PDA

View Full Version : Did Kodak color neg lose sharpness when it was reformulated to improve scanning?



Pere Casals
20-Jul-2019, 06:14
Moderator's note: tangential discussion extracted from "more advanced scanner" thread and moved here.




Main difference was the top coats


You are not well informed.




Show us the patents then.
sharpness enhancement in the emulsions was a long running project far pre-dating scanning needs. I know you are desperate for a magic solution that 'proves' high end scanners are reliant on magic software, but they aren't.

I explained you several times that small discrete color clouds generate aliasing, if the clouds don't overlap then a pixel can catch a cloud of a color or a cloud of another color, thus generating remarcable noise. Is the clouds overlap then you decrease color noise dramatically.

The re-enginering changes in the emulsion were to make clouds overlap, almost every CN film datasheet still mentiones that with weasel words, Prota 160 one says:

"Now the PORTRA Films have been reengineered to deliver significantly finer grain at all speeds for improved scanning performance and greater enlargement capability"

In fact they speak about finer grain "after scaning", because optic enlargement are practically extinct since very, very long ago, so when they say finer grain they mean less aliasing from overlaping clouds and adaptive sharpening to solve the side effects.

You probably know that velvia is noisy in a LS-5000, this is because velvia clouds were not touched.




I know you are desperate for a magic solution that 'proves' high end scanners are reliant on magic software, but they aren't.

Interneg, I showed you that Pro scanners perform a better adaptive sharpening than the Epson, but manually adusting the Eson scan you optain the same:

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?150020-Scanner-Comparison-2019-Epson-Flatbed-Eversmart-Flatbed-Drum-Scanners&p=1479178&viewfull=1#post1479178


If you don't understand that from those samples, then sorry, I cannot do anymore, those samples speak on their own. That proof is clear like a glass.

interneg
21-Jul-2019, 05:49
I explained you several times that small discrete color clouds generate aliasing, if the clouds don't overlap then a pixel can catch a cloud of a color or a cloud of another color, thus generating remarcable noise. Is the clouds overlap then you decrease color noise dramatically.

The re-enginering changes in the emulsion were to make clouds overlap, almost every CN film datasheet still mentiones that with weasel words, Prota 160 one says:

"Now the PORTRA Films have been reengineered to deliver significantly finer grain at all speeds for improved scanning performance and greater enlargement capability"

In fact they speak about finer grain "after scaning", because optic enlargement are practically extinct since very, very long ago, so when they say finer grain they mean less aliasing from overlaping clouds and adaptive sharpening to solve the side effects.

Wrong, wrong and wrong again.

If you had any real knowledge of colour neg films from the last 30 years, you would see that the granularity gets finer, the dye clouds tighter, more densely packed, sharper and less cross contaminated. In anywhere apart from your imagination, this is how films are improved for both scanning and optical printing. And these improvements are not based on your fundamentally poor understanding of limited analytical aspects of the materials, but rather on a very extensive set of data covering the relationships of grain, sharpness, resolution etc and their interrelationships within a complex mathematical analysis of total image content. If your claims had any truth, current films would be natively a lot less sharp than, say, VPS when fully optically printed. They aren't. BTDT. If you knew anything of the use of DIAR & DIR couplers in C-41 films, let alone interlayer scavengers, you would know why colour neg films are so sharp relative to E-6 which is much more limited in the extent to which edge sharpness can be boosted. If you are not seeing this difference in your scans, it is because you are basing your conclusions off a scanner that either has such a low MTF response that it cannot represent the edge effects of the film, or that is so poorly operated or maintained that it cannot deliver its potential quality.

The surface finish apparently caused scanning issues in some cases, so it was altered to be smoother.



You probably know that velvia is noisy in a LS-5000, this is because velvia clouds were not touched.

No, it's because the light source in the Coolscan is extremely highly collimated like a point-source enlarger, quite possibly to try and compensate for flare in the optical system. Up to a certain enlargement size, the slightly more diffuse dye clouds in colour negative (compared to B&W neg grain) enable less apparent grain in optical printing. Going above 8-12x or scanning at decent resolutions with a more collimated light source and granularity will rapidly appear.

All you are testing is the lack of diffusion of the light source and the sensor response to that, not the film. Use a scanner with a better diffused light source before making these claims.



Pro scanners perform a better adaptive sharpening than the Epson, but manually adusting the Eson scan you optain the same:


These claims of yours have been repeatedly disproved by multiple sources (including those tests themselves) and the outright MTF performance of the Epson has been shown to be so poor that the level of sharpening needed to improve it even slightly produces an offensive level of aliasing and noise.

The sensor setup in Noritsu & Frontier scanners is so different from the 3xCCD or 3xPMT scanners that to try and draw comparisons is rather like stating the fundamental sharpness of a digital sensor without a Bayer array or an anti-aliasing filter is identical to one with both. Sharpening the one with the anti-aliasing will produce a degree of artifacts, especially if it's then being output as a compressed file format too.

bob carnie
21-Jul-2019, 06:38
I learn so much when you folks fight.. you are keeping it civil and I like it... I remember the days of Jorge, now he was a tough cookie to debate with and quite often wrong.

Though I have used the Epson, Fuji Frontier, Flextight , Creo and tested the drum scanners it is interesting to see some of the behind the scene stuff... my frontier was good up to about 16 x 20 and then the files fell apart.

Pere Casals
21-Jul-2019, 08:09
These claims of yours have been repeatedly disproved by multiple sources (including those tests themselves) and the outright MTF performance of the Epson has been shown to be so poor that the level of sharpening needed to improve it even slightly produces an offensive level of aliasing and noise.

hmmm, interneg, have you eyes in your face?

Where is it that V700 "offensive level of aliasing and noise" ?

Top left, sharpened by me is the V700 crop, at top-right you have Creo/Scitex Eversmart Supreme, not more, not less. Botom left: Creo/Scitex Eversmart Pro , Bottom-right: Scanmate 11000

Do you know those scanners ? its aprox price when new?

(The red rectangle was sharpened by me) here the original: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?150020-Scanner-Comparison-2019-Epson-Flatbed-Eversmart-Flatbed-Drum-Scanners&p=1479176&viewfull=1#post1479176

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4857/46755757932_c7010da815_o.jpg

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?150020-Scanner-Comparison-2019-Epson-Flatbed-Eversmart-Flatbed-Drum-Scanners&p=1479178&viewfull=1#post1479178

Look, I see the same, please tell me if you see a single pixel that's different !!!

___________


Portra datasheet has the wording: "Now the PORTRA Films have been reengineered to deliver ... improved scanning performance ..."

What do you say? a change in the supercoating ? you are not well informed. Please get information, and then we'll debate


__________



No, it's because the light source in the Coolscan is extremely highly collimated like a point-source enlarger, quite possibly to try and compensate for flare in the optical system.


interneg... velvia was not touched because it was projection stuff, while CN color films were reengineered for larger clouds to be easier to scan, collimation apart, velvia behaves different than CN in the LS-5000, I was pointing that to make you understand what change CN film experimented, with the digital minilabs introduction.

Please... just inspect with a good microscope old and new CN, and slides, see the clouds, see with your own eyes what changed, as I did, then you'll know about what you speak. Supercoating ?

Look, I did it, do it, take the microscope and see.


From that toy will realize why all those scanners are discontinued, why the X1/X5 are discontinued, and why instead the V850 will stay and will be manufactured in the long term.

