When you pop a few 8x10 chromes in front of a client(even enlarged from 4x5) you generally have a far greater edge over a guy who shoots negs and shows a print.
CP Goerz
PS:The rejects make great instant-stained-glass-windows!
When you pop a few 8x10 chromes in front of a client(even enlarged from 4x5) you generally have a far greater edge over a guy who shoots negs and shows a print.
CP Goerz
PS:The rejects make great instant-stained-glass-windows!
It is the industry standard in Architectural photography and landscape work as well, and used to be so in most commercial applications. Its what the client, ad agency and printing houses expect.
Sudek ambled across my mind one day and took his picture. Only he knows where it is.
David Vickery
Because I like to have a piece of film that I can look at with my eyes. This is either for personal enjoyment or for providing a reference when making a print. The contrast of transparency film also helps in soft light.
That's what photo stock agencies want - books, magazines, journals etc. pictures are made from slides.
All of that mentioned above but specially because I can see the real picture on the slide without imagining what on the earth was that magentalike... and because I have never been able to produce scan of negative with the same quality as from chrome slide.
I get much better results from tranies on my scanner, so for digital prints they are better. I still haven't mastered Ilfochrom printing, so I get better analog prints from negative film. So far the lightjet prints win on quality so I will mainly shoot tranies. Plus seeing the slide is a very nice bonus.
This question was generated in my little yellow brain when just yesterday I re-read Briot's article on 16 MP Digital vs 4x5. It has been so long since I shot LF reversal film that it was literally difficult for me to understand many of the ramifications of his article. I kept thinking "why doesn't he just shoot negatives?" Your comments have been very helpful in clearing my thought processes. Incidentally, I quit shooting LF Trannies when Kodak stopped making Kodachrome in sheets. I have many boxes of absolutely stunning 4x5 'chromes from the '50s, still vibrant (although aesthetically almost embarassing). I much prefered to shoot negatives, and then print them as Ektacolor transpanancies, I don't even know if that material is still available. Thanks for everyone's imput. Bill
Wilhelm (Sarasota)
If we consider inserting an image in a printing process flow where the final product is a book or a magazine, my understanding is that old analog offset plate processing techniques demanded colour slides as the original document in order to get the best images. I miss the English term for "quadrichromie" but you understand what I mean. Then the neg/pos process has been optimised for analog printing processes on colour photo paper to a point where only Ciba-Ilfochromes could produce decent analog prints in comparison but with still some difficulties to compress the original contrast.
Now that books and magazines are processed 100% digital, the advantage of the optimum analog colour neg/pos process has to be re-visited and may no longer be meaningful in the digital film scanning era, not speaking about a 100% silicon & digital workflow where nobody cares for film...
Apparently the way modern film scanners work gives a benefit to colour slides, this is confirmed by what I read here from people who know the story ; if I understand well the orange mask present in colour negs seems to be a problem with scanners, at least for the best possible output.
So as an amateur I'll continue to use colour slides, I know that if I need a print I can Ilfochrome it myself at home or have it scanned/printed by a regular minilab or a competent craftsman if required (depending on the budget ;-).
For some amateur/family shots with amateur flash units, however, colour negs deliver "better" results I should say "easier" results ... this is no surprise, amateur colour negs have refined for decades in order to produce decent prints from amateur shots with amateur flash units ;-);-) But who will use a 8"x10" camera for family/amateur shots ?? and : there is no "amateur-grade" film available in large format ;-);-)
I had the same question but was too shy to ask. Reading all these responses, I would summarize them as follows, in descending order of importance:
1. For delivery to clients that insist on or prefer transparencies.
2. For better color control.
3. For those occasions when high contrast is desirable.
4. To fool around with cross processing.
5. To avoid making proof sheets.
6. To stare at it on the light box.
#3 & #4 are the only ones that apply to me personally.
Any of you slide lovers use 'em for b&w? If not, why not?
CXC,
I prefer using B&W film for shooting B&W subjects for the following reasons:
1) B&W film can be expanded or contracted to better match the contrast of the scene.
2) Shadow detail is superior using B&W film (more dynamic range).
3) Excellent higher speed sheet film (HP5+, Tri-X, etc.) is available in B&W, not so in color chrome.
4) B&W film can used to make traditional silver prints, which by some metrics (DMax, tonality) are still superior to digital prints, in my opinion.
5) As with the chrome vs. color neg debate, the color labs I work with say that (all else being equal) they can produce superior B&W digital prints using B&W film vs. chrome. B&W film reportedly produces a clearer result when drum-scanned, presumably due to fewer emulsion layers.
Of course, use of color film eliminates the need for using B&W filters, but the factors listed above are more compelling in my opinion.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks