Why so many color reversal quickloads?

[Francesco Gallarotti]

Hello all,
I have a quick question. I haven't bought my first LF camera yet and I am trying to understand better which type of films are available and what different solutions are offered for 4x5 LF photography.
While browsing a Quickload catalog online I noticed that most color quickloads are color reversal films. Is there a particular reason for this? I don't think people use projectors for them so I can only think that printing would be harder with them, right? I was in fact expecting to find only color negatives and was very surprised.
Could you shed some light on this aspect and explain what people do with their 4x5 "slides"? Are they been used essentially only for scanning purposes?

Thanks,
Francesco

[Walter Calahan]

I suggest you go see a quickload holder in person.

[Francesco Gallarotti]

How is that relevant? I will look at one soon (couple of months) but this comment doesn't help me understand why there are more chromes than color negs. Can you be more specific?
Thanks?

[Gene McCluney]

Of course. Glad to explain. The 4x5 format has been the "standard" size of color transparency for commercial and advertising photography for many decades. These jumbo "slides" are scanned and reproduced as part of magazine, catalog and poster art. They are big enough that the client can view the images without a loupe on a light table.
Since 4x5 color transparency film was (and still is, to a limited extent) so universally used for commercial work, the film manufacturers of transparency film (Fuji and Kodak) offered many choices. Most color commercial work (not Weddings and Portraits) was for decades produced on 4x5 or 8x10 color transparencies, as they are big enough to evaluate on the light table, and they do not require proofing (proof sheets).

The Quickload format of 4x5 was very appealing to commercial photographers, as they did not have to preload and carry multiple film holders on a location shoot. The fact that a Quickload is more expensive than individual sheets of 4x5 film is of no concern to a photographer who is going to bill the client for all the film used.

[Gene McCluney]

Large-format color transparencies are excellent to use if you are going to scan and print by digital media. So, you shouldn't let the fact that they are not negatives influence your use, if you intend to scan for print.

[Francesco Gallarotti]

Of course. Glad to explain. The 4x5 format has been the "standard" size of color transparency for commercial and advertising photography for many decades. These jumbo "slides" are scanned and reproduced as part of magazine, catalog and poster art. They are big enough that the client can view the images without a loupe on a light table.
Since 4x5 color transparency film was (and still is, to a limited extent) so universally used for commercial work, the film manufacturers of transparency film (Fuji and Kodak) offered many choices. Most color commercial work (not Weddings and Portraits) was for decades produced on 4x5 or 8x10 color transparencies, as they are big enough to evaluate on the light table, and they do not require proofing (proof sheets).

The Quickload format of 4x5 was very appealing to commercial photographers, as they did not have to preload and carry multiple film holders on a location shoot. The fact that a Quickload is more expensive than individual sheets of 4x5 film is of no concern to a photographer who is going to bill the client for all the film used.

Thank you for the explanation. It does make a lot of sense.
Please read my comment below to better understand my surprise.


Large-format color transparencies are excellent to use if you are going to scan and print by digital media. So, you shouldn't let the fact that they are not negatives influence your use, if you intend to scan for print.

I have pretty much only used Provia and Velvia chromes on my Hasselblad since the day I purchased and I absolutely love the results.

But while discussing with some photographers online I was told that I was mistaken to be using chromes since the dynamic range they allow is pretty shallow (even less than digital?) and they all told me to switch to color negs. And, those comments were from all medium format users.

Hence I thought that even more LF user would be stressing about quality and dynamic range and therefore never use chromes and prefer to them b&w and color negs. Especially since bracketing in LF can get to be very expensive!

Thanks for your clarifications though. And by the way I am pretty happy to see my favorite film available in QL!! Now if only they had some Fuji Fortia 50 :-) I love that film!

[Alan Davenport]

Chromes are sexier than negatives. That's it in a nutshell.

[Francesco Gallarotti]

Chromes are sexier than negatives. That's it in a nutshell.

I didn't know LF photographers spoke like that LOL... I thought it was a group of uptight landscape photographers just worried about perfect exposure and nailing the right ZONE... ;-)

Totally agree with you, by the way!

[Gene McCluney]

Transparencies ARE contrastier than color negatives, This makes them look punchier. Some films such as Velvia have no counterparts in other media.

[Gene McCluney]

Thank you for the explanation. It does make a lot of sense.
Please read my comment below to better understand my surprise.



I have pretty much only used Provia and Velvia chromes on my Hasselblad since the day I purchased and I absolutely love the results.

But while discussing with some photographers online I was told that I was mistaken to be using chromes since the dynamic range they allow is pretty shallow (even less than digital?) and they all told me to switch to color negs. And, those comments were from all medium format users.

Hence I thought that even more LF user would be stressing about quality and dynamic range and therefore never use chromes and prefer to them b&w and color negs. Especially since bracketing in LF can get to be very expensive!

Thanks for your clarifications though. And by the way I am pretty happy to see my favorite film available in QL!! Now if only they had some Fuji Fortia 50 :-) I love that film!


Commercial photographers, like myself use various key, background and fill lights to bring the contrast ratio into what we want on the transparency. Outside, we use reflectors, or we shoot, previsualizing what the transparency will look like. A long tonal scale is not all there is, and a long tonal scale image can look flat.

[Walter Calahan]

The reason I suggested you look at one is this line in your question:

"I don't think people use projectors for them"

No one projects 4x5 transparencies! Your observation gave me the impression that you have never seen a 4x5 transparency.