Oren Grad
21-Jul-2019, 08:41
If you had any real knowledge of colour neg films from the last 30 years...


hmmm, interneg, have you eyes in your face?

We are happy to have vigorous debate - at least until it starts going in circles - but per Forum guidelines we won't tolerate personal insults. No more of that, please.

It's fine that you both feel strongly about the topic. But it's easy to get carried away in the heat of the moment. So after you've drafted a reply but before you post it, wait a little bit and then make another pass through it to remove anything that could reasonably be construed as a personal attack.

Pere Casals
21-Jul-2019, 09:25
We are happy to have vigorous debate - at least until it starts going in circles - but per Forum guidelines we won't tolerate personal insults. No more of that, please.

It's fine that you both feel strongly about the topic. But it's easy to get carried away in the heat of the moment. So after you've drafted a reply but before you post it, wait a little bit and then make another pass through it to remove anything that could reasonably be construed as a personal attack.

ok

interneg
21-Jul-2019, 16:03
Portra datasheet has the wording: "Now the PORTRA Films have been reengineered to deliver ... improved scanning performance ..."

What do you say? a change in the supercoating ? you are not well informed. Please get information, and then we'll debate

I was paraphrasing several of Ron Mowrey's comments on both dye clouds and digital optimisation. Bigger dye clouds would be less sharp & current Portra 160/400 are clearly natively sharper than the previous generation(s). If you believe that you know more about this than the engineers who designed the materials, that's your prerogative, but you'll need more than basic microscopy to prove anything useful. X-ray microdensitometry and scanning electron microscopy for starters. What films did you look at anyway?

And as for 3D LUT's, I know what they are, I have made & used them for various jobs. They are not a panacea, but can be very handy.

Pere Casals
21-Jul-2019, 16:45
Bigger dye clouds would be less sharp & current Portra 160/400 are clearly natively sharper than the previous generation(s).

Let me reiterate, first take the microscope and inspect 1990 vs 2000 color film, later we can continue debating. Clouds are not well seen in the scans, you need a good microscope, you need to see it.




They are not a panacea, but can be very handy.

They are a panacea when the deformations you want in the color space cannot be made by operating with 2D LUTs or curves.

A 3D LUT can map any color in the original color space to any color in the destination color space, so this it TOTAL flexibility, if this is handy or not it depends on if you have the tools to build a 3D LUT that solves your problem.


____


By the way, please tell me how a "trash" scanner like the V700 can match that easy the crop from the ScanMate 11000 https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?153330-More-advanced-scanner-for-4x5-than-Epson-flatbed&p=1509776&viewfull=1#post1509776 , or the Creo

No guess ?

interneg
21-Jul-2019, 16:49
Let me reiterate, first take the microscope and inspect 1990 vs 2000 color film,

Which specific films?

Pere Casals
21-Jul-2019, 17:26
Which specific films?

You can start with bare consumer films.

Later you can compare Vericolor with Portra that was introduced in 1998 to be the Vericolor VPS and VPL substitute. Probably the early Portra was changed soon.

Also you can compare equivalent Fuji films.

Then compare with Velvia.

interneg
22-Jul-2019, 00:51
You can start with bare consumer films.

Later you can compare Vericolor with Portra that was introduced in 1998 to be the Vericolor VPS and VPL. Probably the early Portra changed soon.

Also you can compare equivalent Fuji films.

Then compare with Velvia.

Which specific films have you looked at? I've worked extensively with all of these & they largely match the characterisation of their data sheets in terms of sharpness. Or have you just looked at a random sample of Velvia & a random sample of Portra and drawn inaccurate conclusions based on assumptions?

Pere Casals
22-Jul-2019, 02:35
Which specific films have you looked at?

All I could, all Portras, Ektar, Fuji 160, Provia, all Velvias, Vision 3 (cinestill)... HP5, TX, TMXYZ, D100, CMS 20, Plus-X, D-X, S-XX, Valca... Rodinal vs Xtol, Xtol stock vs 1:1 . C200, Xtra 400, Gold, Color Plus, Ektachrome... Say that I spend 10min every week in that.




they largely match the characterisation of their data sheets in terms of sharpness.

interneg, I don't want to "lecture" you in how datasheets have to be interpreted, but those film MTF graphs are probably done at 1000:1 contrast, I recently told you that (contrary to lenses) film MTF is highly dependant on target contrast. 1000:1 are 10 stops, a contrast situation that you won't find on 30cycles/mm textures in a negative, by far.

You know that CN film has an extraordinary highlight latitude, obtained by including a share of very, very small crystals, at 1000:1 the MTF graphs shows that.


See datasheet, Image Estructure section, page 4: https://125px.com/docs/film/kodak/e4051-Portra-160.pdf They look politicians, they speak a lot and say nothing :).




and drawn inaccurate conclusions based on assumptions?

Those are not my conclusions, at all, I'm not that good, this was shown to me long ago by a technical service boss (highly proficient and technically educated) in the digital minilab sector, I inspected film strips with him in his microscope, let me explain you in how this is done. You inspect areas in the negative that were grey in the scene (concrete, buildings... ) you inspect greys of different densities, and you learn if color clouds overlap more or less for each density level.


This are the key questions;

1) is velvia more difficult to scan than potra (or C200) at (4000dpi effective) high res ? more or less color noise at pixel level ?

2) why ?

3) beyond 1000:1 graphs, is velvia sharper than Fuji 160 in practice

4) why ?


Since digital minilab era all manufacturers started saying that their film was easier to scan (less color noise), but none of them were telling how this was achieved, larger clouds around the crystal.

Not new in photography, no fine grain solvent developer says in the datasheet that you also have less sharpness, so at Kodak/Fuji they didn't have to think much when writing the datasheet.


Anyway, the "larger clouds" vs "easy scan" had a debate long ago, I can't belive you weren't aware. Today nobody complains, darkroom RA-4 is near extinct, but in the 1990s we had a lot of Pro color darkroom labs for wedding, etc,

By then darkroom prints from 35mm film noticed an slight drop in sharpness, while that change was a benefit for the digitals minilabs, less color noise in the scanning, while the slight sharpness loss was solved with some digital sharpening.

interneg
22-Jul-2019, 17:47
datasheets have to be interpreted.

A microscope is not going to help you if the visual density of the magenta dye is changed, but not its spectral response when exposed to the paper, mainly because your eyes do not respond like photographic paper (or a digital sensor for that matter). There were significant changes in visual dye density in the mid 90's onwards, which seem likely intended to shorten print exposure times & reduce paper reciprocity issues.

As for your assertions about sharpness tests, having been & checked what current procedures are, they involve x-ray and visual light exposures (which allows for testing of emulsion turbidity) of a set of known width slits down to 1 micron which are repeated at a very wide array of exposures, each a stop apart - the results are read by microdensitometry, then the RMS grain data is added before an MTF result is arrived at (which also enables a comparison of the behaviour of the emulsion's sharpness characteristics in different format sizes). This is repeated across each of the colour sensitivities & the combined coated package. This seems to be fairly standard industry procedure, but is only a part of a much larger quantitative analysis that is carried out to try and accurately represent the 'information capacity' of the film. MTF data below 30-50% response doesn't tell you much about the sharpness of a material, so it's largely omitted in the datasheet.

