View Full Version : Why Does Anyone Shoot Trannies - Round Two

Brian Ellis
7-Jul-2005, 06:41
A few messages down somebody asked why anyone would use large format slide film rather than negative film IF the final goal was a print. Most of the responses gave reasons that didn't seem relevant to the question - e.g. an 8x10 on slide film looks great on the light table, it's the industry standard, clients expect it, etc. etc. After using black and white film exclusively for many years I've become interested in doing some color work in 4x5 and possibly 8x10 and I've been wondering which type of film to start with.

So here's the question: if I don't have to please a client, if I don't care how slide film looks on a light table or anywhere else, if I don't need to match colors to a product, if I don't care about what has been done in the past or how magazines like to receive photographs, if industry standards are unimportant, if I won't be using a commercial lab to make the print and instead will scan the film and make a giclee print (oops, I mean an inkjet print : - )) if none of those things matter at all to me and and if the only thing I care about is making the best possible color print for my own personal purposes is there any reason to use transparency film?

Steve Hamley
7-Jul-2005, 06:52
Transparencies generally have much less grain. IIRC Fuji NPS has an RMS value of about 4 while Provia and Kodak E100G have RMS values of about 10-11. Grain will start being fairly visible at about 11x14 in inkjet prints from color neg film unless managed (based on my scans from an Artixscan 1800f using the glassless carrier). There are several ways to manage grain in scanning and post processing, but you do have to manage it unless you're comfortable with it.

Other than that, I'm not aware of any drawback in inkjet printmaking WRT color neg film. I find it quite useful in landscape photography based on my beginning use of it this year.


7-Jul-2005, 06:58
I'm a color neophyte, but was horrified by the idea of having to use transparencies. Pros who shoot under the conditions that I typically find myslelf in (outside, natural light, no control) seem to bracket and shoot polaroids to make sure they get the exposure right. Color film and processing is already expensive enough to bum me out ($5 every time i go click?)

Once I figured out that scanning color neg film is actually a reasonable challenge, there was no looking back. Grain isn't an issue at the sizes I usually print. I can't think of any other drawbacks.

Richard Littlewood
7-Jul-2005, 07:00
No reason at all. I had similar issues quite recently in deciding to take up colour work aswell as B+W. One thing that put me off was the amount of bracketing exposure with tranny film, and the contrast and colour cast issue. In the end I went with 5x4 Fuji NPS. Honestly it does do the job.

Melchi M. Michel
7-Jul-2005, 07:15

I think more than one person said this in the other thread, but probably the biggest advantage of a slide is that it is self-proofing. That is, you know how the print should look. Now, I know that you must be thinking "well, I've been doing B&W for a long time and I always use negs." I do too, and I must say that it is a very different process with B&W. The reversed tones are much easier to interpret. Furthermore, one does not have to worry about color balance. Unless you already have a really good color workflow (calibration with your own IT8 targets, etc.) and you only plan to use one or two color negative films, you may find playing with color (without a proof) to be very frustrating. Slides will still require adjustment, but much less so, and you will have a target to match as a starting point.

Beyond this, realize that you never get something for nothing. You have to decide what's important in the final image. There's a good reason for the fact that B&W photographers don't often develop for the lowest possible contrast. The reason you can represent a greater range of subject luminances on a peice of color negative is that the tonal representation is compressed on the negative film relative to that of reversal film. As a result, two neighboring tones are much more separated, and more discriminable in a slide than in a negative; there is simply much more tonal density encoding this difference in the slide.

So forget all the talk about the beauty of a LF slide (though they are beautiful!). The real question to ask yourself while shooting a particular scene is which do you value more: capturing sheer range or capturing subtlety?

Steve Hamley
7-Jul-2005, 07:22
In defense of transparencies, I prefer to shoot them and have no problems with exposure. I use a most unfashionable Gossen Luna Pro SBC in the equally unfashionable 30-degree reflected mode and expose at meter reading and 1/3 stop under for most landscapes. Both exposures are typically usable with the lighter one being my usual choice to scan.

