What exactly makes a slide "higher res" than a negative?

[drjedsmith]

I'm asking about the physical properties of transparancy film vs

negative film - which attribute makes the transparancy film

supposedly shaper or "higher resolution" than negative film? Is it

the die clouds are closer together?<BR><BR>

I've scanned a few rolls of slide film on the Minolta 5400 to compare

with all my negatives - just not seeing a difference here.

Especially considering the price of processing, I'm not seeing an

increase in detail that's worth shooting slide film. I must be

missing something, obviously. All the slide film I've shot has

been "consumer" like Fuji Sensia and Kodak consumer slide film.

Would I see the difference if I tried one of the "pro" slide films

such as Velvia, Astia or?<BR>

Thanks,<BR>

Jed

[cbender]

<I>Especially considering the price of processing</I>

 

<P>How much are you paying for processing? Try using the Fuji mailers, available from B&H for ~$4.00. With postage, processing is less than $5.00. Is that really a lot more than you were paying for C-41?

 

<P>If you really want to answer your question, try a couple of rolls of Astia. Velvia is great too, but the color gamut is very large so scanning is tough. Astia has more reasonable colors and is very easy to scan.

[edgar_njari]

What makes it "higher res"?

 

Peoples imagination

[robert_martin5]

I get better results scanning negative film. I have tried Fuji and Kodak professional slide film, but perfre professional negative film. I get my film processed by a professional photofinisher and negative processing is less than $4 for a 120 roll.

[bill_tuthill]

A quick look at manufacturer-published information on datasheets

(<A HREF="http://cacreeks.com/films.htm">summarized here</A>)

shows that slides are <B>not</B> higher resolution than negatives.

Velvia resolution is probably overstated on the datasheet, because

TMX is always preferred for lens testing. Pro 160C high-contrast

resolution is probably understated on the datasheet.

<P>

One thing I find in Provia 100F scans is that whitewater spray

always has big bubbles, whereas even 400-800 speed print film shows

realistic-looking fine bubbles, perhaps due to higher edge sharpness.

I have not taken such pictures with Astia 100F so I can't compare.

But overall Provia disappoints me, even from Nikon scanners.

[daniel_fortier]

Slide higher res then negative is a "true" statement from another era...

 

When we were comparing orange & apple, because there were no other choice.

 

In a few words: before scanning or electronic reproduction every publish images was reproduce by color separation done with a kind of large camera to expose directly the large halftone films used to burn the printing plates, so the transparencies or slide were shot on a light table (kind of) and negatives had to be printed first to be reproduce as an artwork (regular copy-light) so the equal sharpness at film level was in fact loss in the extra generation of the print (enlarger/lens/tones loss)

 

Also the cost of this old process was a factor of how many originals one could fit on 1 color separation film (camera work) so in order to keep a decent cost you could not print negative to a bigger (favorable) size then your budget allowed.

 

The expression was gang or group separation.

 

That's why photographers of the time in commercial work were selected "technically", imagine a 5 days on location catalogue shoot were you have to match your slides of different outfit shot under different conditions to a "match" exposure, color balance, contrast, layout size!! ones deserved his / her daily rate!

 

That was not so long ago, imagine what will be remembered of slide & negative in 10 years from now.

 

regards

[charles_stobbs3]

It was designed to be high resolution and finer grain because most people expected to view slides projected on a screen at far larger sizes than you would ever print a negative on paper.

[edgar_njari]

Both slide film and negative film are a part of the same technology, that's why they can be cross processed.

 

When raw, both films are almost the same thing, exept processed in two different ways, and exept that negative is tweaked to perform better with C41 and reversal films are tweaked to perform better with E6 processing.

 

That being said, there is no reason why would any manufacturer make their E6 films higher in resolution than negative films. Reversal is what you throw away when processing C41 and negative is what you throw away when processing E6

 

 

Grain is a different issue.

Both have similar grain size, but reversal has smaller grain "amplitude" (smaller variations in color of grain) so it is far less visible.

 

Why is that?

 

Because both of them when developed start out with the same grain size and and grain contrast, but reversal does not gave to be amplified, while negative does.