Finally, if the practical sharpness of positive materials was as high as you claim, the cinema industry would have adopted them fully a long time ago. They didn't because neg-pos has major sharpness, colour etc advantages. This is because of the potential to use DIR/ DIAR couplers etc in C-41 - vis-a-vis citrazinic acid and other less effective sharpness enhancers in E-6 (which also has to use a highly solvent first developer to work correctly), but there were also highly mathematical studies done which came to the conclusion that neg-pos was better performing across the board. This sharpness behaviour difference is pretty obvious at even moderate sizes, no matter if you optically print or scan on decent kit. Transparencies remained in use for so long because they gave an absolute colour reference for repro, not because they were 'better'.

Pere Casals
23-Jul-2019, 01:21
As for your assertions about sharpness tests,

Not my assertions, but what's very well known:

193563
Reference: http://www.tmax100.com/photo/pdf/film.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20180731072332/http://www.tmax100.com/photo/pdf/film.pdf

Look, Kodak VR 100 and VR-G : consumer film of the 1980s is sporting 100 lp/mm at 30% MTF, it not says the exposure, but it's well sharper than (!!!) Pro film of the late 1990s that was designed to be scanned, and sharper than any 2019 CN film, consumer or pro.

To me this is a fact.




A microscope is not going to help you if the visual density of the magenta dye is changed,

Let me reiterate it a last time... take a good microscope and inspect around x800. Inspect gray subjects having density around 0.85D and around 0.25D, you'll see why color consumer film of the 1980s is sharper than consumer and Pro CN film made in 2019.

> Compare consumer Kodacolor VR-G (1988) vs Kodacolor Gold (2019)

> Compare professional Kodak Vericolor III VPS (discontinued 1997) vs Portra 160/Ektar 100 (2019)



Of course, I prefer modern CN film because it's better for the hybrid workflow we have today for color, but 1980s color film was sharper.

For MF and up there is no problem with that lower sharpness. For my Nikon F5 I feel the modern film limitations, even when it's scanned 8000dpi in a drum, don't you ?


_______


Interneg, we have debated too much (since 2 years ago) the changes in the clouds from the film adaptation to the hybrid workflow, if the consumer 1988 Kodacolor VR 100lp/mm rating is not enough for you, then I cannot do more. I cannot belive you were not aware of that situation, really.

Today Kodak has no CN film that is as sharp as the 1980s consumer VR, this is a fact. And this is 30 years later.


_______


193564

Here you see before/after bleach, at left you see the silver clumps, depending on chem diffusion effects (IIRC) (I guess reaction speed may be involved, slower reaction more diffusion) the cloud can be smaller and more intense, or larger and less intense. With larger clouds there is less color noise in the scanner from aliasing, this is evident, if clouds of diffrent colors overlap more then a pixel takes more the same color than the neigbour pixel. If not the neighbor pixel can take a very different color: one pixel takes the magenta cloud and the neighbor takes the yellow cloud, but no pixel takes both overlaped to capture the real subject's color: this is color noise.

Problem was that sensor discretization magnified that noise from aliasing in the scanning, requiring larger clouds for best overall result. Then the Noritsu added some digital sharpening, some powerful image enhancing aesthetics, et voilą, we had amazing color prints, 10" was a lot for consumer market.

Want a big print? then shot 120 !!! Sorry, clouds are for scanning. This was the message in the late 1990s.

interneg
23-Jul-2019, 11:40
Pere - this is why the granularity of the material matters because it affects the information capacity. MTF is signal, RMS grain/ print grain index is noise. VR/ VR-G/ Gold have high MTF but also Print Grain Indices equivalent to or worse than Portra 800. This is ok in a product meant for perhaps 4x enlargement from 135 while retaining good sharpness, not so good if you want to make big prints. Pro Image 100 which is a Gold derivative shows this problem very clearly. The critical discoveries leading to Portra etc seems to have been that a 100%+ response out to 20-25 lp/mm gives the best sense of real 'sharpness', especially in larger formats, while holding the 50% response to about 50-60 lp/mm drastically reduces excessive granularity - to the point that an 8x enlargement has about the same visual granularity as a 4x off Gold etc. This is all visible in optical prints.

Pere Casals
23-Jul-2019, 12:56
interneg, Kodak Vericolor III VPS was not grainy in optical enlargements, it was only grainy in the frontier and in the noritsu, it was the workhorse of many expensive wedding photographers that were machinegunning with it and printing in top notch optic labs, delivering an atonishing work. I've seen several Vericolor wedding albums, today's wedding digital Pros are very far from achieving that level, with all Ps and all those presets they look like rookies, compared.

Don't think VR-G and Vericolor have flawed designs, both were T-Grain, in fact TMax films came from a color technology spin-off. VR-G and VPS were optimal for optic enlargements, Portra and Gold are optimal for scanning, this is what changed the clouds, as the industry changed, just before the big change, the digital dawn was also comming.


The point is that 100lp/mm color performance in the 1980s was killed, and insted you have this wording in datasheets: "Now the PORTRA Films have been reengineered to deliver ... improved scanning performance ..."


IMHO there is no doubt, you have the 1990 "100lp/mm" or you have "improved scanning performance". Today we have the last one.

Anyway at least you should agree that from Vericolor/VR-G to Portra/Gold clouds grew... those 100lp/mm had to have smaller clouds.

interneg
23-Jul-2019, 17:48
Here's the thing Pere: Kodak Gold films were launched in 1988. They will effectively have entered design several years earlier, long before the whole digital minilab thing. One of the design team members was Ron Mowrey who has been quite clear that the only significant adaptations to Kodak films specifically for improving scanability over the years was to the topcoats. Improvements in overall grain size, edge sharpness etc help both digital and optical printing - it's the marketing department's choice as to how to promote this for what post-production purpose. Vericolor 120 had two retouching surfaces, and that is likely what the early digital minilabs struggled with, especially if they had rather hard sharpening in use.

I've scanned a lot of VPS and VPL, and not had any significant issues - the granularity is in the ballpark of Portra 400, much as the print grain index suggests. I have little interest in the banalities of wedding photography, but a lot of significant artists used VPL & VPS in a wide range of formats & it still makes better than good prints without pain. The Portras have more saturation all round & a large object sharpness response closer to that of the Gold etc films with a bump in the 10-25 lp/mm range.

It's all about the highest possible signal with the least possible noise. High signal & high noise aren't good, but if reducing the signal slightly has the effect of very drastically cutting the noise, more information can be contained. Noise/ grain usually peaks in the middle densities, and drops towards dmin & dmax, thus higher noise/ granularity will affect how people might perceive the resolved behaviour of an image, even if it has a notionally high resolution at high contrast.

If you are aiming a film at amateurs who shoot 135 & get 6x4's, it needs a rather different blend of sharpness, resolution and granularity compared to a professional film aimed at good tonal reproduction and finished in multiple formats. In one, microcontrast performance is all that matters, in the other, everything from micro to macro scale contrast performance must be considered & kept reasonably consistent, otherwise people complain about why their 4x5's look so different from their 135 images.

Pere Casals
24-Jul-2019, 01:48
Let's review the facts we have:

> No Pro complained about Vericolor III VPS

> Around 1996 all consumer an pro CN films changed, at Fuji and at Kodak

> By then new datasheets said "reengineered for scanning performance"

> At the same time Performance drops from 100lp/mm to 50-75 lp/mm (30% MTF)

> Color clouds became larger and overlaped more



Do you still think that the only change for scanning was in the top coating ? Where Photo Engineer says that?



