Digital Workflow: transparencies or color negs?

[Kerey]

I am new to LF, but I suppose my questions here deal with film selection generally. I plan to develop my own B&W sheet film and send out for transparency processing, but then scan in either type at low res. for web use and 'positive' evaluation. Those that show particular promise will be sent out for drum scanning and ultimately printed digitally. I have only occasionally played with B&W photography, but hope to get into it more. I can't remember the last time I used color negative film. My main interests are landscape and floral photography w/ Velvia and Provia.

My first question deals with peoples' experiences with B&W from color images. TMAX is WAY cheaper to buy and deal with than desaturating color film, but have people found it to be preferrable to starting with a color image and mixing channels? I would be scanning the film in either case to prepare it for printing, so is going w/ TMAX (or whatever) worth the reduced control one has over relative tonal values when compared with working with RGB channels in Photoshop? At least in the latter case I could eliminate a few color filters from my field kit...

Secondly, given a digital workflow post-development, are there any benefits left to shooting transparencies? I've shot Velvia for several years, but for scanning wouldn't color negative film make more sense? Scans from color negs could have their saturation selectively boosted to more closely mimic Velvia or whichever emulsion was desired, and since it will be scanned the benefits of having a 'positive' for evaluation, previously afforded only to slides, would be present as well. Above all, I would think the extra tonal range of negative films would afford more leeway in Photoshop. So why shoot slides if one plans on ultimately scanning their film?

[Brian Ellis]

I use black and white film because I prefer to control the development process. I don't want to turn my negatives over to a lab where everything will be developed the same way regardless of the contrast range of the scene. However, gaining the advantage of controlling development times to suit the contrast range of the scene and your desired results for the print requires some testing, something many people prefer not to do. If someone is just going to develop all their black and white film for the same time then I suppose they might as well have a lab do that (except for the cost factor).

The idea of using color film and making adjustments similar to those achieved with filters by use of the RGB channels or other means certainly has some merit but I think that can, by and large, be done equally well with other tools in Photoshop. It's my impression that people who use color film but also make some black and white prints do so in order to have the option of a color photograph or a black and white photograph, not because they think they can make better black and white photographs with color film. But I could be wrong about that, I haven't taken a poll.

As an aside, I've read of many different ways to convert color to black and white besides using the RGB channels. People who know more than I do seem to think there are better ways of doing it than by using the RGB channels.

[Leonard Evens]

Color negative film has some advantages if you intend to scan. Transparency film is designed to be viewed directly, either on a light table or projected on a screen. It has almost no latitude for exposure errors and covers a relatively narrow dyanmic range in the scene. On the other other hand, the dynamic range in the developed film is fairly high, and it can exceed what the scanner can handle, particularly moderate cost flatbeds like the Epson 4870. Color film has a lot of exposure latitude, can handle wider exposure ranges in the scene, and has a relatively low dmax, making it easier to scan. The one advantage that transparency film has for scanning is that you have the transparency to compare to when adjusting color balance. But this can be misleading because there is no reason to believe the transparency will be an accurate rendition of the scene.

The popularity of transparency film, aside from being able to look immediately at the result after development, is based on historical factors. Professionals were required to submit their pictures as transparencies to make it easier for editors and the like to make decisions. Since professionals shot transparency film, serious amateurs copied them. But in the digital age, this advantage of transparencies no longer applies.

[Dave Moeller]

From my personal experience, there is one big advantage and one big disadvantage to shooting transparencies in this scenario.

The disadvantage is obvious: Cost. If you buy Velvia 50 in 50 sheet boxes, the cost for the film is about $1.70 per sheet. Processing runs around $2.00 per sheet locally for me. (Processing at home can be cheaper, but not that much cheaper, and maintaining the appropriate temperatures can be a pain.) T-Max 100 runs about $0.80 per sheet in 50 sheet boxes. Processing cost at my preferred pro lab is about the same as E6...but I can process B&W in my kitchen for much less (I figure about $0.20) and with very little effort. The other cost factor that can easily be controlled is the film. There are plenty of B&W emulsions available, some costing as little as $0.30 per sheet. Color transparency film never gets that cheap.

The advantage that I find is that transparency film is easier to scan. B&W takes some practice to get a good scan, whereas I've never had to do anything with color slides other than to stick them in the scanner and go.

There are some other advantages and disadvantages that have been touched on in this thread or in countless other threads on the 'net. Transparency film allows digital recreation of B&W filters after the fact. Transparency film allows the option of using the color image. B&W film allows much more creative control of the development process if you do it yourself. B&W also has _much_ greater latitude, allowing you to pull more information from both the shadows and highlights of one frame than you can with transapencies.

Color negative film falls somewhere between these two. The cost is still high, at-home development is a pain, but the latitude of the film is greater than transparency film. Scanning is about on par with B&W film.