I don't want to sound harsh, but if you can't meter for transparencies acceptably that's not a fault of the film.

I pull out the NPS when I have shadows that would block up with E100VS (or E100G) or need the extended range.


Bruce Watson
7-Jul-2005, 07:32
I'm doing basically the same thing you are talking about. I shoot 4x5 and print with inkjet. I find no reason at all to use tranny film, and every reason to shoot negative film.

I did some experiments (not scientific, used real subjects and didn't measure much of anything with a densitometer) last year with 160PortraVC in readyloads. I found the dynamic range of this film to be as large as Tri-X, and about as linear. Over a huge range I couldn't see any color shifting either. One of my favorite results is this passion flower (http://www.achromaticarts.com/flowers/02.html) photograph. Using a Zone VI modify Pentax spot meter, I measured about 11 stops of SBR (zone I being black and zone II having some tone and color, zones III-XI carrying detail). The film handled the dynamic range requirement easily.

In printing, all I did was a levels adjustment, an RGB curves adjustment, and some color correction to pull the whites back to white (as scanned the image was a bit blue, but then the capture was at high noon in July, so the color temperature was probably in the 9000K range, which is a bit blue). That's it. No other corrections or manipulations -- it's a "straight print" as it were.

Part of what I wanted to see was just how bad the grain was. The white part of the flowers is pretty dense; I remember it being around 2.0 but I didn't write anything down. Since grain is partly a function of density, I thought this would be a good test. I took part of one of the flowers up to 8x enlargement and printed it. It all looks grainless, including the white parts of the flower, on Hahnemuhle Photo Rag with UltraChromes. It's not just because the white parts are blown out to paper white either - they show tone and texture just fine - but no grain.

So... my conclusion is that grain isn't an issue, and that the ability to capture a large SBR really is an issue. So I opted for color negative film. YMMV of course, but I really doubt that it will.

steve simmons
7-Jul-2005, 07:34
The answers were all relevant to the question for those that responded. The fact that they may not be relevant for one personmakes them only irrelevant to him. It is solipsistic to make one the center of everyone else's universe. This is one thing I notice all to often in internet discussion groups - one person answers in a way that makes sense to them and then someone else comes along and declares that answer irrelevant. Irrelevant to whom?

Type C prints, those from color negs, are becoming a thing of the past. Their archival qualities were always suspect so this may or may not be a bad thing.

It is true that scanning negs is becoming easier. However, there are still advanatages to shooting transparencies - and bracketing extensively should not be necessary. It is also true that in the digital age that the advantages and disadvantages between negs and positives are becoming blurred.

However, transparencies stillhave uses in this modern digital world. Some publications still want them rather than negs or scans done by who knows who. They are generally sharper than negs, at least that used to be true. They tell you what the colors were in the scene (withing the color biases of each film but then this is true of negs as well) so you have a context for output. You can also lay them on a light table and know what you have which is not true with negs.

Both are valuable. When I was an architectural photographer working in difficult situations I always took great pride in getting a good transparency.

steve simmons

7-Jul-2005, 07:38
You can't print Cibachromes from color negatives.

David A. Goldfarb
7-Jul-2005, 07:39
A lot of fine work is done and has been done with neg film, and color neg films are better than they've ever been. If it works for you, then do it.

I've printed my own color, both neg and Ilfochrome, but right now I'm not doing enough color to justify it, and I'd rather use a service with much better scanners and printers than I could afford and just tell them "match the slide."

chris jordan
7-Jul-2005, 07:41
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.



Mike Chini
7-Jul-2005, 07:53
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
7-Jul-2005, 07:55
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


Leonard Evens
7-Jul-2005, 08:47
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
7-Jul-2005, 09:16

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.


7-Jul-2005, 09:18
"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
7-Jul-2005, 09:47
Thanks very much for all the answers and the helpful information. I think I'll just try both and see what happens.

7-Jul-2005, 10:08
"...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
7-Jul-2005, 10:12
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 (http://www.ddisoftware.com/prism) target, developed the film, and scanned it in to produce a profile for 400UC. After that the colors made sense.