Look, by 1996 we had Pentium "1" PCs running at 75-100MHz, and a frontier had to digitally process a print in a few seconds, perhaps 8 seconds, as it printed massively. The digital minilab revolution required that change in film.


That 100lp/mm to 50-75 lp/mm drop was painful, if was a 15 years step back to pre T-Grain emulsions. And it was shame. Benefits for the hybrid was the trade-off.



Here's the thing Pere: Kodak Gold films were launched in 1988.

The point is how Gold films changed around mid 1990s.

_________________________


Again, take the microscope...


_________________________


Why a shame? Pros acquired expensive prime and zoom glass that was suitable to take advantage from 100lp/mm film performance, with new 65lp/mm film (Portra NC) all that glass was performing like consumer discount glass and kit optics. The kit Nikon 28-80mm f/3.3D became as good as best pro glass, not suitable for pro usage by performing equal.

Of course, LF fotography noticed less the change, or simply nothing was noticed.

interneg
26-Jul-2019, 01:53
Pere, if you had seen the German language data sheet for the Gold films from which the MTF data for Gold 100 was harvested for that PDF document you cite, you wouldn't be making those claims. The datasheet is explicit that the films have been optimised to ensure good colour and fine grain in scanning. What we can draw from that is that the signal to noise image content at that MTF was not ideal for super low granularity across a range of image formats. And if you have seen or made large optical prints from the film in question you would see why. It's got about as high a level of granularity as Portra 800 - which obviously has a 3-stop speed advantage.

Pere Casals
26-Jul-2019, 02:42
Pere, if you had seen the German language data sheet for the Gold films from which the MTF data for Gold 100 was harvested for that PDF document you cite, you wouldn't be making those claims. The datasheet is explicit that the films have been optimised to ensure good colour and fine grain in scanning. What we can draw from that is that the signal to noise image content at that MTF was not ideal for super low granularity across a range of image formats. And if you have seen or made large optical prints from the film in question you would see why. It's got about as high a level of granularity as Portra 800 - which obviously has a 3-stop speed advantage.

Obviously in color films there is a trade-off: "granularity" vs "sharpness".

Interneg, the key concept is that the optimal trade-off for Frontier/Noritsu scanning is different than the optimal one for optic prints, because scannig delivers aliasing when the clouds and the pixels have similar sizes, so as scanning amplified granularity the best trade-off was shifted in the larger clouds side.

And this ended in less sharp color films, today no color film sports the sharpness it had 1980s VR 100, by far. And belive me, that change was not because Pros were complaining about Vericolor granularity, it was the counter, they complained about the loss in the sharpness of Portra NC, still they found that hybrid processing had powerful benefits in image control and in manpower costs, so there was no way back.

Also the loss in sharpness was partially addressed by digital sharpening, and at the same time it addressed some blur from the taking.


So at least you admit now that color clouds changed in the 1990s, well, now you only should realize what was the reason: hybrid processing required another trade-off.


We also have to understand the computing means of the era, it was not possible to oversample to reduce aliasing because hardware limitations, as several prints per minute were crafted in a digital minilab.




It's got about as high a level of granularity as Portra 800 - which obviously has a 3-stop speed advantage.

First is that granularity is not necessarily bad, and second Vericolor 100 had not that granularity, by far, if well scanned or optically printed, similar to Portra 160 and at least well less than Portra 400:

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=193511&d=1563754623

Vericolor could have granularity in scanners with low dpi with performance that limited by the discretization, and not by the optics.

_________

Probably, with present computing/scanning means it would worth to reengineer the color films for more sharpness, but marked size does not allow for that, they manufacture the receipes they have.

interneg
26-Jul-2019, 16:33
Pere, if you spent less time opining about materials you have clearly never used, optically printed or scanned on high end machines, everyone would be better off. Not one of the photographers I work for who used VPS III in the early 1990's and subsequently used the various Portras (and who either exclusively optically printed at the time or were having optical prints made for them) is of the opinion that VPS III complies with your frankly bizarre claims. From my own experience working with their negatives, I would agree with their assessment.

Visual inspection of materials via microscope is largely worthless for anything other than basic diagnosis of processing problems. This has been the case for decades. What matters is the photographic behaviour of the materials, not the often easily fooled human eyeball.

Finally, if you actually put the work in to find that Kodak Gold datasheet, you'd discover that some of the faster Gold films have MTF responses closer to those of the Portra films - and that Portra has a drastic granularity advantage. The truth of this matter may not be dramatic, simplistic or comforting to your deeply held beliefs or agendas, but rather it is deeply complex in terms of aspects of photographic systems design unfamiliar to you - and which is not really very interesting to most people.

Pere Casals
26-Jul-2019, 19:43
Visual inspection of materials via microscope is largely worthless...

Yes, worthlessfor practical photography, and sharpness can be the least important factor in a great image. But inspecting the color clouds tells a lot about a color film, the day you try it you will know it, if you are able to understand what you see.



Pere, if you spent less time opining about materials you have clearly never used...

interneg, you don't know that, in the late 1980s I was using a pentax program a, that still I use often. This kind of arguments speaks about you, not about me.




Finally, if you actually put the work in to find that Kodak Gold datasheet, you'd discover that some of the faster Gold films have MTF responses closer to those of the Portra films - and that Portra has a drastic granularity advantage. The truth of this matter may not be dramatic, simplistic or comforting to your deeply held beliefs or agendas, but rather it is deeply complex in terms of aspects of photographic systems design unfamiliar to you - and which is not really very interesting to most people.

I don't propose comparing Gold to Portra. I propose to compare:

> Vericolor III VPS to Portra (Pro films)

> Pre (say) 1996 cosumer films vs say (2000+) consumer films. This is Kodacolor VR 100, VR-G 100 and pre 1996 Gold, compared to (say) any post 2000 consumer film.


________


For around 14 years CN consumer film sported 100lp/mm at 30% MTF, this is since T-Grain introduction until digital minilab era. In that moment preformance dropped to 50-75 lp/mm.

If I understand well you admit that this performace drop happened in the 1990s but you say this was not related to adaptation to hybrid processing, and that the "reengineered to deliver ... improved scanning performance" (datasheets telling it) did not had an impact in the resolving power.


Me, I see clearly that "reengineered to deliver ... improved scanning performance" ended in larger overlaping clouds to avoid aliasing in the scanning, and in that performance loss.

So from my side debate is finished, in the future well informed readers will judge our opinions.

Oren Grad
26-Jul-2019, 20:20
> Compare professional Kodak Vericolor III VPS (discontinued 1997) vs Portra 160/Ektar 100 (2019)

Attached MTF curves are for Vericolor III (1997) and Portra 160 (2016).

EDIT: Added Portra 160 NC and 160 VC (2003). 160 NC and VC were merged in 2011; the Portra 160 MTF in the 2011 data sheet that Pere linked upthread is identical to the 2016 one I've attached here.

193701193702193703193704

Oren Grad
26-Jul-2019, 20:39
Two more: Portra 160 NC and VC (2006). In the series of data sheets I've referenced for these curves, 2006 is when the "reengineered to deliver significantly finer grain at all speeds for improved scanning performance and greater enlargement capability" wording first appears. The 2003 data sheet says "An emulsion overcoat and scanner friendly design make PORTRA Films the perfect choice for photographers and labs who scan negatives."

