Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,923   Posts: 1,556,657   Online: 1249
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27
  1. #11
    bjorke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    SF & Surrounding Planet
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,032
    Images
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by L Gebhardt
    My opinion is that for a wet print it is easier to get a decent portrait with negative films.
    THere is more information in a neg, and its range can be compressed to emulate slide film (which is contrastier). This doesn't change when going digital, though you should scan at 16 bits or better for such manipulations. But the telling remark should really be that you're already happy with the results — so why the belief that there's something "better" lurking 'round the corner?

    "What Would Zeus Do?"
    KBPhotoRantPhotoPermitAPUG flickr Robot

  2. #12
    Eric Rose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Calgary AB, Canada
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    4,268
    Images
    73
    I quite using slide film when I stopped doing stock photography. Back then you had to shoot everything on K25 or K64. It was a big deal when they accepted Fuji chromes!

    Anyway so much for the grey haired trip down memory lane (have to get it out now while I can still remember it ya know).

    I shoot either NPS 160 (or whatever they call it these days) or Kodak (while holding my nose) NC 160 (35mm, 120 and 4x5). Both have wonderful latitude, sharpness and color balance. They outperform chromes hands down, especially for portraits.

    I do both wet printing and digital file work from scanned negs. The scanner used is a Nikon LS2000. Do your own scanning as I find the local labs really mess up the files. Way to much saturation and over sharpening.
    www.ericrose.com
    yourbaddog.com

    "civility is not a sign of weakness" JFK

    "The Dude abides" - the Dude

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Fremantle, Western Australia
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    696
    Images
    21
    Use neg film for your situation Nicole. If you were shooting subjects other than people, I'd change my opinion, but stick with negs for now.
    Graeme Hird
    www.scenebyhird.com

    Failure is NOT an option! It comes bundled with your software ....

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    726
    I'd agree with those who prefer col neg. It's greater latitude makes it more forgiving and more versatile and you can retain detail over the whole image in moodier lighting. That said, go with what looks best to you and you can always hybidise: I get surprisingly good results re-photographing prints onto Velvia 50. As for scanning, you can get good results from either, but negs have flatter contrast and so tend be easier to fit into the dynamic range of even good film scanners.

    David.

  5. #15
    df cardwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Dearborn,Michigan & Cape Breton Island
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,342
    Images
    8
    Here's another way to express the notion of latitude.

    Transparency film has a range ( or scale ) of about 8 stops; color neg has a range of about 12 stops.

    How you spend that latitude is up to you !

    An eight stop range is like printing a normal black and white negative on #4 paper.

    The 12 stops of a color negative is like printing normal black and white on #2, and having a two stop margin of error.

    If we shoot 'chromes in studio lighting, we can light for the short scale. But if we shoot outside, we have to use flat light or we can easily blow out the highs, or the lows, or both.

    The twisty part of this is that while chromes have a 8 stop scale, there are only 4 stops that hold detail. A color negative's 12 stop scale has 8 stops that hold detail.

    This isn't to suggest that one can't do perfectly fine work on 'chromes. But it is a bit like juggling chainsaws.

    If you are happy with shooting 'chromes, however, and your vision supports the technique, go for it !
    "One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid,
    and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"

    -Bertrand Russell

  6. #16
    L Gebhardt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NH - Live Free or Die
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,708
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by bjorke
    THere is more information in a neg, and its range can be compressed to emulate slide film (which is contrastier). This doesn't change when going digital, though you should scan at 16 bits or better for such manipulations. But the telling remark should really be that you're already happy with the results — so why the belief that there's something "better" lurking 'round the corner?
    bjorke, I don't understand what in my post indicates I am looking for something better around the corner. I have actaully come from shooting slides and scaning to trying to print the slides on Ilfochrome. I have so far not come close to mastering Ilfochrome so I tried color negatives. I have been quickly able to get nice prints this way. It also takes about half of the time of scanning/inkjet to get a good first print. So far however my best landscpae results are from drum scanned slides on a lightjet or chromira. But I haven't really used 4x5 negatives yet for landscapes, so who knows. The reason for me to switch in this case is I am not happy doing all my color landscapes on a computer or with Ilfochrome.

  7. #17
    Helen B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Hell's Kitchen, New York, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,557
    Images
    27
    "A color negative's 12 stop scale has 8 stops that hold detail."

    I'd suggest that the neg holds more than that, but eight stops is what you might get from it by printing it straight. Though it doesn't show very well in a small jpg, this snap has detail in at least ten stops. Making the paper so that it can hold detail over the full density range of a colour neg (without masking or dodging or whatever) would result in horribly flat prints most of the time. Scanning gives more options.

    Best,
    Helen

  8. #18
    df cardwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Dearborn,Michigan & Cape Breton Island
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,342
    Images
    8
    HELEN !

    Brilliant example !

    cool pic, too
    "One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid,
    and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"

    -Bertrand Russell

  9. #19
    nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    80
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Baxter Bradford
    Colour neg would seem to have a lot to offer over transparency. I am looking at using it more commonly when Velvia 50 finally beomes unavailable; due to the poor results Velvia 100 produced in my tests.
    OT doens't that just piss you off? I'm so sick of the film companies going on about how their 100iso film has finer grain and will do what the 25 and 50 ISO films do. THEY DONT! I will cry the day ilford get rid of my 50iso b&w because i really don't trust 100 to have as much fine grain. I hate that we can't get slow film

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wi
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    3,242
    Color negative films all the way. I would only use a transparency to allow greater flexibility in making a b&w negative that allowed more tone control thru masking in the production of a b&w negative from the slide beyond what could be accomplished thru the use of a filter when taking on b&w film.
    Claire (Ms Anne Thrope is in the darkroom)

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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