Why Does Anyone Shoot Trannies - Round Two

[chris jordan]

My sole criteria in deciding what film to use is how the image will look when printed, and for that reason I almost always choose transparency film for it's much tighter grain and higher resolution. I can achieve totally grainless 44x60" prints from transparency film, but if I shoot neg's the grain is visible in the print and I have to do all kinds of noise-reduction shennanigans to achieve the smoothness that is built into transparency films such as Astia and Provia 100F. I'm really looking forward to the time when LF digital scanning backs become less expensive and easier to use, so I can finally dispense with film and the scanning process altogether.

And, by the way, for some strange reason Fuji came out with Astia 100f and then made it impossible for anyone to get it. I bought 20 boxes of it as soon as it was available, and found it to be by far the best color film I have ever used. It has the full tonal range of negative film, soft and natural color, no color cast, amazing shadow and highlight detail, and it is significantly sharper and less grainy than any other color film ever made, even including Provia 100f. I don't know why the heck Fuji is still shipping 8x10 Provia and Velvia in mass quantities while not making any Astia 100f, considering that Astia 100f just blows both of those films right out of the water.

~cj

www.chrisjordan.com

[Mike Chini]

I have always preferred neg film. For one, it can withstand a tremendous dynamic range and I simply don't like losing tons of shadow detail. To compensate with chrome film, I would probably bracket my exposures and waste more film. Second, I find that I love the look of the Portra NC films. With neg films, you can always get contact prints made that will rival anything out there. Chrome film looks great on a light box but I prefer holding prints. Finally, there is tiny bit more latitude with regards to pushing (and even pulling) the film in post. The only advantages I see is that chromes are "self-proofing", can be handed to clients/stock agencies a bit more readily and tend to have better midtone contrast.

So if the only thing that matters is image quality, I would say it's up to you. Personally, I actually prefer the look of negative film.

[Gary J. McCutcheon]

Brian,
I use both transparency and color negative film in 4x5 and 120. Everything said so far rings true to my experience. The point that seems to keep clicking in my mind is that the transparencies have always been the easiest and quickest to scan. By that I mean that their is always less color correction and tweeking with the transparency film. Negatives seem to need more work at the scanning stage to get the color balance and tonal densities correct. Many times I'm photographing people and skin tones are important. The transparencies almost always scan with little or no adjustment and the negs always need something and if it's not correct at the scanning stage you never seem to get it back in photoshop.

It may be my habits, but most of what has been said by others seems to bear this out. The drawback with transparency film is the bracketing. For commercial clients I alway use Polaroid 54 for exposure tests. For my personal work I go by my 35 years of experience shooting transparencies and still bracket. My system works and even the bracketed exposures are often usable. I guess it amounts to whether you want to fuss at the photographic end or the scanning end. But let me tell you, there is nothing like putting that transparency in the scanner and having it come up almost perfect without tweeking a thing.

Now, the best thing I can think of for you, and you already know this one, is to photograph a subject under the same conditions with both trany and neg and bracket both, then scan and see the results. You will find what you like best.

Photo on

Gary

[Leonard Evens]

I think the others have covered the possible range of answers pretty well. Let me add some additional comments.

First, I use Portra VC 160, and I've made inkjet prints as large as 13 x 17. I don't see any evidence of grain. Indeed, grain is too small to be detected by any scanner you are likely to be using. Of course, there may be some grain aliasing, but that depends on the scanner. It should be no different for color film than for bw, so if you have already been scanning bw, you should know what to expect.

Second, although the transparency does give you something to compare to when deciding on color balance, there is no special reason to believe that the transparency is an accurate rendition of the scene. And of course, you may want to achieve some other creative effect in any case. I've found the comments that Dan Margulis makes in Professional Photoshop relevant to this issue. In practice, it is impossible to render all the colors in a scene accurately. What one has to do is to produce a plausible rendering, emphasizing the important colors and sometimes sacrificing less important colors. Consider for example what happens in a typical landscape partly in strong sun and partly in shade. The shade will be blue relative to the sunlit parts of the scene. By suitable manipulation, you may be able to minimize the difference, if indeed you want to, but the issue would be the same for negative and reversal film. I haven't found any serious problem adjusting color balance using these principles when using color negative film. I use Vuescan to scan, and it allows one to set the color balance by right clicking on neutral elements. There are usually such elements somewhere in the scene. I also have reference values for other typical elements of scenes, such as blue skies. Using those methods, I usually get very close, and then do additional adjustments in a photoeditor. I also photograph a gray card with a small digital camera and use that to judge the appropriate settings for other elements of the scene.

The one area that reversal film may have some advantages is the greater dynamic range. That means you can use the full dmax capability of the scanner, which means less spreading out of values. An exposed transparency can have a dmax close to 4.0, while a color negative typically has a dmax under 2.0. The other side of the coin, of course, is that it is easy to overexpose a transparency and you usually can't record a wide dynamic range in the first place. And you may exceed the dmax of your scanner. Also, as others have noted, you have much less latitude.

Finally, I think that one reason people like transprencies is that the images are usually fairly highly saturated, while initially at least color negative images come out less saturated. That can of course be adjusted in a photoeditor. Personally, I find highly staurated images a bit phony.

[Gene Crumpler]

Brian;

You are exactly where I am, just shooting for myself. Processing for c-41 is cheaper than E-6 as well as the film. I use C-41 and scan with an epson 3170 and print on a Canon S9000. Negative is the way to go. My results from 6x6 and 6x7 are wonderful at 13x19 print size. I primarly shoot B&W with 4x5 and develop film and prints in my darkroom. Again, just for fun and an ocassional exhibit.

KISS

[paulr]

"My sole criteria in deciding what film to use is how the image will look when printed, and for that reason I almost always choose transparency film for it's much tighter grain and higher resolution."

In modern emulsions, neg film actually has a slight edge in resolution now. Sharpness is comparable. Transparency film has the edge in grain. In all these cases, the differences are slight.

"The one area that reversal film may have some advantages is the greater dynamic range. That means you can use the full dmax capability of the scanner, which means less spreading out of values. An exposed transparency can have a dmax close to 4.0, while a color negative typically has a dmax under 2.0. "

The greater d-max is an advantage if you're using a very good drum scanner. Otherwise it can be a problem.

[Brian Ellis]

Thanks very much for all the answers and the helpful information. I think I'll just try both and see what happens.

[CXC]

"...I go by my 35 years of experience shooting transparencies and still bracket..."

That's all this amateur needs to hear. I'm sticking with Portra VC.

You can get great or crappy results from either. If you don't print 45"x60" all that often, the grain differences are minimal, if visible at all. IMHO it boils down to process. If you aren't sure which you prefer, do a test, one tran and one neg, each shot and carried through to the final print, as well as you are able. Use different images - the point of the test is to compare the processes, not the results. Take notes all the way through about how you regard each process. If you still can't decide, go with whichever is cheaper, faster, easier, or more available.

[Brian C. Miller]

Brian, one of the important things I found out for myself was the need to calibrate the film and the scanner. When Kodak 400UC first came out, I couldn't get good colors until I photographed the Profile Prism target, developed the film, and scanned it in to produce a profile for 400UC. After that the colors made sense.

[Bill_1856]

8x10 trannies are awesome, but only IF you have a good way to display them, and don't mind handling them every time you want to have a look at them.