In the end, I settled on shooting B&W 4x5's, developing them myself in my kitchen, and scanning them. With a little work I learned to get great scans, and my digital prints from B&W negatives are as good as those I get from scanned transparencies. I get more exposure control both in the development and in the data I choose to use from the film (since there's more data there). And my cost is much, much lower.

(The lower cost has an implication that's sometimes overlooked: I'm willing to shoot more when I know my cost per sheet is under 50c than I am when I know I'm looking at $4.00 per shot. I probably shoot twice as much when I load up B&W than I do when I load up Velvia. My costs are still lower, and I get more images. It's for this reason that I decided to make the trade-off. I can afford to shoot as much as I want, but mentally it's easier when I know the cost is so much lower.)

[Ralph Barker]

While I agree that color negative film has a wider dynamic range than color transparency films, I disagree with the concept that it has greater exposure latitude. A poorly exposed color negative is still poorly exposed, resulting in a shift in the treatment of scene brightness values, and usually a shift in color response, as well. It's just that exposure errors can be hidden, or "compensated for" to a degree during printing, using print exposure and filtration to produce an acceptable print.

I would suggest, however, that film selection should be based on the characteristics of the film, rather than its ease of scanning. Color films, in particular, are usually selected based on how they render colors within the scene, and their comparative saturation. B&W films also have striking differences, and are probably best selected based on the requirements of the scene or subject, and the "artistic" objective with the image.

So, if you personally like the color palette and saturation of Velvia, you should probably continue to use it. It's good to test various color films, however, to get a feel for how they treat various types of subjects and lighting situations. Likewise, you'll probably find that testing different B&W films will also add to your artistic toolkit. Traditional emulsions like Ilford FP4+, for example, give a different "feel" to an image than the more "technical" appearance of modern T-grained films.

[Leonard Evens]

Ralph,

I hate to disagree with you, since you are right about so many things. But I believe the term "exposure latitude" is a technical term with a definite meaning. So I don't think it is a matter of opinion. One film either does or does not have more latitude than another film, and the answer doesn't depend on who is talking.

By definition, if I understand correctly, exposure latitude refers to the range of light intensitites (usually expressed logarithmically) which produce densities in the developed film within the relatively straight part of the characteristic curve. Negative films generally have a longer linear part of the curve between the toe and the shoulder. That means, if you overexpose a stop (or in many cases) more, it won't make much difference in what you can do with the results, I've demonstrated that to myself with Portra VC 160, which I use quite a lot. Of course, it does make a difference if you underexpose because anything in the shadows which has not been recorded on film is lost to you. And if you overespose by four stops, you will certainly hit the shoulder of the characteristic curve.

Reversal film on the other hand is designed for direct viewing and typically has a smaller and steeper linear section in its characteristic curve. I just checked and found that Fuji Provira does have a fairly wide exposure range for a reversal film, (between 2 and 2.5), but one of Fuji's color negative films has a larger range (over 3) with the linear parts of each color's characteristic curves still looking quite linear at the upper end of the graph which is shown---no shoulder in sight, and the curves track each other pretty well through the entire range.

I do agree with you that color balance can change even with negative film if you overexpose, but with Portra VC I haven't really seen a significant shift with moderate overexposure. But perhaps I'm just not discerning enough.

[Kerey]

Thanks everyone for your input.

Considering the number of superb photographers successfully shooting and scanning chromes, my suspicion is that the limited exposure latitude of reversal film is at least tolerable (particularly given a high-quality scan).

It had occurred to me, though, that questions of color balance and saturation could be dealt with after scanning, making other factors (such as exposure latitude, cost, and even physical differences like film thinkness) worth greater consideration. I'm curious how many people out there, who have taken to digitally working with their images AFTER processing, have taken a second look at color negative films.

[Leonard Evens]

Kerey,

I guess I don't count because I've always preferred color negative film to reversal film, even 30 years ago when I was doing my own darkroom processing. I guess I was simple minded enough to believe what the experts at the time said. It was clear from that if you were going to make a print, you were better off with color negative film. The orange dye was introduced to correct for deficiencies in the dyes used in color emulsions. With reversal film, you didn't see those deficiencies because your eye adjusted when you viewed the image by transmitted or projected light. But in prints it was pretty clear, at least to me, that color printing was easier and more accurate with negative film than using Cibachrome and similar processes. Still a lot of photographers preferred reversal film and convinced themselves that Cibachromes were a high quality process instead of a compromise designed to make prints from transparencies. Today, if you scan, the deficiencies in the dyes is presumably less of an issue since you can correct for them in a photoeditor. But it still seems to me that you ought to have an advantage when starting with a color negative. In addition, the points I've raised about latitude and less concern about exceeding the dmax of your scanner are still relevant.

See www.math.northwestern.edu/~len/photos/2040801b/fountain.jpg as an example of what can be done with color negative film. This is a bit unsaturated compared to many things you see posted on the web, but I prefer it that way.

