Why does anyone shoot LF Trannies?

[Bruce Watson]

Most all these answers are positive for, well, positives (OK, I'm sorry, but I couldn't resist ;-).

So I'll give a negative response (really, I'll stop now 8^).

I quit using tranny film years ago. Now I only use negative film (color and B&W). Why? First and foremost is the dynamic range -- I like sunlight and shadows. Tranny film does poorly for the scenes I favor.

Second, I don't shoot in a controlled lighting situation like a studio where I can match the color and quality of the light to what the film wants. I shoot available light outside. Even if I shoot tranny film I don't get WYSIWYG. Tranny or negative, I've still got to color correct. So there's no advantage to tranny film for me there either.

Third, I don't have a problem with looking at negatives on the light table. The orange mask and the reversed colors don't hinder me from making judgments on which film to print. It's sort of like looking at an image on the ground glass - I no longer see the image as upside down and backwards, and I know that many of you don't either. The brain adjusts. All it takes is practice. Also, I spend more time with each film than an art director could afford.

Forth, I scan the negatives. I find scanning negatives easy with my scanner, as the lower Dmax for the image (vs. the high Dmax for the same image from a tranny) makes it easier for the scanner, and thus makes for lower noise in the scans.

Fifth, I print my images myself. I don't need to give a printer a "reference" for them to match to the print. When I do send out for really large prints, I send a proof print with my order.

Sixth, good tranny film tends to be slow. I need higher speed films, and tranny films' quality seems to drop off faster as ISO speed increases, than negative films.

So... I only use negative films. Clearly many of the responders on this thread don't agree, nor should they. Because YMMV depending on what you want and what your workflow is.

[Ed Richards]

While it has not been mentioned, adding one shot with a gray card works wonders in adjusting the color on negative film. Depending on the shot, you can even stick one at the edge of the image and not have to waste a sheet.

[QT Luong]

Bill, I've read about several photographers who normally prefer trany film carrying negative film just for those high-contrast situations. I've done that in the past, but it wasn't esthetically satisfying to have those odd negatives when the rest of my project was on tranies.

[Bill_1856]

QT, your project images are remarkable, and I am most impressed by them and by you for making them. Soon, the ease of digital printing may make an enormous change in the way many folks generate their LF originals. It will certainly be interesting to watch.

[neil poulsen]

I saw a rumor somewhere that Fuji may be producing negatives designed for scanning, probably without an orange component. That would be nice, because negatives do have the advantage of greater latitude.

The further upstream one can correct a problem, the better. And, the orange component in scanning is definitely a problem.

[Dan V]

After many years of shooting 35mm and MF CTs I recently finally graduated to LF. When I viewed my first 4x5 CT efforts on a light box, I was blown away by the detail and beauty of the images. It was like being a kid again and discovering an entirely new and exciting world.

I don't get to shoot as often as I'd like, but when I do it's still a huge visual, mental and emotional rush to shine the light through my latest CTs; I am so hooked. Partially tongue in cheek, I can't imagine that there's anything better than shooting 4x5 color transparancies; except possibly for 8x10 - but I don't want to overdose.