400 iso print film vs. 400 iso reversal film

[juergenf]

I've read that some folks that do their own scanning don't use print

film no longer, mostly because it's too grainy (even 100 speed film).

But what about 400 speed film? When you have to use 400 speed film

and want to scan it, is reversal film better than print film? I've

never used any 400 speed reversal film but it is also said that 400

speed reversal film is poor in terms of grain when compared to 400

speed print film. What is the truth about 400 speed film for

scanning, am I better of using print film or reversal film?

[jose f.]

 

Most of the photos are Provia400F (reversal) scanned on a Minolta Scan Dual III. I'm happy with the results. The B&W photos are Ilford XP2 Super.

[ilkka_nissila]

Provia 400F and E200 are fine enough grained to be scanned with good results but they are a little soft compared with iso 100 slide film and the lack of color options and punch puts me off. I don't buy iso 400 color film because I just prefer the results from slower films. I might use it if the aim is to produce a large number of 4x6 prints in a wedding or something like that, but not any of my own stuff.

 

Digital and black and white film in iso 400 are quite good though, I'd just skip color film if high speed is needed. Your mileage may vary.

[larrydressler]

400 iso print film vs. 400 iso reversal film. These are both the same films. Reversal film is also known as Negative or Print film. Slide film is also known as Positive Film. Just trying to keep things straight.

[jose f.]

My mistake. Trying to do too many things at once.

 

Back when I got the scanner, I ran some comparisons of color slide film and color negative scans. The slide scans were much easier to work with and truer to the original.

 

There is obviously more grain in a 400 film than a 100 film, though the difference is less apparent than even five years ago. As Ilkka points out, you need to consider your personal goals and the end use.

[ilkka_nissila]

Larry, you've got it wrong. Reversal film = transparency film = slide film. Negative film = print film.

 

Yes, a properly calibrated scanner with transparency film as input gives very accurate colour (true to the original slide). Negative film comes out with white balance determined by the scanning software. I don't know if color neg film can really be calibrated in a meaningful way. I could do it for one light source but would it work across the board? With slide film you get to learn the light it works in and how to color correct it with filters but with negative film there is no easy feedback.

[r.t. dowling]

Provia 400F is an excellent film, and has about the same grain as Kodachrome 64.

 

Unfortunately, it's the only ISO 400 slide film worth using. The other two choices -- EliteChrome 400 and Ektachrome 400X, which are basically the same film -- are much, much grainier than Provia 400F, and consequently, much grainier than most ISO 400 print films. That's why people usually dismiss ISO 400 slide films, because they're accustomed to Elite 400 or Ektachrome 400X.

 

Try a roll of Provia 400F. You'll find that the grain is just as good as, or perhaps even slightly better than, the best ISO 400 print film. But if you need something with low to moderate contrast, your best bet would be Fuji NPH or one of the Kodak Portras.

[mike_r.1]

I find Sensia 400 to be excellent; much less grain than any of the 35mm 400 print films I've tried...which is most of them. Some say Sensia 400 is a lot like Provia 400 but I've only used Provia 400 with my Rollei 6x6; with so-so results.

[John Crowe]

Ilkka, I have to be honest, I had to go and look that up (I seem to doubt people all the time) and you are quite right. Why the heck do they call the opposite of negative a reversal? Maybe I just answered my own question. Bizarre this English language.

[ilkka_nissila]

Do not discount E200 pushed 1 stop. It's quite nice and gives a different palette to Provia 400. You'll need something like an 81A for some things but it is excellent in mixed artificial light I think.

 

Slide film is called reversal film because it is reversed in processing. Film processed normally yields a negative image suitable for printing on neg-pos paper, but if you want the image to be clear on the film itself, a reversal process is needed.

[jtk]

...all that aside, color negative film is very easy to scan and print if one has photographic basics under one's belt. If one doesn't know the difference between red and magenta or cyan and green, one needs very contrasty film to cover the ignorance, just as the same people needed Cibachrome's high contrast to avoid subtleties.

 

And no, negative color isn't more grainy than slide film except in theory. When you print them in comparison the main distinction is that the chrome wants to lose highlights and block up shadow details while the negative will need attention in order to produce maximum blacks.

[ilkka_nissila]

John, thanks for the patronising comments, it's always nice to hear from someone with superior knowledge and understanding.

<p>

Color negative film is easy to scan to get <i>an image</i> but if you print it at a greater than 4-5 x enlargement, it will either look grainy or your scan isn't sharp. Yes, it will show details throughout the picture, but there is little contrast and the color is generally muted and washed out. If this fits your photographic purposes, it is great, I sometimes use it too. However, if you want a bit of drama, it's much easier to do it with slide film or digital than trying to twist negative film into what it doesn't do well.

