The thing that got me on this is that I have shot rolls of Provia / Sensia 35mm XPan (35x66) format in the late 2000s in Japan / HK. I processed those rolls myself and I have 6 4+ feet long canvas prints hanging on my wall right now that I look at everyday. They are canvas prints so obviously we are talking about prints with texture. In any case, while I have not printed huge yet with the color films, but I just do not think the 35mm Portra 160/400 from the same camera/lens have that type of ... visual impact. The 120 and 4x5 of course do, but lets just say I am not happy with the 35mm color film and I want to know whether it's something I can tweak or I should "give up" on that process.
so many technical conversations just boil down to subjectivecrap ..
do what you want and enjoy what you do. ...
Last edited by jnanian; 10-03-2013 at 07:49 PM. Click to view previous post history.
It's always going to be apples and oranges between B+W and Colour, just because of how our eyes work, for a good rundown read this. The bit down the bottom about Monet is especially interesting, years before colour photography and computers.
Originally Posted by didjiman
But between negs and slides, no idea. I've just been scanning a very-expired Gold 400 shot on my 1/2-frame Agat 18k. Having no lightmeter, and very expired film, a lot of them were underexposed. Those had massive grain even viewing on-screen at 4x6 print-size. Others were perfectly exposed and the results looked good enough at about 8x10" print-size.
In lab conditions, with a certain MTF/% definition of 'sharp', maybe Velvia beats most negs. Maybe Ektar even beats Velvia. but go out in the real world and shoot something else, and the results might be different. (wow, i think I've heard exactly the same thing on gear-head forums about the D800e vs D800 vs 5D3 and Zeiss lenses vs Canon's L)
An awful lot of electrons were terribly inconvenienced in the making of this post.
f/64 and be there.
the only way you are going to figure this out is to actually try.
Originally Posted by didjiman
Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR
"We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin
I *am* trying, but doesn't hurt to ask people if they have actual experience. It's not like I just shot one roll each and complain *roll eyes*
Thanks for the helpful advices from those of you who actually gave such.
// should add that this is not directed at you markbarendt, but to the others.
Last edited by Richard Man; 10-04-2013 at 12:49 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Sharp C-41 is achievable. And it is not anything to do with how our eyes work, or 'perception of sharpness'. Line charts reveal that.
You need a sharper lens to reach the same levels I think with standard processing, or you can alter the processing.
Also your reproduction method and equipment matters a lot to anything decent off the film in terms of sharpness, flatbed scanners are very low res, they can be improved with 2-pass scan (separate files) and superresolution technique.
The following image I made should demonstrate a few of those points.
It is shot on Lucky 200, with modified C-41 developer.
Is anybody else wincing their way through this thread as color neg is referred to as "color film" versus "slide film" which is almost certainly also color, unless we are actually talking about reversal processed B&W like dr5?
Argh. Maybe I'm just pedantic but it bugs me. They are both "color film" so it's "color neg" versus "color transparency" not "color film" versus "slides."
In any case I've never noticed any difference in sharpness. I can project my slides to several feet on a side, but I've only printed color negs up to 11x14. Both seem adequately sharp, nor did I see any sharpness difference in actual detail between Ciba/Type R prints from slides or RA4 prints from negs back when I did the former. Subjective impressions of sharpness are another thing of course and often influenced by the inherently much higher contrast of the pos/pos prints, but in terms of actual visible detail I can't say I noticed.
Thanks for your comment.
5 feet panoramic, from a 35x66 mm scan. That's my comparison point. I guess I have higher requirements.
Anyway, sorry about the color film issue, but if that makes you wince...
Sorry I've not been in the best mood lately, and I'm finding trivial things I'd normal ignore to be annoying. That's on me not you.
But to the point, I never noticed it.
Color negative films used to be less sharp than their reversal and black and white counterparts of the same speed, but that has not been the case for many, many years. They generally have much lower contrast, however, and that leads to the impression of less sharpness. Actual measurements show them to have quite comparable, and in some cases superior, resolution and MTF curves.