7-Jul-2005, 11:09
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.

Brian Vuillemenot
7-Jul-2005, 12:52
I just like the Velvia look- saturated colors, ultrafine grain, and it just glows when used to photograph low contrast scenes in warm light, which is what I usually seek out. Film choice is obviously a personal matter, so use whatever allows you to make the images you want.

John Cook
7-Jul-2005, 13:03
And now for something completely different ;0)

Having used b&w exclusively for many years, you will have to get used to reduced acutance with color, positive or negative. Personally, I would use the term, "mushy" in comparison.

In addition, you will now require a thousand-dollar Minolta color meter so you can constantly fool with color balance. A tungsten lamp in a fluorescent-lit room with an outdoor window presents frustrations and challanges unknown to a b&w photographer. You will get to know camera cc filters and Roscoe gels very well.

Finally, forget about all those wonderful fiber papers you have come to know and love. Color prints on plastic instead. Much like personalized credit cards images.

So, is it too late to interest you in Marshall's oils? Honestly, they are not nearly so difficult as one might think. And you, not the film, will always be in complete control. You can buy a lot of Q-Tips and cotton balls for that thousand dollars.

Just a thought...

7-Jul-2005, 13:09
One of the problems with scanning negative film is the orange mask which is adjusted in color for the dyes used in the film. For example, look at the mask color difference between a Fuji film and Kodak film, or even between an older color negative film and a newer color negative film.

Unless the scanner is calibrated for the exact film, the colors can be distorted because the scanner doesn't read the colors correctly.

I just downloaded the latest driver for my Imacon, and was glad to see that they had updated the color negative film list to encompass more film types. However, I had to scan some images shot on some Kodak 400MC, and as that film is not in the list, I could only use a generic "color negative film" scanner setting.

Correcting the colors in PS took quite a bit of work - you don't have those types of problems with transparency film.

7-Jul-2005, 13:28
If you really care about making "the best possible color print for my own personal purposes" - then why don't you want to use a (good) commercial lab? And if you want to have something cheaper, simpler etc. etc. why do you want to know some reasons you should not use slides? Please, tell me - if I don't want to use these ways to go there why should I use this way to go there? What a silly question.

Barry Trabitz
7-Jul-2005, 14:23
Would someone help with a very basic question? I would like to use color negative film. I have a Umax PowerLook III scanner and photoshop 7.0. Is there a workflow someone can suggest to scan the negatives and eliminate the orange cast so that I can work on them in Photoshop. Any help would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance.

CP Goerz
7-Jul-2005, 14:50
You can always reduce the contrast when using chrome by overexposing and pulling it in the development just like B+W.

CP Goerz

Leonard Evens
7-Jul-2005, 15:12
About the orange mask.

This is basically a non-issue. It is put there to compensate for deficiencies in the dyes used in color emulsions. Reversal film was originally intended to be viewed directly by transmitted light or when projected in relative darkness on a screen. In any case, because of the viewing conditions, the eye would compensate for these deficiencies. However, when making prints, one might as well use a color negative process for the same reason one uses negatives in bw. And you could compensate for the deficiencies. Similar reasoning applies when scanning. The dye is a constant, so it can easily be compensated for when scanning or editing. The scanning software should have a setting for color negative film, and the best software has explicit settings for different brands. But even if you use a generic setting, it works reasonably well, and it doesn't require much additional effort to get the color balance right. The orange dye is not a reason to choose reversal film over color negative film.

7-Jul-2005, 16:08
wow, with all this talk about transparencies only Rob mentions the beauty of cibachromes as a reason to try reversal film. I have never seen a scanned transparency, digital output print (one done by one of you proficient artists) in person so I can't compare, but when I shoot color it is transparencies because I love the look of cibachromes. I'm surprised more people on this forum don't use them.

7-Jul-2005, 18:40
NOBODY has used Cibachromes for 10-15 years. (Unless they've got a freezer full of it, like me. Mixed in with the boxes of Ektaflex stuff.)