<p>

I've taken numerous pictures in various locations with negative film, digital and slide film. For example, here is what a rainy day looks like at Niagara Falls on negative film (100UC), straight scan from a 6x7 cm negative on an Epson 4990 with Vuescan.<div></div>

[ilkka_nissila]

Let's take a look at the same scene on a Nikon D70:<div></div>

[ilkka_nissila]

Sorry, the previous image was taken with a 35 mm lens, caption was wrong.

 

Now, for the last example, a shot taken a bit later on E100GX slide film (20 mm FL) of the Horseshoe Falls. Now, having been there I can say that the image captured on negative film is least like to what I saw and so it would take the most adjustment to look at all realistic. Now, on another day this might be different, but bad light is bad light, and having a chewing gum like film which takes all in and produces an "acceptable" image but never a really good one (of this kind of subject matter) doesn't seem very attractive.

 

This is a bit off topic but it was just in direct answer about why one might choose to use something else than color negative film.<div></div>

[jtk]

Ilkka, I do apologize for the "patronizing tone."

 

I feel the recommendation of slide film over negative film usually has to do with habit and convenience, not results.

 

Ilkka, iOK, the uncorrected image you like best is a slide image. That doesn't prove a point because it still needs work. It'd be as easy to correct the image you dislike as the image you like. You applied USM but didn't do basic color adjustments that would help all of the images. Why not complete the job?

 

There's no reason to expect the direct, unadjusted images from scans to be perfect anymore than to expect a first color or B&W enlargement or slide duplicate test to be perfect. If one applies USM, why would one not apply the basics to color? All of the samples above would benefit.

 

If one happens to get more accurate color initially from a slide than from a negative, perhaps that's nice. But it shouldn't make much difference to the Photoshop file from which one prints or submits.

 

I see no reason to have more tolerance for loss of shadow detail and a magenta shift than for cyan/yellow shift with better shadow detail.

 

Apply basic skills and they'd both become closer to perfect.

 

Again, sorry for the tone.

[ilkka_nissila]

I applied unsharp mask in the way I do to all web images, it's just a habit. I deliberately did not color adjust the scans or the digital capture because I just wanted to show how the original scans/capture look in terms of color. Yes, color can be adjusted but what should it be adjusted to? Everybody has their own preference. With slides, I make my choices of color by choosing the film, possibly filter and the light which I use to take the exposure. A calibrated scanner and monitor allows me quite good accuracy of recovering the original colors of the slide. I often make an adjustment (but usually it's a color neutral curves adjustment) but in the case of color negatives, for my subjects, I find there is just more work to be done in post-processing and if I add the extra punch which I like in slides (you can call it lost highlight and shadow detail if you like) to the neg scans, I find the prints to be grainier than those made from slides.

 

To the comment that slides are high contrast, well, that is a relative thing. If you look at a scene, and meter how much the luminosity varies with a spotmeter, and compare this to readings made from a print, you'll see that the range of the original scene has been compressed to fit it into the limited dynamic range available in a print. This is sometimes a good thing, but often the liveliness of the original scene is lost in the process. Prints from slides have higher contrast but it's still not as high as in the projected slide or original scene. So they look, to me, a bit closer to the real scene in this sense. Yes the colors can be wild, but it's an art form after all! You make your choices and see what you get. I prefer to work from digital and slides for most of what I do, and find color negatives disappointing for nature subjects, while they work ok for people and architecture type things. I use color neg for experiments in siatuations which I know to exceed the range of the film. In this case of the Falls, I realized by metering the scene and taking test exposures on digital that it would be difficult to have detail in the sky and yet have a normal toned forest. So I took pictures on neg film, with the result that the sky looks very flat (compressed) and in the end although the forest is black in the final image, I like the slide images more than the neg ones.

 

Now, I wish to learn how to process color negative scans to best effect, so if you want to show me how you'd adjust the neg scan, I can send you a larger file, or you can show by modifying the example I posted. Thanks.

[bill_tuthill]

Does the D70 always underexpose to preserve highlights, or is this

a case of center-weighted metering? Also, what are those blue specks

to the left of the falls?<div></div>

[bill_tuthill]

Sorry Juergen, I should have helped answer your question. Some

scanners (or scanner software) seem to have problems with negatives,

so owners revert to slide film. Other scanners favor print film.

Depends on scanner and software.

 

In general current slide films are "better" at ISO 100, considering

grain and resolution, while current negative films are "better" at

ISO 400. I do not share R.T.'s enthusiasm for Provia 400F, although

it is a good film. E200 pushes better, with lower contrast, and has

better skin tones. Neither holds a candle to 400UC or NPH, both of

which are about half the price where I live.