I have curves from 2008 and 2009 as well, but those are identical to the 2006 curves.

193705193706

interneg
27-Jul-2019, 01:05
Cheers Oren, I've generally found the VC Portra a hair less sharp than the NC and the current 160 sharper than either. The big problem with the VPS chart is the lack of individual RGB plots, which of course makes absolute comparison trickier - and one of the more interesting aspects is the changes in the 30 & 50% MTF response of the red sensitive emulsion over the years which mirrors changes in the cinema films, especially 5203 - possibly because it gives a tonal/ colour behaviour that more closely mirrors the look of Ektachrome etc. Ektar does this particularly strongly.

Pere Casals
27-Jul-2019, 03:44
Attached MTF curves are for Vericolor III (1997) and Portra 160 (2016).

Oren, if one sees those curves one may think that both films are equally sharp, but they are very different graphs, splitting the curve in 3 ([1] suposedly) monochromatic tests delivers a nice graph. It has to be noted that the Vericolor graph is limited by the red sensitive layer performance, that is the worse one.

Now supose that we have a RGB MTF graph for Vericolor in what the Red curve is as good a the full spectrum MTF graph.


Say we have a lens with chromatic aberration but you want a nice graph to illustrate a datasheet with meaningless technical information. Then we make R,G and B MTF graphs for the lens, it looks that we deliver better information, but we simply plot a nicer graph like if it was a super APO.


193701193702



[1] (suposedly) monochromatic tests because those Portra tests were probably made with very monochromatic (or narrow bad) sources rather than with color spectral bands, as wavelength of the peak sensitivity in the layer only takes information of that layer, while a color band would take information from the other layers from the channel crosstalk.


Portra NC sported 65Lp/mm at 30%MTF, if one one sees the 3 RGB monochromatic tests then it looks it's much better.





The big problem with the VPS chart is the lack of individual RGB plots, which of course makes absolute comparison trickier

yes, trickier...



and one of the more interesting aspects is the changes in the 30 & 50% MTF response of the red sensitive emulsion over the years which mirrors changes in the cinema films, especially 5203

I guess this is an interesting factor to analyze.

Bill Burk
27-Jul-2019, 07:06
I thought they did something to the base, the tooth that reduced Newton’s rings or helped retouching was interfering with scanners leading to what seemed to be grain, while you could tell under a microscope there was no grain.

Drew Wiley
27-Jul-2019, 11:05
Short answer: HECK NO. These are their sharpest films relative to ASA speed ever. I print these all the time. The very subtle tooth has a secondary effect of somewhat reducing rings (I still use AN glass on both sides of the carrier). I can't address specific scanning issues or any intermediate degredation that might hypothetically be involved. But when printing direct optical (optimized), the superior characteristics of the newer products are apparent. There is zero secondary texture seen even in big enlargements. This is the case regardless of whether I use a narrow-band RGB colorhead or a conventional YMC subtractive one. Color paper sees dye clouds differently than the human eye looking through a loupe or even microscope. If you do that, also use a medium blue filter to null out the orange mask. Ever notice that RA4 paper has a blue coating over the emulsion?

interneg
27-Jul-2019, 15:15
Drew - nothing to disagree with there!

Bill - that's largely my understanding as to the major modification specifically for scanning

Pere Casals
27-Jul-2019, 16:52
largely my understanding

IMHO to understand that it is necessary to understand well how film behaves depending on contrast in the test, if you remember I was pointing that to you not long ago:

> https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?152947-Proof-to-Print-the-contrast-difference&p=1507794&viewfull=1#post1507794

> https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?152947-Proof-to-Print-the-contrast-difference&p=1507818&viewfull=1#post1507818


https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=193068&d=1562102430


About the 1999s cloud growth, I'll provide the evidence, "smoking gun" class. I need a while.


For the moment let me advance that if a cheapo V700 equals an Scanmate 11000 drum scanner with Portra (https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?153445-Did-Kodak-color-neg-lose-sharpness-when-it-was-reformulated-to-improve-scanning&p=1509776&viewfull=1#post1509776 ) this is because Portra is not as sharp as 1980s kodacolor VR 100.

Drew Wiley
27-Jul-2019, 19:42
You're convoluting or complicating the topic with a lot of apples to oranges comparisons, Pere. If you want to compare nominal 100 speed films, use Ektar 100, which states right on the box, "sharpest color negative film ever". It's also a far better color balanced film than any amateur Gold product. If you want to compare low-contrast Portra 160, you select one of the old Vericolor 160 S or L products. There are a number of factors you're not familiar with yet because you just don't have that much direct experience with them. I certainly appreciate your enthusiasm; but your perspective on tech sheets and so forth might warrant some reconsideration once you have benefit of the hindsight of more hands-on printing experience.

Pere Casals
28-Jul-2019, 00:59
You're convoluting or complicating the topic with a lot of apples to oranges comparisons, Pere.

Drew, don't worry, we'll compare apales with apples amd oranges with oranges. Say Vericolor with Portra/Ektar and VR-G vs modern Gold.

Placing a dslr in the trinocular of a Leitz it's straight, and we can always make contact copies of the usaf 1951 slide on films at different contrasts and exposure.





I certainly appreciate your enthusiasm; but your perspective on tech sheets and so forth might warrant some reconsideration once you have benefit of the hindsight of more hands-on printing experience.

Spending some effort in testing is always good, if not urban legends become science.

For example Pali made that test (https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?153445-Did-Kodak-color-neg-lose-sharpness-when-it-was-reformulated-to-improve-scanning&p=1509776&viewfull=1#post1509776) that delivered surprising results that are very worth to know.


_________


Drew, me I want to know why a consumer film of the 1980s is sharper than modern Pro film:

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=193563&d=1563868197


So first let's see if pre-hybrid era film it's sharper or not, I guess I can obtain frozen Veri.

I lended my DSLR gear to a friend for a long trip, when I recover it in two weeks I'll place it in the trinocular, and we'll see. BTW, lending the DSLR for six month is even better than throwing the smartphome to the Potomac :)

Drew Wiley
29-Jul-2019, 11:37
Hi Pere. Consumer films had different requirements. They had to have a lot of latitude for exposure error, give decent skin tone, and were enlarged from small size to common snapshot print sizes. But certain other characteristics could be compromised. They figured out how to get certain bright colors to saturate, but weren't otherwise very well hue balanced. Pros like portrait studios routinely used larger film sizes, esp 120 film, but LF too. Extremely fine grain was not a priority. Highly detailed product and landscape shots were generally done using chrome film instead. Also a lot of color portrait work was printed rather soft; high acutance was not the point. If someone wanted an extremely crisp rugged old man look with every wrinkle showing, the studios were more apt to use Ortho b&w film. That's a bit of an oversimplified explanation, but it gives a valid clue. Today pro color neg film selection requirements are a bit different because they have to fill in certain niches left vacant as chrome films disappear, as well as be able to compete with digital options.

Bob Salomon
29-Jul-2019, 11:59
Hi Pere. Consumer films had different requirements. They had to have a lot of latitude for exposure error, give decent skin tone, and were enlarged from small size to common snapshot print sizes. But certain other characteristics could be compromised. They figured out how to get certain bright colors to saturate, but weren't otherwise very well hue balanced. Pros like portrait studios routinely used larger film sizes, esp 120 film, but LF too. Extremely fine grain was not a priority. Highly detailed product and landscape shots were generally done using chrome film instead. Also a lot of color portrait work was printed rather soft; high acutance was not the point. If someone wanted an extremely crisp rugged old man look with every wrinkle showing, the studios were more apt to use Ortho b&w film. That's a bit of an oversimplified explanation, but it gives a valid clue. Today pro color neg film selection requirements are a bit different because they have to fill in certain niches left vacant as chrome films disappear, as well as be able to compete with digital options.

