusiasts who believe that a chipmunk in a rotating cage runs the engine. You know nothing about what is under the hood and you believe in myth and fairy tales and you expound them. I'm opening that hood up and pointing out the fact that there is a sophisicated engine there, and that most of you don't know how it runs, how to tune it, or how to maintain it. But, this does not detract from the fact that behind the wheel, you are excellent drivers. Please don't disparage my efforts to open that hood up. I know that many of you don't care. Thats fair, but don't criticize me, as others want to see the hood opened. There is room for all of us here.

 

In fact, I have pointed out that there are different classes of engines with different characteristics such as neg - pos, pos - pos, high iodide, low iodide, interimage, color masking, etc..

 

I'm an under the hood guy who can give you help on those items. You guys who are good photographers, stay behind the camera, help people take pictures, but you have got to understand some of the things that take place under the hood or eventually you are going to give advice that is opinion not fact, or at worst you may just propagate a myth such as the fact that tungsten films are daylight films with a dye overcoat.

 

Jonathan Buffaloe in his previous post disagreed with me entirely, but in support of my position, I called on the entire motion picture industry to refute his postion that only reversal film can give good snappy color. Negative can exceed or at worst equal postive materials in producing a final viewable image. It is in the hands of the photographer to do that. The example of using motion picture to answer Daniel's original question was either ignored, or went over many heads.

 

Did any of you ever consider that you might be relying on the high contrast and exaggerated color of some reversal films to rescue your photographs. This is true in some cases. Only true masters of all of these media, like Ctein can do all of them true justice.

 

I hope that this answered all of the previous comments and questions. Thanks to those who e-mailed me. I am always happy to send out replies to critics and supporters alike. I thank you all.

 

Now, try to enjoy your hobby and approach it with an open mind.

 

Peace.

 

Ron Mowrey

[ilkka_nissila]

Ron, a contrast and brightness adjustment is standard in black and white darkroom work, and brightness and colour corrections are equally standard in color work. To get a good print of a correctly color balanced transparency, I only apply levels, no sharpening or grain reduction. If I do the same with most of my negs, I get lots of grain.

 

You say that the scanner software does "manipulation" to get better results from the slide. But since this "manipulation" does not require user input, and it gives consistent results, what exactly is wrong with it? The end result is what counts, not how big a contrast adjustment is required to get there. Today, it is possible to calibrate every film and light source combination separately so that you should get a faithful reproduction of the scene consistently. This renders the corrections built-in in the color negative film unnecessary from the point of view of making digital reproductions as far as I can see (but maybe I'm wrong; my day work is in biomedical optical measurement systems, not photography). A chemically created calibration (built-in the neg film) is inferior to a physics & maths based software algorithm simply because in software, much more sophisticated algorithms can be applied. Of course, it may still be that negs produce superior digital prints as you say (due to whatever practical reasons of film manufacture and processing), but I'll have to see that in my tests to believe. I'll try it soon.

 

My issue with what you say is basically related to the fact that digital reproduction technology only needs to know the transfer function of the digital capture device or film, and then can mathematically compensate for whatever errors in that capture device, rendering them equal if all factors are known. These are determined by measurements. No manipulation is needed.

[bill_tuthill]

Daniel, I'm going to answer you in a different way, because your

questions triggered a debate and I'm not sure a debate is what you

need right now. Bottom line: big prints from 35mm, no problem.

You can get very good quality 20x30" enlargements from Dale Labs

(mail order from Florida) including spotting for $30 each. I sold

two 20x30s of a photo taken on Supra 800 with a Konica Lexio P&S.

On the other hand, you can get some ultra lousy 20x30s done by labs

that don't give a damn. Dale Labs does smaller enlargements for less.

I agree that medium format is better, but MF equipment costs a lot!

There may be other excellent labs that still do optical enlargements,

but I haven't used them. Another way to get low-priced enlargements

is from a Fuji Frontier, but most max out at 11x14 or somesuch.

If you shoot slides and have them scanned for a Lightjet or Chromira

you will be spending almost $100 per image. Slides sometimes work

on a Frontier, depending on operator, but negatives are a better bet

(unless you have your own scanner).

[marshall]

<I>Only true masters of all of these media, like Ctein can do all of them true justice. </I>

<P>

A valid perspective, and I wouldn't disparage the work of any master at the craft. But anyone who takes a picture that s/he likes and enjoys, without having to understand all that goes into it, also does honor to those who put in the work to make the system work smoothly.

<P>

<I>If you want to make comparisons of reversal and negative color printing, the same levels of correction should be applied, or best of all, none. ... See my point? It must be a level playing field. </I>

<P>

I do see your point. And I think that's a great test of the film systems as designed. I guess what I was getting at is a slightly different question which may have the same answer. That particular answer has something to do with the ease of getting a good print from one option or another.