[robert goldstein]

"And no, negative color isn't more grainy than slide film except in theory."

 

I beg to differ. Having scanned at 5400dpi many frames of 400UC (reputedly one of the finest grained ISO 400 print films) and Provia 400f, I can assure you that 400f's grain is much less obtrusive. The main advantage of 400UC is its wider lattitude. But when it is properly exposed, 400f looks better, IMO.

[ilkka_nissila]

I agree with Robert, 400UC:s grain is more obvious than that in Provia 400F, not to mention that the effective exposures for 400UC are much longer than for the slide film because one is exposed for the highlights and the other for the shadows to get decent blacks. It would be more fair to compare E200 at nominal speed with 400UC.

 

However, I do think 400UC has nice colours and is a overall nice film.

[edgreene]

All Kodak Professional film and their "Gold" film were designed form the ground up to be scanned. Most of the others haven;t caught up to Kodak even after all these years.<p>Prints or print film are not made to be viewed like a slide, which, like digital images, intended to be viewed backlit-but you knew that.<br> So "comparing" them in any way is an exercize in futility. The same for "grain". Some people shoot film at 25,600 ISO just for the golfball sized grain-a "painterly" effect its called. <p>Modern print film of ISO400 has less grain in it than did ISO100 print films of just six or seven years ago.<p>"Grain" is an affectaation left over from the slide crowd, who have to have grain free images to project. Print shooters don't give one hoot about grain, in that what print shooters (weddings especially) want to capture oft time comes with grain.<p>Use Portra 400 (any) since it is a scanning film.

[dpeterson]

<p>I am deeply impressed with Kodak 400uc, a highly saturated 400 asa print film with Velvia like color, and fine grain at a bargain price (5 rolls 36 exp for $8.00 at Walmart). Here is an image scanned from Kodak 400uc on a Nikon Coolscan V.</p><p><img src="http://abqstyle.com/flowers/pic4.jpg">.</p> <p>You can see more 400UC images at <a href="http://abqstyle.com/photos/">The Flowers of Albuquerque</a></p>

 

<p>I usually scan with only Digital Ice enabled for removing scratches. Then, I run the image through a program like Noise Ninja or Neat Image to remove grain. The end result is a beautiful image with much better shadow and highlight detail than any slide film can provide. Plus, I like the convenience of getting cheap 1 hour processing for my film (almost as fast as shooting digital). The scans can be enlarged very nicely and print beautifully. I get consistently better results than trying to work within the limitations of slide film. There are certain projects I may reserve for slide film, but generally, for anything that is to printed up to 17x22, negative scanning using Kodak 400uc has served me well.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

Well, most slide film to my knowledge is shot for reproduction on paper. I don't know anyone who projects their slides, and haven't myself had a projector since 1999 I think. (I'm sure there are people who project them but I don't think they're in the majority.)

 

As for color neg film, well, if it is magnified max 5x, it is fine, if more, it starts to look grainy unless something extra is done to prevent this. With NeatImage filtration you can go much higher in magnification but I've not quite mastered its use so that the result doesn't look artificial. As to whether people accept the grain, well, it's not the fact that there is grain that bothers me, but what it looks like. And this again varies from film to film and process to process.

[bill_tuthill]

Les Sarile has a Provia 400F scan of some cheerleaders doing an

apex-headstand pyramid inside a gymasium on his <A

HREF="http://www.fototime.com/inv/0EF1390F5034D73">Film 2 album</A>.

Skin tones are very grainy, even with GEM2 enabled. I would like to

see proof of Robert and Ilkka's assertion that 400UC scans are

grainier than 400F. RMS numbers indicate that 400F should be about

twice as grainy as NPH. NPH is less grainy than 400UC for grays,

but more for warm colors.

[ilkka_nissila]

RMS grain numbers cannot be compared reversal vs. negative film. As far as I understand, the values are calculated from the variance in the reproduction of smooth areas in the film itself, not the final print. You need to look at the prints and use that as the basis of the comparison since the slide has much higher contrast than the negative. The separation of two different tones on the film is much greater on the slide than on the negative.

 

A sensible way of characterising grain is contrast-to-noise ratio: the contrast is the difference in density of two areas of the film with different brightnesses in the original scene. The noise is the root of the mean mean variance of a medium tone homogeneous area on the film. By dividing the contrast by the noise, we get an indicator of how good the film is in expressing image information vs. background noise.

 

I would be able to do this for 400UC but have to purchase E200 or Provia 400F to use it for the test. I can then scan the images and calculate these properties. I guess I should also calculate color noise, what would be a good way of doing that?