But chromes, Polaroid, color negs had problems with color also. When I was selling Broncolor I got a call from General Foods factory in DE where they made Jello.
Part of the QC for Jello was to make a batch from each production run and photograph it record the color of the run when properly prepared.
The problem was that regardless of the film used, the lights used grape Jello never reproduced the correct color. Even though it was properly prepared and, to the naked eye, was the correct color. All other flavors reproduced properly. Even a color checker in the shot reproduced properly.
Never solved the problem, seems it was film related.
There was also a problem reproducing the proper color of a blue flower.

Drew Wiley
29-Jul-2019, 12:52
There always have been and always will be certain flukes, Bob. There are certain remarkable fluorescent lichen colors very vivid to the eye but that come out blaah on E6 films. But the old extremely grainy pre-E6 Agfachrome bagged them; but it had a terrible time with greens. When IBM full-spectrum spectrophotometers were starting to be marketed for industrial pigment matching, quite expensive back then, I'd drive them wild by brining in color samples that drove the machines nuts: fluorescent colors, velours, etc. "Blue" flowers etc? Nature didn't design them to match film, but the color vision of bees or other pollinators that see things differently than we do. Lots of foliage reflects light we don't notice. That's why leaves turn yellow and red in the fall, after the chlorophyll is no longer dominant. Its why green leaves tend to still look bright under a mild orange filter using pan film, but not when a red filter is involved; and note infrared imagery. Gosh knows what went into Jello colorants.

Pere Casals
29-Jul-2019, 15:16
When IBM full-spectrum spectrophotometers were starting to be marketed for industrial pigment matching...

Yes... Two equal "paints" have spectrally match, if not we may see the same color under some illumination, but two different colors under another illumination.


Consumer films had different requirements.

Anyway (if it is the case) it would be interesting to discover why modern films are less sharp than 33 years old consumer films. It would weird that after 33 years Pro CN film could not equal consumer 1980s film, regarding resolving power.

__

Let's shot the clouds as seen in the Leitz... this may deliver interesting information, comparing cloud for the same density..

Drew Wiley
29-Jul-2019, 16:47
You're the one claiming they're less sharp, Pere. Nobody else. Vericolor was a long-running brand name for Kodak with a variety and evolution of its own, long-exposure (L), as well as short exposure engineered for flash (S). Fuji had equivalents. The Kodak Gold line was something else specifically marketed as very fine grain and boosted color (at least in a few hues) for the amateur market. It needed to be very fine grained. But the current Ektar is even finer, and dramatically better in terms of color, yet not very friendly to careless amateur use. More of a pro product. What has replaced Vericolor usage is the Portra lineup, which is what you should be really comparing with Vericolor pro films. Gold is still an amateur product. But if you want to speculate, I've seen amazing results from classified films forty to sixty years ago with extraordinary resolving power. What those exactly were, I have no idea, but they were color neg and not chrome. I don't expect you'll get objective results if you thaw out old CN film. It tends to shift; and amateur films were never cold stored to begin with.

Pere Casals
30-Jul-2019, 02:16
You're the one claiming they're less sharp, Pere. Nobody else.

Drew, post #32 shows that it's not my opinion, it's well documented. Also the graphs Oren posted suggests the same, the Portra Graph has RGB individual curves compared to full spectrum curves for Veri, this suggests that a graph with individual curves for Veri would be much better that the one for Portra, or that a Portra full spectrum graph would be much worse than the Veri one.

Anyway it's clear (to me) that those graphs are missleading, because real photography usually works in other situations than that (probably) 1000:1 contrast described in the graph. We may have that contrast in silhouette, but not in (on film) 30lp/mm textures. Film MTF behaviour (contrary to lenses) depends on contrast !

To me, it's interesting to understand how real film works in real situations, and how film limitations are reached in 35mm, MF and LF.

My view is that those reengineering modifications are not clear, "Now the PORTRA Films have been reengineered" , a "reengineering" is not a little modification in the supercoating, a "reengineering" is suposed to involve complex changes in the design, if not starting calculations from zero.

Kodak datasheets have very good information and some weasel words comming from marketing department, I guess.

Again, let me photograph the color clouds in the Leitz, with a reticle, different films, different densities... and we'll see !!



____________________


To me that reengineering is related to the way a discretization can generate color noise, so to address it, this is a IQ180 test, we had BW lines but color noise is generated:

Click to enlarge:
193799
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/
https://web.archive.org/web/20190102113639/https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/


Scanners usually have linear sensors, but a Frontier like machine has an Area Sensor, with a bayer mosaic!!! it could make 1 to 8 passes, but...

My guess is that at one point digital minilabs were crirtical for the industry, and emulsions were reengineered for that. Again, let's see what the Leitz has to say... in 2 weeks, I guess.

Drew Wiley
30-Jul-2019, 10:18
Pere, if you'd been printing these various flavors of Kodak CN film time to time over several decades like I have, you'd realize the significant steady improvement of these films in their respective categories over time. I don't want to get into a debate over marketing semantics and at just what point the term "re-engineered" might be appropriate. But in the case of the current Ektar option, it conspicuously applies. And if you look at the overall evolution of Kodak's primary line of pro CN film going from Vericolor S and L days, up to present Portra offerings, I think we'd all agree that there has been at least a CUMULATIVE re-engineering evident, especially during the last two decades. I have all kinds of old tech manuals from Kodak on my shelf going into details of past films. Minilab equipment has very little in common with pro film usage. The remaining drugstore venues etc which still have minilab services predictably sell Kodak Gold and other amateur films. Nobody is going to take sheet film to a place like that. They wouldn't even know what it is. Around here pro scanning is widely available, and involves drum scanners or older Creo units, but never consumer-grade units like Epson. All this is a fun topic, but I have to get to other chores at the moment, and hope to enlarge another 8x10 Ektar image this afternoon, optically of course. I only state that because, when Kodak optimized certain films for sake of scanning, these same films improved with respect to optical enlargement as well, just as printing papers have.

Pere Casals
30-Jul-2019, 13:29
Pere, if you'd been printing these various flavors of Kodak CN film time to time over several decades like I have

Drew, I've never printed RA-4, not a single frame.




you'd realize the significant steady improvement of these films in their respective categories over time.

... but I've friends that were printing a lot and they say just the counter than you... they say that new films were performing better for lightjets but worse for optic enlargements




Nobody is going to take sheet film to a place like that.

The film sharpness loss is detected well in 35mm film, but it's hard to notice in LF. You know, some lenses for 35mm cameras do deliver 140 Lp/mm...




Around here pro scanning is widely available, and involves drum scanners or older Creo units, but never consumer-grade units like Epson.

Of course a Pro service won't use much the Epson, this is cheap plastic, it is not made to scan 8 hours every day, but with Portra the V700 delivers the same quality than a drum scanner or a Creo. If you want we can review again those crops.




hope to enlarge another 8x10 Ektar image this afternoon, optically of course. I only state that because, when Kodak optimized certain films for sake of scanning, these same films improved with respect to optical enlargement as well, just as printing papers have.

