Transparencies or Negative? Which type do you prefer?

[brian steinberger]

I'd just like to see where everyone is with this topic now. I know it's been beating to death in the past, but lets re-look at it now. With numerous post processing options, scanners, times are different now.

Which type or color film are you shooting, transparencies or negatives? Please explain why, your subject matter, how you're printing.. etc. If you're shooting a little of both, please explain under what conditions you prefer one type over the other.

[vinny]

Transparancies. Mainly velvia 50. Some E100vs stuff in 8x10. Landscapes. I'm not a big fan of color neg scans. They lack the brilliance and fine grain i get from Velvia. Straight optical prints from color neg look great for portraits but i prefer the look of transparancy film for lanscapes. I've got an imacon flextight and i've got a friend with a howtek drum scanner so i've been doing direct to print lightjets from Calypso. I'm quite pleased with my results. I've got a few 8x10's i'm considering for cibachromes through the Ciba Lab here in L.A. There's nothing quite like those prints, nothing.

vinny

[JW Dewdney]

Myself - I don't care for cibachromes too much. While the saturation can be pretty out of this world, I find them lacking in a certain 'intimacy' - but anyway - to the task at hand... I personally prefer shooting colour neg film. One reason is logistic - easily being able to make RA-4 prints (assuming one has access to a lab, of course!) - the other reason is that you have the flexibility to coax a good print out of it later - rather than having to make a decision in-camera as to what the final result will look like. Since you won't be using the entire range of values a neg can record, in most cases, there's some room for interpretation later - especially if one chooses to re-interpret the scene. I just really like the flexibility that neg film gives me. Velvia, and others, while lovely to look at, do have their place... but I really like the assurance of being able to 'capture' what I want with neg film. I have no problems with scanning them, either at home or with a lab's drum scanner. Most of the stuff on my website was scanned on a flatbed, directly from the negs.

[Diane Maher]

I've mostly been shooting transparencies, Provia 100F in 8x10. However, recently I have been giving C41 a try in that size. This is mostly due to getting a free box of 8x10 Fuji 160S at last year's View Camera Conference. I've been getting prints made via interneg from the Provia and I like those, but it's kind of nice to just get a contact print via the C41 neg too. I shoot mostly landscapes and don't scan my 8x10's because my scanner (Epson 2450) is too small to scan the neg/transparency unless I do multiple scans and stitch them together.

[JW Dewdney]

I've got an imacon flextight and i've got a friend with a howtek drum scanner so i've been doing direct to print lightjets from Calypso.

Hey Vinny - have you tried A&Is lightjets? They're ABSURDLY cheap. I can't see how calypso could be any cheaper... what are you paying?

[Walter Calahan]

Both, depending what I'm doing. Film's just a tool to capture one's vision, just like lens choice. Depending on what I'm shooting, I select between color negative or transparency film, as well as manufacturers and their various emulsions.

[brian steinberger]

Negative film for portraits and trannys for landscapes seems to be the trend. I think it might be that one might like a boost in contrast and saturation for landscapes with Velvia, and the need of laditude and lack of satuaration and contrast for portraiture with negative film. I hope to get alot more feedback from this forum.

Walter, could you be a little bit more specific as to what kind of situations you would use either?

[Eric Leppanen]

For landscapes, I generally try to match film contrast to scene contrast, so that the film can record as much information as possible. For low contrast scenes, I use Velvia or Provia, depending on the color scheme I want; for high contrast scenes, I use Pro160S or Portra 160VC. Most of my landscapes are shot during the first few minutes after sunrise or before sunset, where the lighting is soft and the contrast is usually within the limits of what transparency film can handle. Overall I shoot roughly 80% transparencies and 20% color neg.

I haven't shot portraits for awhile, but when possible I used to shoot transparency film (Astia 100F), as there is nothing like a positive image to remember someone by. However, this only worked when I had precise lighting control, so as a practical matter color neg was frequently used.

[Marko]

B&W negatives for LF, digital for everything else.

[JW Dewdney]

Actually - I'm going to revise and say negatives for anything with a significant amount of contrast - and chromes only for low-contrast scenes, that need a strong colour kick for differentiation, such as what velvia can offer.