Kirk Gittings
7-Jul-2005, 20:47
Personally I never liked Cibachromes, but they were all that was readily available for awhile around here. For my upcoming show I explored pulling some of my Cibachromes from the museum collection, but they were dismal compared to what I am doing now with Epson UC inkjet from my early chromes and current NPS negatives.

Jorge Gasteazoro
7-Jul-2005, 20:57
but when I shoot color it is transparencies because I love the look of cibachromes

I have to agree, a Cibachrome in the hands of someone that has mastered it is an incredible sight. I once went to a show of prints made by John Charles Woods and let me tell you, his cibachrome prints were amazing, the one that stuck with me was of a sea algae....the thing look better than the real stuff.

7-Jul-2005, 22:34
Yeah, Cibachromes are great; an excellent reason for shooting transparencies. Wish I could afford it...

QT Luong
8-Jul-2005, 02:38
The most significant difference:
Transparency film has a smaller dynamic range, and therefore better tonal separation. If you are really trying to
maximize the final image quality, film should be matched to the contrast of the scene. If you like soft light, transparency would give you better results. If you like contrasty light, it will be difficult to retain shadow and hightlight detail with transparencies.

Although I haven't compared them side-by-side, the Fuji super-gloss crystal archive paper produce a result
which I find quite reminiscent of Cibachrome.

QT Luong
8-Jul-2005, 02:45
Exposure bracketing: if you use the technique I describe on the static page (expose two identical images, process the second one with adjustments after seeing the first one), you should be able to get a usable transparency unless you make a gross exposure mistake. Two pieces of film is the minimal number you should expose anyways.

Jan Nieuwenhuysen
8-Jul-2005, 06:59
You actually can print Ciba from negatives when you print digital (e.g.: Durst Lambda printer).
I also have Scala printed on Ciba (Ilfchrome) this way.

Paul Coppin
18-Jul-2005, 12:42
I am wrestling with this as well, as Provia has been my standard colour film for some time. I recent shot a pack of NPS and like the look of the negatives I got. I shot some early morning deep woods fall shots with both NPS and Provia, AND, I'm playing with a new scanner (Epson 4870), and for the moment, the negs are winning hands down in the race to a print. Partly, I did better with the exposure on the NPS than it turned out on the Provia, but at least in lowish light, there is far more range of hue in the negs then there is in the trannies. I send out both to be processed (as wetlabbing my own colour has never seemed to be cost effective for me) and the negs are twice as much to have developed as the trannies (two different labs), so there's a certain angst to using the NPS, but there appears to be a lot more to work with in the computer with negative scans. So far. :)

In the end, I think it might depend on what your subjects usually are.. If you want to keep sublety of hue in nozzleprints, then negatives might work better. Provia, Velvia and the like already have built-in limits to the film, which no amount of post-processing is going to fix.

18-Jul-2005, 13:28
"NOBODY has used Cibachromes for 10-15 years. (Unless they've got a freezer full of it, like me. Mixed in with the boxes of Ektaflex stuff.)

--Bill, 2005-07-07 17:40:52 "



18-Jul-2005, 13:55
Mark, I've just checked your web site, and it appears that you don't use Cibachrome either (It was intended as a joke -- Cibachrome became Ilfochrome some 10 or more years ago.)

Lloyd Lim
21-Jul-2005, 22:07
The lab I use (in Singapore) only does E6 for 4x5, no C41 :(

Hence, for color work, I can only use Slide film...

Be thankful that you still have a lab that can process both types of film.

I am seeing the beginning of the end of pro film lab processing here.

Well, there is always B&W and shooting 3 sheets with 3 filters :)

22-Jul-2005, 09:08
It's not my site bill. Just a lab that has been recommended to me.

Brian C. Miller
22-Jul-2005, 09:49
Lloyd, have you considered processing C-41 yourself? I use Tetenal chemicals, and they are easy to use and only get smelly on the third batch run.