Why don't you try some color film and see how you like the results. But give yourself some time to develop your technique, since with digital processing there are a wide variety of possible outcomes depending on how you go about it.

[Ralph Barker]

Leonard - to a large extent, I think we are saying similar things - just with a different twist. While I agree that "exposure latitude" is a technical term, I would suggest that the definitions of technical terms are often subject to differences in interpretation. As such, technical terms (within the context of common usage) may be closer to legal concepts than to mathematical formulae in their nature. I'm just arguing that "optimal" exposure of any film will be "dead on" to the exposure required by the intended development and printing/presentation processes. The main wrinkle, I think, is that as commonly used, "exposure latitude" is often interpreted as a license to be sloppy with one's technique.

Kerey - I could easily be wrong, but I think the preference (among some) for chromes stems from several factors. Immediate direct viewing may be first and foremost - both for amateurs and pros. Slide shows, for example, once allowed amateurs to bore much larger groups of people with their images. (wink inferred) Pros, on the other hand, like whatever will help them get approvals from their customers, and what editors prefer for publication purposes. (Editors can immediately view a slide and make an immediate decision, whereas negs require additional effort and time.Even with digital, many editors still prefer chromes, because chromes take up less of their time.)

Interestingly enough, the dynamic range of chromes also comes closer to the dynamic range associated with typical magazine printing processes. (Magazine printing is usually considered to have about a 3.5 to 4-stop range. Images beyond that start getting iffy when the ink hits the page.) Thus, if it looks good on the slide, it will probably print OK, too.

I think it's fair to say, however, that in all cases, the capability of the film (or, digital sensor) will be affected by the dynamic range of the output or presentation technology. As such, it is helpful to consider what that technology will be, and what requirements it may impose on the original image.

[Frank Petronio]

In a perfect world, we would shoot all three types of film for every shot. B&W is slightly sharper at the most critical, largest enlargements. But it's not color, and it is hard to preview what you have. Color neg is hardest to preview (that orange masking layer) but in theory it works well. The reality is that it is harder to scan color neg of any of the films (no reference points and the scanner software usually doesn't allow a good enough preview). Color trannies are, in theory, the least forgiving but being able to check your results almost immediately - or to have a notebook of nicely exposed chromes - is great. With color neg, maybe you'll remember what you shot after a couple of years, but by not having a reference point, you have to do several steps to "guesstimate" what the color should be. Not that hard for abstract subjects - but try to guess at fleshtones or textiles and be consistent be shots.

Another advantage to chromes is that they are usually processed smoother in the skies - it is somewhat more of a crap shoot to shoot perfect, even skies with negative film, because of uneven development, edge density, and drying marks.

The bottom line is that I often shoot chromes first, or only, because I am lazy. I spot meter and have shot enough that I'm able to shoot most things within half a stop - and I do a tight bracket. I often use EPN, a lower contrast transparency film that seems to give me a little extra shadow detail and highlight range than a candy-saturated film like VS or Velvia. It is easy enough to adjust the color in Photoshop - I want to capture the most raw information.

[Henry Ambrose]

You'll get more scene info on color negative than you will from any color positive material given real world wide range scenes. While its dynamic range is smaller (I'm talking film density - NPS won't get as dense as Velvia for example), its ability to capture scene range is greater. Now, if you always photograph where there is only 3 stops range in your scene (or whatever fits on your film) then use your favorite transparency material with confidence. (I'm not claiming thats all it'll do, this is just an example)

Sharpness of any of the three materials is not a big factor with digital post processing. You can make any of it sharp or soft and change the macro and micro contrast and change the color balance in minute details or globally or make great B&W from color film or whatever........its your pick.

If you -must deliver perfect transparencies - then you better shoot something that will "be right" from the lab. If you're working in a wet B&W darkroom you better make a good printable negative. But once your picture goes into your computer you are the master, or you can be....... the scan (from whatever film you choose) becomes your playground and you can make your picture look exactly like what you want within the limits of your printer and Photoshop skills.

Any of the three film types can be great for what they're great for. I use color neg for most of my architecture work for its ability to capture wide range scenes. I scan it and deliver prints and files. Its just the best for interior or exterior mixed lighting or for deep shadows and bright highlights and light sources in the scene. But I've also used it to repro paintings. Its not too hard to color correct with the original art leaning beside the computer. I use B&W negative film and print in a darkroom, because its the best way to make a wet B&W print. I sometimes use color transparency, usually when I am required to do so by a client.

If you are working with a scanned film/digital print workflow, you could probably do yourself a big favor and just use one film for everything. I suggest color neg. Learn one film really well and you'll find it becomes easy to expose, scan and work with and confidence building to know what you're going to see when you get the film back.

Now on the cost thing, if your picture is not worth the $5-10 you spend on a two or three pieces of film and the processing (about the price of one movie ticket) then what are you wasting your time for?