 

So to make negative viewable, you have to increase its contrast a lot, and that increases grain amplitude too.

 

Which means both negative and reversal have the same kind of grain on film, it's just that you use them differently, so the grain from negative turns out to be more visible in the end.

[mike_earussi1]

Slide film does not have higher resolution, neg. film does. The reason people shoot slide is because of the increased clarity and saturation of colors, as slide film does not have the orange masking to "dilute" the colors. Slide film is also contrastier than neg. so it tends to look sharper.

[roger_hicks1]

Dear Jedediah,

 

I think the origin lies in the days before scanners were widely used for neg film. A slide or neg scan is from a camera original and therefore automatically sharper than a scan from a print (2nd generation). Today, it will depend on the film. I've no doubt that some slide films are are sharper than some print films, and vice versa.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

[nullfinder]

i loved sensia... have to try some velvia 50 one day

[drjedsmith]

Thanks, that was an informative discussion for the most part, especially Edgar's piece.<BR>

I have to pay $11 a roll to get E6 done here in Anchorage (or I could mail it out as suggested). That's a far cry from $1.75 to $2.50 for developing C41 negs around here...cheaper than that if they're B&W and I do it myself in D76.<BR>

Guess I'll stick to the negs for now, then because of the expense for slides; it's still the same amount of work to scan either. Reala seems pretty good for the most part; I wish they made a 50 iso negative film! Maybe someday I will splurge and try some Astia.<BR>

Jed

[anders_br_the]

Negative film has smaller grain and higher sharpness than positive film. Positive film may appear sharper because it has high contrast and is the final product, not an intermediate like the negative.

 

Positive film cannot be as sharp as negative since the positive has two development steps (first developer and colour developer) which gives you two layers of grain on top of each other.

 

Positive film has been favoured by pros for the reason that printers are very familiar with them, and the photographer don't have to make prints to show the art director, thus saving money.

[daniel_fortier]

Sorry Anders but this statement is wrong:

 

"Positive film cannot be as sharp as negative since the positive has two development steps (first developer and colour developer) which gives you two layers of grain on top of each other."

 

There is two developers, but everything the first developer process is remove latter by the conditioner / bleach / fix part of the process after the color developer.

 

In fact there is no silver "grain" left if the process in done well, only color dyes the same as color negative process, no more layers.

 

regards

[ilkka_nissila]

Well, color slide sure scans with a lot less obvious grain in my experience. Color negative film needs to be processed by neat image or something similar to make a printable image. YMMV, of course but I've never run into a situation I felt I needed to filter scans from slides. They are easier to use in this respect.

 

Also, with slides you can look at the final slide without paying for printing. With negatives you have to make proofs or at least scan everything to be able to choose the good images to work on. I've always found slides much cheaper to work with (slide film processing about 3 EUR in Finland while for C-41 and proofs 15 EUR is needed at any decent lab lab that won't mock the processing up).

 

However, I do agree that slide film does not have higher resolution, at least not typically.

[neil_grant]

Colour neg film was designed to be printed on chromogenic paper - which is inherently

unsharp. Reversal film was designed for viewing by a loupe or projection, or photo-

mechanical reproduction. Film manufacturers may have found it more benficial to concetrate

on improving characterisitcs of their neg materials that could be realised in reprodution -

such as exposure latitude - by coating their emulsions a bit thicker.

[anders_br_the]

Daniel,

 

my statement is not wrong, this is what i have been told by a Kodak photographic engineer. He roams this pages too, name is Rowland Mowrey.

 

I had the opportunity to discuss negative film vs positive film with him by mail and here's a small excerpt of it:

 

> Negatives are inherently sharper than slides, are they not?

 

Yes. And have less grain. There are 2 grain patterns in slides. One from the MQ silver and one from the color dyes.

 

 

If you think Dr Mowrey is wrong, I'd be happy to learn why.

[daniel_fortier]

Anders,

 

I was commenting on one precise part of your statement, just ask Mr Rowley if in E-6 process:

 

"(first developer and colour developer) which gives you two layers of grain on top of each other.

 

Regarding sharpness, my post did not declare that today one type of film is sharper then the other, so I am not arguing with you about sharpness.

 

regards