<P>

What I'm thinking about it how the comparison changes (if in fact it does) when you go all out with whatever steps you'd like to maximize the quality of a print from either medium. So, still a level playing field, but the other end of it, effort-wise. I don't claim to know the answer; I'm just thinking about the question, as that is closer to my heart than the quality of a print done with no thought process or processing in the printing stage. [Though, for what it's worth, when I desire the convenience of easy printing that will be consistently good, readily available, and well-understood, I shoot print film. So I'm not immune to the oft-repeated mantra "if you want prints, shoot print film". I just think that it's oft-repeated by people who don't fully understand the issues.]

<P>

Well, it's interesting to think about, at any rate. And I'm planning to experiment more with neg film, especially in my new-to-me, 25-year-old MF camera. I'll continue, of course, to use transparency materials to give me results that I like (hopefully not to "rescue" my work) until I find a way of working that I prefer.

<P>

One last thought. In general, I've been impressed with the number of people around here who do want to understand what happens under the hood. You raise a good point that that desire to understand doesn't always extend to understand film design itself. Much to learn for all of us. Enjoy.

[rowland_mowrey]

Ilkka;

 

I agree with what you say. I would like to add however, that there are defaults in most scanner software that do perform corrections or 'normalization' of images. I recently had two vastly different prints that I had to send to someone, and the scanner kept rendering them almost exactly the same regardless of what I did. I have to go deep into the options to 'fix' the problem so that these prints appear correctly the way I want them to. Otherwise my scanner normalizes them to look similar. In the end, I had to mail him the original prints today.

 

As for you comment about chemical vs algorithmic correction, again I agree but would like to add something. 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.

 

Since duplication is multiplicative, the contrasts multiply. Well, I can draw this easier than explain it in words, as I said above, but basically a good algorithm can deal with a negative with long latitude better than it can deal with a positive with its relatively short latitude.

 

I hope this helps. There are textbooks out there that explain the problems inherent in duplicating pos-pos vs neg-pos, and these problems apply, in a way, to scanning. If you can locate one, they might help. I gave the reference in Evans, Hanson, and Brewer, and that might help if you can get a copy.

 

My only concern is that comparisons of negative and positive systems have a level playing field, and to date, I have the feeling that the algorithms or corrections used on transparencies have been more fully optimized than the ones for negatives. If you can do that, you will find, as I said before, that negatives will yield a superior reproduction of the original scene at best, and at worse will be equal to the transparency. And, that is the goal of the film manufacturer.

 

Ron Mowrey

[scott_eaton]

Amusing thread.<P>

I've been selling 16x20s of classic cars shot with my RB for years. Some with neg film...some with slide film. Each medium has a benefit and drawback.<P><I>My proof is the quality of motion picture projection which is both sharp and low in grain.</i><P>Motion picture film is designed for ease of reproduction, lattitude, low cost, duping, and all that jazz. It's not designed for screaming color saturation, fine grain, and density range. If anything, color saturation is supressed with motion picture film, and it's not very sharp if you care to bother walking up to the screen and noting the grain like softballs. This is almost hysterical considering you are basically advocating that Seattle Filmworks and their Kodak MP film stocks are superior in terms of reproduction over slide films. <P><I>Do you complain that their images are not stunning? Are the scenes in major motion pictures dissapointing? Dull? Flat? Lifeless?</i><P>I find the colors of even the best projected motion picture films, including IMAX, to be pretty drab at best unless I'm trying to count the acne on Lawrence Fishburns face. I generally wait for the DVD to come out, which always looks more saturated because it's been remastered to remove the color casts and lack of saturation caused by the original film stock. Buddy of mine used to master laserdiscs for Sony and now does DVD mastering for some other big name studio I can't remember the name of. I think I should put you in touch with him. The film used by Hollywood directors to shoot movies is not the same stuff you want to use in a 35mm camera. {laughing} Even your famed Pop Photo admitted that a few years back.

 

 

 