Lloyd Lim
22-Jul-2005, 13:39

I've thought about it too.. my only issue is that I cannot maintain the required temperature and agitation easily (I am using inversion processing with a Jobo 2551, with diafine as my main developer due to the ease of use.) Hard to make a big water bath and roller motor in my small bathroom :(

Thanks for your advice.

Brian C. Miller
22-Jul-2005, 18:44
Lloyd, I bought a CPE-2 with lift and lots of goodies for $300 a few years back from a retiring wedding photographer. He said he tried it once, and just didn't like it! Well, for me its been a work horse.

I process my film in my bathroom. I have just enough space on my sink counter that the Jobo fits in there nicely. Otherwise I could put it on a table, in my tub, or in my shower. I have talked to other people who process color by hand. Temperature control is achieved by using a tray of water heated with a fish tank heater. It takes a while to initially figure out where to set the dial, but after that its absolutely reliable.

If you buy a CPE-2 used, make sure that if it comes with a lift that they haven't been running the color stabilizer chemicals through it. Big no-no, because it builds up a residue which can't be removed. The stabilizer chemicals should be in a bowl (porcelain or ceramic is good) at the proper temp.

Jobo also sells a little roller base for rolling the drums by hand for $20. You could put the roller base in a tray, along with the fish tank heater, and then you'd have rotary processing! The water just needs to touch the base of the tank. I have also heard of people rolling the expert drum, too.

6-Jun-2006, 14:45
I must say, it depends !
In mixed light condition, then nothing will beat negs !
In sunny days, with too much contrast, then nothing will beat negs !
Under a cloudly sky, nothing will beat slides !
If you are not confident with the meter, then go for the neg !
If you wants to know if everything is ok in your picture, then go for the slide...
scanning negs is sometimes a real pain !
we have slides and negs available, so let's use both !

tim atherton
6-Jun-2006, 14:48
it depends entirely on the transvestite

7-Jun-2006, 06:18
Crap! I was going to throw that out just now...

- Randy

Scott Davis
7-Jun-2006, 07:46
In line with the humorous responses...

You shoot them when they over-charge and then threaten to tell your wife.

7-Jun-2006, 09:53
I occasionally shoot transparencies and then cross-process them into negatives. This results in lurid, over-dense, near psychedelic colors, aesthetically similar to Ilfochrome, but less accurate. Not accurate at all, sometimes. These negatives are difficult to scan, so I get C prints of them.

I know this technique is anathema to most LFers, but it is in fact something you can do with transparencies that you cannot with negatives. Unless you use PhotoShop, like everybody on this forum except me...

Anthony Lewis
18-Jun-2006, 05:29
My experience is in the film industry. They only shoot neg and only ever have. To a cinematographer - reversal - they turn their nose up at it. The film industry would not dream of shooting reversal. Admittedly this has a lot ot do with the post production process, but today a lot of the film is scanned just as the stills industry does.
I am new to LF but want to know the answer to this as well. Everyone says neg is grainier, and I accept this, but would not some of this extra grain be because neg has a far higher dynamic range and you are seeing far more into the blacks? Also why is the film industry and the stills industry so much at odds with each other over this issue -that the film industry has always shot neg and the stills industry has always favoured slide? Remember 35mm movie film is blown up a lot larger than stills film generally is. So why is there such a discrepency between the two industries as to which is the best - tranny or neg?

Ron Marshall
18-Jun-2006, 08:09
On a recent trip I shot color negative for the first time. Fuji 160 Pro. Wonderful film. It scans well and there is no discernable grain. I now plan to use chrome only when reciprocity failure is a factor.

Alan Davenport
18-Jun-2006, 09:29
You guys are all missing the point. REAL men shoot transparencies because they get a chubbie when they see 'em on the light table. That's my reason, or maybe it's because I've got a freezer full of Ektachrome...

I dunno why women would use trannys.

Gordon Moat
18-Jun-2006, 11:24
Simple, I like the colour pallette better in the choices of transparency film I use. So to me, it is a creative choice to use transparency films.


Gordon Moat