If your print (from 8x10) has less than 2m you won't notice how sharp the film is or it is not.

It would be nice if you post a photograph of that print.

Drew Wiley
30-Jul-2019, 13:52
Sorry, don't want to offend your friends, Pere, but what they state is not only counter to my own experience, but to firm statements by the paper manufacturers themselves.... BUT I am aware of certain digitally optimized RA4 papers distributed in the EU that were specifically tweaked for automated digital printers only. A number of people are allegedly getting decent results with these via optical enlargement. I've never tried them. They are available here too, but tend to be marketed to quickie photofinishers, not to photographers. There is confusion over this subject because Fuji Crystal Archive papers represent a whole range of options. But the papers being sold in both cut sheet and big rolls by the big photographic houses here (B&H, Freestyle, etc) are the kind optimized both ways, and are used in big labs for both kinds of application. So too is the premium quality Fujiflex or Supergloss product. I don't use Kodak papers, so won't comment on those. But I print everything from 6x7 cm up to 8x10 originals, so know quite well the sharpness structure of these modern films per se. I seldom shoot 35mm anymore except in b&w. Besides, the smaller the original, the more secondary sampling issues arise with less than ideal scanners. But if you want to discuss that topic with people, there is an appropriate section elsewhere on the forum. There are a few people on this forum who drum scan professionally, and would no doubt take exception with your own scanner comments, but it doesn't need to involve me. I'm quite content doing it all optically.

Pere Casals
30-Jul-2019, 14:09
BUT I am aware of certain digitally optimized RA4 papers distributed in the EU that were specifically tweaked for automated digital printers only.


Today RA-4 darkroom printing is nearly extinct, so RA4 papers you find are for digital light printers... what darkroom RA-4 paper remains for enlargers, say for portraiture ?

Drew Wiley
30-Jul-2019, 14:20
Pere, I did take the trouble to note a few of your posts on the parallel scanner thread, surmising how RA4 papers have been digitally optimized. Optical printing tends to be faster, though narrow-band additive RGB is slower than conventional YMC due to the significantly denser filtration. Lumen-wise its the same. But to my knowledge, there is no such thing as a true green laser diode yet. Red diodes pass a small amount of green. It's therefore easy to filter out the remaining green from red, but difficult to squeeze enough green out of the red diode itself after narrow-band filtration. Remember, I'm speaking about lasers here, not enlargers which ideally continuous spectrum halogen bulbs. So both Kodak and Fuji tweaked their papers for a bit more green sensitivity. Another obvious problem was the low-contrast blaah look of digital prints and the need to get a steeper curve down into black. So that problem got addressed. But all these papers are made in a range of both sheen and contrast level. Portrait papers tend to be low contrast, commercial C paper, higher contrast, and Fujiflex even higher, giving them better color too due to the steeper dye curves. My personal additive enlargers mimic the effect of RGB laser printers rather well; but a late high-end CMY colorhead like my Durst is just a tiny bit off. Older amateur colorheads are likely to be significantly different. But the cumulative color-balance shift in these current papers is not really a whole lot from what they were a couple decades ago. There are significant improvements in lightfastness and color accuracy; but the cc starting points per batch are only slightly different.

Drew Wiley
30-Jul-2019, 14:26
Sorry I missed your intermediate post, Pere; but you're quite wrong about that. Please re-read both of my posts of today. Most RA4 papers are darkroom superb, better than ever, even though they are dual-purpose, that is, for laser printers too. There is a separate category of mostly NARROW-ROLL RA4 papers intended for automated photofinishing equipment specifically. These products might somehow find their way into the hands of a darkroom worker making small prints, but are not marketed for that purpose. Maybe that's what some of your highly misinformed friends got ahold of. I don't know. But it's a great time to get into personal darkroom RA4 printing. It's fairly easy equipment wise, cost-effective (cheaper than premium b&w papers), and the color reproduction quality of both current CN film and RA4 papers is better than ever. Quite a few people are doing it. Otherwise, cut sheet would not still be available at all. Yet it is, at least up to 20x24 inch. There are also a lot of big commercial enlargers still in use worldwide. Some of the remaining commercial labs have both kinds of equipment, some only one or the other. Big high-end laser printers are very expensive, and require both an attached XY automated roll cutter as well feed directly into a big RA4 roller transport machine. A small operator like me can forego all of those hundreds of thousands of dollars of equipment expense making even fairly large prints in simple light-tight drums, yet achieve even better quality if one knows how to optimize these these procedures. None of this is even remotely extinct until RA4 paper itself is, which is not likely to happen anytime soon. Inkjet is more expensive and not always desirable esthetically. Parallel systems are likely to exist as long as I'm alive.

Oren Grad
30-Jul-2019, 14:45
what darkroom RA-4 paper remains for enlargers, say for portraiture ?

In case it's not clear to you from Drew's posts: Fujicolor Crystal Archive Type II paper, inexpensive and widely available in cut sheet sizes.

https://www.freestylephoto.biz/static/pdf/product_pdf/fujifilm/Fujicolor_Crystal_Archive_RA-_Color_Print_Paper_Type_II-Technical-Specs.pdf

Drew Wiley
30-Jul-2019, 14:58
Yes, that's the typical cut sheet choice these days. Big width rolls are generally Super-C, similar but a somewhat thicker paper to resist creasing better.

interneg
30-Jul-2019, 15:11
Drew - I'd add that a lot of professional printers in Europe are using controlled negative base tint flash/ fog to control some of the higher saturation papers.

Pere - it is well known that in smaller enlargements, a grainier film may appear seemingly very slightly sharper than a significantly more fine grained one. Furthermore, if a film is meant for point and shoot cameras with fairly low MTF behaviour, maximum sharpness matters over granularity or outright resolution. For higher quality imaging, granularity and resolution are both much bigger concerns. High signal and low noise matter in ensuring optimal quality of image content - and noise is a destroyer of the useful resolution of fine detail, no matter how much you delude yourself with high contrast charts as a sole measure of resolution. Gold 100 has been strongly hinted at as being Gold 200 with a neutral dye added that improved MTF and colour, but the granularity remained the same as the faster film. Pro Image 100 may well be a professional variant of the same material. It certainly has very similar granularity and is recommended to use the same printing channel setup as Gold. It's got about the same granularity as Portra 800.

Observing a film with an optical microscope will tell you nothing of the sharpness or image content characteristics of a film. As you have been told before, microdensitometry of sets of 11 different exposures of slit targets (which de-facto gives a wide array of contrasts) via visible light and x-ray is how MTF is arrived at. Unless you can provide raw microdensitometric data to support your claims of Kodak's MTF data being misleading, you are the one making misleading statements. The big leap with the Portra evolutions seems to have been learning how to form dye clouds with high photographic density (thus microcontrast) and superb edge sharpness that don't form as tightly to the silver as previous generations, thus a lower granularity and higher sharpness. Overall, this leads to a higher perceived resolution at the contrasts that matter in real-world image making. What you are seeing through your microscope is largely irrelevant to the actual performance of the film in actual use.

Pere Casals
30-Jul-2019, 15:21
one of this is even remotely extinct until RA4 paper itself is, which is not likely to happen anytime soon. Inkjet is more expensive and not always desirable esthetically.

