Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,579   Posts: 1,545,750   Online: 953
      
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 51
  1. #31
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Geelong & Castlemaine, Victoria, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,583
    Images
    15
    It is reversal film that has the limited dynamic range and which causes the most grief for people dabbling with it after so long shooting the much more generous neg. film.
    C-41 is too broad for scanning; as Q.G. mentions, combine scans for that.
    If I need to print (i.e. postcard-size prints, stats, representative images of framed chromes, webshots, etc.), I shoot digital (often, too, in-situ next to the film camera, literally "duping" selected scenes). If I need to Ilfochrome for exhibition, it is 100% reversal-to-'chrome. The division is clear for intended use. On the very limited occasions I have organised drum scans of trannies (the last being February 2009), I can recall 2 being returned scratched, though in truth, scratches are not a problem for Ilfochrome printing.

    In truth, and from whatever angle, and with whatever we are using, I believe we, as film users, are doing much, much better than the opposition.
    .::Gary Rowan Higgins

    A comfort zone is a wonderful place. But nothing ever grows there.
    —Anon.






  2. #32

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    257
    Quote Originally Posted by Q.G. View Post
    I doesn't belong to APUG, but the dynamic range of negative film is, alas, bigger than scanners can cope with.
    To get the most out of a negative, you do need to combine scans.
    Actually, C41 films are capable of RECORDING a greater dynamic range than slide films. But slide films PRODUCE a higher dynamic range (ie they are more contrasty). So it is actually slide films that are going to give scanners more of a challenge when it comes to dynamic range. BUT, it is MUCH easier to correct the colors to look like the original since you can physically compare the output to the original slide.

    As for shooting slide films and using a slide projector, I still do. In fact, slides are THE reason why I still shoot film (this may offend people, but to me, C41 is just digital) To me, there is just NOTHING like a well-exposed slide. Slides just have that special quality that C41 will NEVER duplicate, ESPECIALLY for outdoor/nature shots. And slide shows? I just don't know of any better way to view pictures. A projected Kodachrome, for instance, just brings the shot to life in a way that nothing else can.

  3. #33
    Leighgion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Orcas Island, WA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    357
    Images
    16
    Slide film, including stuff I didn't shoot, has caused me great pains in the scanning department and it's directly because of this even more than expense that I don't shoot more of the stuff.

    That said, I am finally completing a little test run of various E6 films to find which ones scan better and I do try to keep some around because my experience agrees with decades of established practice: when you really want that color punch, there's nothing like a color positive.

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Oxfordshire, UK.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,214
    Astia / Sensia caused me the least pain.

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    Quote Originally Posted by StorminMatt View Post
    Actually, C41 films are capable of RECORDING a greater dynamic range than slide films. But slide films PRODUCE a higher dynamic range (ie they are more contrasty). So it is actually slide films that are going to give scanners more of a challenge when it comes to dynamic range.
    True. Slide film causes problems at every stage in the production of a good image.

    But negative film is too much for a good scanner too.
    No matter how you tweak histograms, and what have you, to capture all the detail in the negative, highlights and shadows alike, you need to give up all hope that you can do it in just one scan, and start thinking about combining scans in HDRI style.
    Alas ...

    Quote Originally Posted by StorminMatt View Post
    BUT, it is MUCH easier to correct the colors to look like the original since you can physically compare the output to the original slide.
    Yes. Often said.
    But that is assuming, of course, that the colour in the slide is the colour as it is supposed to be, so if you tweak the knobs such that the two things match, it'll be fine.
    It could be just me, but it rarely is.

    I find no great difficulty tweaking the colours in the on-screen image.
    In fact, it's "much easier" to judge whether the on-screen colours are good than having to compare them to a slide on a light box.

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    257
    Quote Originally Posted by Q.G. View Post
    But that is assuming, of course, that the colour in the slide is the colour as it is supposed to be, so if you tweak the knobs such that the two things match, it'll be fine.
    It could be just me, but it rarely is.
    Then again, it has been my finding that, even if the colors of a slide are not completely 100% dead-on accurate, there is just something REALLY pleasing about them vs C41. In cases like this, absolute accuracy is really not paramount - at least to me.

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    Quote Originally Posted by StorminMatt View Post
    Then again, it has been my finding that, even if the colors of a slide are not completely 100% dead-on accurate, there is just something REALLY pleasing about them vs C41. In cases like this, absolute accuracy is really not paramount - at least to me.
    True.

    But what colours are supposed to be depends as much (perhaps even more) on how you like them to be as on accuracy.
    Different films have a different colour signature. Our film selection depends, i find, a lot on how that signature suits you. Something that you can tweak further towards your likings when using negative film, but not when using slide film.

    Not a problem, of course, when you like already the colours the film produces all by itself.

    But anyway, colour is not something that makes slides better suited for scanning than negative film.

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    346
    Sold my last slide projector 11 years ago. People (non-photographers) want to see prints. Only shoot transparency to test new (to me) shutters and lenses.

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kalgoorlie WA Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    60
    Images
    53
    I find scanning slides much easier and get the colours in the scan to the same as captured in the film.
    From there i can share the images on the internet or as prints that i make at home.
    BUT the new Kodak Ektar100 in 120 is a very nice film - rich colours and has a bit more latitude than the slide.

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by nyoung View Post
    People (non-photographers) want to see prints.
    AND photographers. I know a lot of people who like to look at slides the same way they look at photos. Holding in their hands, marveling at the beauty. I don't personally know anyone who has the patience to sit through a slideshow.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin