PDA

View Full Version : Why does anyone shoot LF Trannies?



Bill_1856
5-Jul-2005, 21:45
Not a Troll (at least I don't think it is). My question is why in the world anyone would shoot transparancy film instead of negative film (I'm presuming here that the final product is a print, whether digital or traditional)? It has such limited exposure latitude, and high contrast by comparison. Processing is also a lot more critical, and I believe that a lot of labs have stopped doing reversal processing.

Isaac Crawford
5-Jul-2005, 21:55
The simplest answer is that they are incredibly beautiful. Who needs a print with such big transparencies? Plus, E-6 films really don't look like the C-41 ones. Name one C-41 film that looks like Velvia. Even with digital wackiness, it does matter what you capture the image on.

Isaac

Jorge Gasteazoro
5-Jul-2005, 21:58
Bill, have you ever seen an 8x10 tranny? I am guessing not since you are asking this. Even medioocre pictures look awesome if the tranny is exposed well. I know I was speechless the firt time I saw one... :-)

Jim_3565
5-Jul-2005, 22:21
Not all E-6 films are high contrast. Kodak's EPY, aka Ektachrome 64T has a gentle, low contrast scale which is longer than some black and white films. It responds well to zone system controls.

I've used C-41 films which had even more zones of exposure in them, but you can't control those in development at all. The reaction goes to completion and that's it. So I use E-6 because of the control it gives me.

dan nguyen
5-Jul-2005, 22:36
Remember those advertising billboards for Apple iTune....? the electric guitar...? not long ago...

well...I have seen those 8x10 trannies...and I worked on that project... and believe me.....it knock my socks off... and I love to shoot 4x5 trannies myself.....

so.. this is my guess... trannies take away the guess works... "what you see on the light table is there..."

Wayne
5-Jul-2005, 22:45
basicaly because my eyes dont have an orange minus filter. Now if your question was why do people PRINT trannies....I would be more sympathetic tothe question. Not a lot, but more. I've wondered that one myself sometimes, staring at some of the Ilfochromes I've done over the years. Maybe I should try Ektachrome 64T next time I get the urge. Anyone have any sample images made with it that I can see?

Paul Cocklin
5-Jul-2005, 22:55
It's consistant and dependable. I realize I'll probably sound pretty naive here, but I started shooting transparencies because when I got my prints back from the lab (cringe) the final image was nothing like what I thought I shot.

For those that can develope their negatives and print them themselves, negative film is probably the way to go. But for those of us that have to send film out to be processed, I know I want to take as much control away from the developer and put as much control into my hands as possible. Slides let me tell the person developing my film, 'just do it the same way, all the time.'

And they do look really great on a light table. :-)
I cried when I saw my first LF tranny, and I'm man enough to say it.

Paul

mark blackman
5-Jul-2005, 23:02
Bill,

I've shot both colour negative and transaparencies of the the same scene. On a light box, the tranny looks exactly how I remember the scene, unlike the -ve. The time and effort to get the colour balance right (whether in the dark room with filters, or with photoshop) can be frustrating to say the least.

When I have a scene where the range is too great for tranny film, despite copious use of graduated filters, I'll reach for a sheet of -ve film. I'll also shoot in B&W. I cannot think of a single occasion where the -ve image has won over the B&W version.

As to the look of a 10x8 transparency, I must agree they can be beautiful, and extremely useful in choosing an image to print, just examine through a loupe - you can't do that with negative film.

Having said that, I'm sure there are many people, especially shooting in a studio with full lighting control, who are very happy with -ve film and have a work-flow that produces expected results.

Graham Hughes
5-Jul-2005, 23:16
I personally shoot E6 because it's self proofing; put it on a light table and it's obvious. Negatives require printing. I cannot do color printing in my darkroom at present, and my main color lab (already quite expensive for C41 in rollfilm) makes it very difficult to get contact prints (else they won't get filed with the negs) from 4x5 color negatives.

I would probably prefer to shoot negatives, however.

Eric Leppanen
5-Jul-2005, 23:53
I shoot E6 because the fine art digital printers I work with all say they can produce (all else being equal) superior digital prints from chrome rather than color negative film. I know not everyone agrees with this, but as I like very much the results I've been getting I see no reason to change. In the past when I've compared drum-scanned E6 vs. drum-scanned color neg, the color neg scan was noticeably grainier due (I was told) to the neg film's orange mask. I've stuck with E6 since then and never looked back.

Having said all that, for situations where the contrast is clearly too great for E6, then I'll fall back to color neg or B&W (or, if possible, return to the scene later when the lighting is less severe).

E6 also gives me more flexibility in flat or reflected lighting conditions, in that I can raise the contrast by pushing at least one stop to give the chrome more "punch." Plus E6 is an original image, and does not require the color adjustments required by color neg when producing digital prints (even when shooting color neg, I try to take at least one E6 image as a color reference).

No doubt it is a huge thrill to put a big, beautiful 8x10 E6 chrome on the light table for the first time. But carrying around a print portfolio is obviously much easier than carrying around a light table, so I rarely display my original chromes. I pick the film type that produces the best digital prints in my workflow, and for color that has been mostly E6.

CP Goerz
6-Jul-2005, 00:29
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!

David Vickery
6-Jul-2005, 00:34
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.

QT Luong
6-Jul-2005, 01:45
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.

george jiri loun
6-Jul-2005, 03:22
That's what photo stock agencies want - books, magazines, journals etc. pictures are made from slides.

Janko Belaj
6-Jul-2005, 05:44
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.

Larry Gebhardt
6-Jul-2005, 06:36
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.

Bill_1856
6-Jul-2005, 07:55
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

Emmanuel BIGLER
6-Jul-2005, 09:10
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 ;-);-)

CXC
6-Jul-2005, 09:14
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?

Eric Leppanen
6-Jul-2005, 09:35
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.

Bruce Watson
6-Jul-2005, 12:14
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
6-Jul-2005, 14:08
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
6-Jul-2005, 16:46
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
6-Jul-2005, 20:03
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
9-Jul-2005, 10:15
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
9-Jul-2005, 14:37
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.