But we also have lightjets... this allows RA-4 gloss and cost, it allows digital edition of the image, and it allows proofing in the monitor: you waste no time or paper if the operator is good enough.

To me a sound RA-4 optic print has an impressive value, but hybrid color workflow is too easy and too powerful. A darkroom we are assembling will be optic RA-4 capable, but I'm skeptic about how much optic RA-4 we'll do.

Silver BW is different, output can be collectible LE-500 art, and it has an stronger artistic subculture.



In case it's not clear to you from Drew's posts: Fujicolor Crystal Archive Type II paper, inexpensive and widely available in cut sheet sizes.

https://www.freestylephoto.biz/static/pdf/product_pdf/fujifilm/Fujicolor_Crystal_Archive_RA-_Color_Print_Paper_Type_II-Technical-Specs.pdf

Oren, yes, Crystal II is suitable for enlargers, but it's not a portraiture paper, it is a "More Vivid Color Reproduction" paper.

My guess is that current RA-4 paper usage with enlargers cannot allow production of papers that are not suitable for digital exposure, and digital printers want vivid color papers, those papers can do all in a lightjet, landscape and portraits, with the right adjustments in the digital images.



What you are seeing through your microscope is largely irrelevant to the actual performance of the film in actual use.

Film performance is irrelevant for the crafting of great images, but I wanted to know how color emulsions changed in their adaptation to the hybrid processing that is absolutely dominating color film post-processing since 20 years ago. And microscope inspection tells it.

I've little doubts about what happened in the 90s because I've inspected color films of all kinds at x800 yet, just let me post those images, that won't hurt... I need some two weeks...




Drew - I'd add that a lot of professional printers in Europe are using controlled negative base tint flash/ fog to control some of the higher saturation papers.

This is what it can be done, but a flash has not the same effect than a lower saturation paper, the lack of dedicated papers is reason to print with the lightjets.

Drew Wiley
30-Jul-2019, 15:37
Thanks for telling me that, Interneg. Flashing has side effects I don't particularly care for. I prefer unsharp masking when necessary. It's more work, but can be precisely targeted for either contrast increase or decrease, plus selective hue control. Most of the time that's only necessary with certain small originals like 6x7 or 6x9 going to significant enlargement. Most LF negs print just fine as is. Doing internegs from chromes is a much more complicated subject; but I'm doing some of that too, with exceptionally good results in most cases, though an inevitable bellyflop or two lies somewhere within the learning curve. My favorite paper isn't a paper at all, but the deluxe Fujiflex medium. It's expensive and available only in big rolls now. Resembles Cibachrome in look, but without the color reproduction idiosyncrasies.

interneg
30-Jul-2019, 15:55
Thanks for telling me that, Interneg. Flashing has side effects I don't particularly care for. I prefer unsharp masking when necessary. It's more work, but can be precisely targeted for either contrast increase or decrease, plus selective hue control. Most of the time that's only necessary with certain small originals like 6x7 or 6x9 going to significant enlargement. Most LF negs print just fine as is.

I'd agree that masks are far superior, though it's often a question of whether a client will pay for them. This is where printing for yourself has distinct advantages as you have the freedom to choose between the absolute ultimate best, & excellent enough for most reasonably fussy people!


. My favorite paper isn't a paper at all, but the deluxe Fujiflex medium. It's expensive and available only in big rolls now. Resembles Cibachrome in look, but without the color reproduction idiosyncrasies.

The one I'm interested in trying is the Fuji deep matte paper - never been a huge fan of the Ciba surface finish I must admit.

Drew Wiley
30-Jul-2019, 15:59
Pere - the primary lineup of both Kodak and Fuji paper was reengineered with BOTH ongoing optical as well as laser printer usage in mind. A few specialty papers were not. Crystal Archive is a big brand CATEGORY of Fuji, which includes a variety of Type P papers (lower contrast Portrait papers), Type C options (commercial, mid-contrast) and polyester Fujiflex media as well. Digital printers select from among these numerous available papers according to sheen as well as contrast. It's more difficult to achieve a rich DMax laser printing, which is one reason these papers were tweaked in recent years, to improve that. In this respect, optical printing has the advantage. Inkjet struggles even worse, which is why most of those require more than one kind of black ink. CN films per se have exhibited a steady predictable evolution at Kodak. I don't see anything about them specifically oriented to digital workflow other than the micro-texture of current sheet films. Trying to achieve well balanced color alongside high acutance simply goes with the territory as camera equipment in general trends down in size, along with lenses themselves steadily improving. It would have happened regardless of what digital is doing parallel or hybrid. Same thing applies if they come out with more sizes of E100 chrome film. That itself was just the endpoint of a long steady evolution before sudden discontinuance, and perhaps now, a bit of a revival. Scanners were designed to accommodate the film far more than the other way around. Finer grain might help; but it's really the scaling down of cameras which drove things that direction all along.

Pere Casals
30-Jul-2019, 23:26
Crystal Archive is a big brand CATEGORY of Fuji, which includes a variety of Type P papers (lower contrast Portrait papers)


Is P still made? or it has been substituted by PD? (P "Digital" ?)

"Using the basic Crystal Archive structure as a starting point, Super PD is now geared towards today's digital market .... this paper should be seriously considered for heavy-duty lab work for the wedding and portrait shooter."

(https://www.bhphotovideo.com/spanish/c/product/486996-REG/Fujifilm_7064737_Fujicolor_Crystal_Arc_Paper_Super.html)
___________________________



Scanners were designed to accommodate the film far more than the other way around.

This is the point that IMHO it is controversial.

Drew Wiley
31-Jul-2019, 13:28
Pere, PD paper is different from P. Both are Crystal Archive and digitally optimized, but the PD is geared more to automated photofinishing. The P is dual-exposure: both optical enlargement and large laser printers. I don't know the extent of distribution. Doesn't matter to me because I have no interest in softer papers. If I need lower contrast, I mask, and that way the color saturation isn't compromised. Nor have I ever printed using any kind of DP paper. Some people do use it with enlargers. Perhaps that's one source of the myth that Fuji papers aren't as good for optical printing anymore.

Pere Casals
31-Jul-2019, 13:45
The P is dual-exposure

...but it looks that's not available, discontinued?

interneg
31-Jul-2019, 13:46
DP-II is used quite widely for optical printing in Europe but is often masked/ flashed. The results are excellent.

Drew Wiley
31-Jul-2019, 13:59
Pere - the US market is different. Last I looked, type P commercial paper was available in multiple sheens and roll sizes. I don't know about cut sheet. There are all kinds of papers on Fuji's US distribution list that do not appear on ordering websites photographers use. Most are sold to the relevant commercial facilities directly. But any dealer with an account with Fuji USA can order them for an individual user if you give them the specific product NUMBER, which might take a bit of prior research. I assume something analogous pertains to European distribution, but the product selection might be a little different. My own work differs quite a bit from stereotypes about C prints, and looks more like prints generated from chromes.

Drew Wiley
31-Jul-2019, 14:10
Thanks for the further clarification, Interneg. I use CAII, which is the standard cut sheet product here, then reprint select images on the much pricier Fujiflex medium. Big full gloss images are much more difficult to frame and display illuminate, of course; so I keep the various RC sheen options an open question. But I do all my preliminary prints on 20x24 inch cut sheet RC glossy CA ii, which saves a lot of money up front working out specific image protocols, yet still yields a very nice display print. Fujiflex itself comes on 40 inch width rolls here.