<P><I>And remember that those stunning Ctein dye transfers</i><P>

Ctein uses Kodak VPS for many of his original, and only a complete moron would recommend VPS or Porta NC for a car shoot unless you want to some pretty damn dull pictures. I've also talked to Ctein in the past and respect his contribution to photographic reproduction, but his technique is irrelevant to anything being discussed in this thread.<P><I>I was trying to illustrate that you can manipulate any image digitally to improve the apparent quality. Sharpening and grain reduction are among those used.</i><P>It's painfully obvious I've handled color neg film from a technical perspective more than you, and as much as I get sick of the cult of 'Velvia Worshippers', I'm sick of looking at dull, C-type prints on Kodak portrait paper from amatuer print films as well. I should inform you that digital enhancement cannot make up for inherent limits in film density range. You *cannot* make an image shot with a low density range print film like Reala look like Velvia. You *cannot* shoot landscape pictures with Portra NC under overcast skies and make them look like Velvia by digital post processing. <b>Color print films exchange density range for lattitude. Slide films exchange lattitude for density range. This is not an opinion, but a simple fact of emulsion and dye coupler technology. </b>Slide films will always deliver stronger and more saturated color gradients than print films, and the later can't be made to emulate slide films by playing with the saturation slider in Photoshop. If it were that simple, slide film sales would cease to exist tomorrow.<P> I suggest you also make a drum scan of 4x5 Velvia vs a Drum scan of 4x5 VPS and try to interpose either digitally on postive/negative film. I've done this, and learned the hard way that print film *cannot* match the color density of slide film while slide film cannot match the density lattitude of print film.<P><I>This is because slides were not designed to be printed and so need the heavy correction during the printing process. </i><P>Nobody on this planet with a clue does straight R-type from slides anymore. Virtually all the slide film print processes are digital, and I've yet to meet a commercial drum scan operator who prefers color negs over slides while desktop scanning software makes it a more neutral arguement. If you'd open your ears, you'd realize we're dealing with commercial printing here and not your own personal darkroom or film duping house at Paramount studios. Direct scan to print, aside from a Fuji Frontier, weighs a heavy consideration for transparencies, while optical printing to C-type papers or closed loop devices like a Frontier dramatically favors a slow, fine grain print film like Reala. This is common knowledge with anybody familiar with the high end photo reproduction industry, and is really not contested here until you came along.<P>To cut to the chase, if you are making a straight optical custom print, or using a Fuji Frontier, use Fuji Reala. If it's an open loop drum scan/LightJet lab, use the new Fuji AstiaF or Kodak E100G because Velvia is simply too low in lattitude for those not used to it which is why your average car poster shot under sunny skies with Velvia looks like it was taken during a solar eclipse. In other respects I have to agree with Eric on his points.

 

 

 

[rowland_mowrey]

Scott;

 

This statement is totally false.

 

"Color print films exchange density range for lattitude. Slide films exchange lattitude for density range. This is not an opinion, but a simple fact of emulsion and dye coupler technology."

 

You know nothing about emulsion or dye coupler technology. As far as the math involved in calcuating the things I'm describing, I doubt if you can go beyond HS algebra let alone master the matrix algebra or calculus involved in formulating color film parameters. 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.

 

Motion picture film (ECN) is a very very close cousin of the Portra family of films, only ECN is somewhat better to meet the exacting needs of the motion picture industry. I used it as an example exactly because the film is so close to the Portra family. This entire family of films is widely used and accepted for its color fidelity.

 

Yes, Ctein does dye transfer, but not from negative films. The last I looked VPS was a negative color film. He uses transparency for the most part. The reason I know this is that he bought Kodaks stock of MATRIX film, not PAN MATRIX film. You can't make dye transfers from negatives with MATRIX film. And he gets his excellent results by masking techniques as they do in photo illustration in magazines.

 

I don't doubt that you make good color pictures. It is a tribute to your flexibility that you use either negative or positive films, selected to suit the job. That is an admission that most here would never make. But you don't know photographic systems or engineering very well.

 

I won't claim to be a top notch hot shot photographer as you claim you are, as long as you don't claim to be a photographic system engineer. OK?

 

 

Sorry.

 

Ron Mowrey

[Bill C]

>> The reason I know this is that he bought Kodaks stock of MATRIX film, not PAN MATRIX film. <<

 

Rowland, actually Ctein's website has several indications that he works from negatives. Here's a couple of excerpts from: http://ctein.com/dyetrans.htm

 

 

>> To the best of my knowledge, I am the only artist left who makes dye transfer prints directly from color negatives. <<

 

>> How is it that I am still making dye transfer prints? When Kodak stopped making Pan Matrix Film I faced with the possibility of never making another dye transfer print. As an artist, I couldn't stand the idea of spending the rest of my life thinking, "Gee that's a pretty nice print... it would have been so much lovelier as a dye transfer." I mortgaged myself to the hilt and packed a large amount of this unique film in a deep freeze. <<

 

 

I'm not going to add any more to this thread except to say that, in my experience, it often doesn't pay to be too certain about things.

[rowland_mowrey]

Bill;

 

Thanks for the correction then.

 

Someone had posted here that Ctein bought the Kodak stock of Matrix film. I took that statement from another thread.

 

I really don't mind being corrected at all, and you are absolutely right. You cannot be certain about things. Especially without proof. I should have checked personally.

 

Regards.

 

Ron Mowrey

[rowland_mowrey]

To Scott Eaton;

 

Sorry Scott, you are right. Ctein does use color negative for his dye transfers. I had taken someone elses comments as truth and they were wrong.

 

I never read Ctein's page on 'what is dye transfer' because I knew what it was, so I missed the comment about using negatives.

 

My apologies. Just goes to show all of us we should check our sources completely and have proof.

 

It is Jim Browning that does the dye transfers exclusively from slides. He coats his own Matrix film.

 

Ron Mowrey