The reason is due to the reproduction demands of commercial photography.

And that Chromes have sexier legs.

Bottom line is you should shoot with both to learn for yourself.

[Nathan Potter]

I shoot a lot of transparencies mostly now in 4X5 but previously in 5X7 and 8X10. Firstly you can view the image directly as it was shot. Secondly I like to print on Ilfochrome paper. Thirdly the large format makes it easier to generate B&W contrast masks.

Don't know yet how handy LF chromes will be for scanning but it appears that high quality 4X5 transparencies will yield excellent data, resolution and dmax wise, on a high quality scanner.

Nate Potter

[Neil Purling]

It was looking at somebodies 4x5 transparencies that made me go out and find a 4x5 camera for myself. It was a slippery slope from there.
I need to find a new processing service, or do it myself.
To process E6 or C41 I need 1.5L of each bath.
Chromes look better. My own taste was for Kodachrome 64 Agfa 50 RS and ORWO UT21, which were 35mm.
Maybe you guys can shed some light as to which stuff has most natural colour rendition?
I take it that Velvia has over-saturated colour and high contrast. The only samples I saw were Velvia 50, which I do not think is produced at present.

Come on guys What's good.
The only colour I shot in 4x5 was Fuji NPS160 negative stock.

[Gordon Moat]

I like and use quite a bit of Fuji Astia 100F. The response is right where I want it on many shots. If you read too literally comments on the internet, you might get the (false) implied message that chromes give you only high contrast . . . while technically higher contrast than colour negative, the results are definitely not un-usable . . . Often it seems that internet lore of photography is soooooo prevalent that people are surprised that chromes have any dynamic range at all . . . the reality is much more . . . realistic.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[Bruce Watson]

The joy of a tranny is that it looks wonderful on a light table. That's it, in a nutshell. It's sex appeal, pure and simple.

Back when most all magazine and advertising work was film, it was essential to give the art director something that was easy to work with. And what self respecting art director wouldn't rather look at a tranny on a light box? So for better or worse, trannies reined supreme.

Today, not so much.

Graininess in a film (tranny or negative) is directly proportional to density. What makes this interesting is that with a tranny the graininess shows up in the shadows where it's hard to see. With a negative it shows up in the highlights were it's much easier to see. So even though modern negative films of the same ISO rating as their tranny counterparts have smaller RMS granularity ratings they can still be perceived as being more grainy. This matters much more in smaller formats. In LF, not so much.

Tranny film is much more sensitive to the color temperature of the light you are photographing. So you really need a tungsten film, and a daylight film, etc. (and don't leave home without your warming filters!). Negative films aren't so picky which is one reason that architectural photographers like negative films for mixed lighting situations like that building at sunset with all the tungsten and florescent lights in the offices and sodium lights in the parking lots.

Because of the smaller dynamic range of tranny films, you need higher and lower contrast films depending on the subject brightness range (SBR) of the scene you are photographing. A high contrast high saturation film like Velvia 50 might only handle four or five stops of SBR. If you need more you need to go to a less contrasty less saturated film like Astia which might get you to six stops or so. These numbers aren't exact (because I don't know the exact numbers) so one could argue the exact numbers. But the principle still holds.

Then with tranny films you need to have multiple saturation levels. Because it's all about sex appeal on the light table, remember?

So the reason you have so many tranny films in quickload format is because you need multiple films for color temperature, contrast, and saturation. To cover the same bases with negative films you only really need one.

For general rocks-and-trees LF work, it's really hard to beat negative films. You can learn to look at color negatives on the light table and subtract the orange mask and invert the image. It takes some practice and desire, but works in a similar way to how after a few months of heavy work you start seeing the ground glass rightside up in your head. Not a problem.

Then it scans really easy because the image is dyes (not metalic silver, so no Callier Effect like you get scanning B&W). And it scans really easy because it has a lower density range than trannies tend to have, so a wider range of scanners can make lower noise files scanning negative films.

Personally I haven't used anything but negative films for years now. They work beautifully from full sun to full shade. Both Fuji's 160 negative films and Kodak's Portra negative films are outstanding. You won't believe 400PortraNC when you try it - it just might be the best color film of any kind ever made. Unfortunately, it's priced like it too :-(

I'm just sayin' that it's hard to go wrong with modern color negative films. But there's nothing wrong with working with tranny films either. You should work with the tools with which you are most comfortable!

[Gene McCluney]

The joy of a tranny is that it looks wonderful on a light table. That's it, in a nutshell. It's sex appeal, pure and simple.

Back when most all magazine and advertising work was film, it was essential to give the art director something that was easy to work with. And what self respecting art director wouldn't rather look at a tranny on a light box? So for better or worse, trannies reined supreme.

Today, not so much.




I do differ with you on this point. I still shoot transparencies for my commercial clients, and I process them in-house and give quick turnaround. As soon as the film is dry it is a finished product that can be delivered and looked at by the client without further work. While all the transparencies I shoot that the client picks are scanned for reproduction, if I shot negative film....all the film would firstly have to be scanned before the client could evaluate and pick the shots. With transparency film the client selects the one view, the one variation that they want to use, and have that one scanned, thus the whole project is speeded up, and costs are saved. Even if I still did darkroom contact proofs of my 4x5 color negative work, the color of a quick RA-4 proof is not indicative of the quality the original negative can produce with careful scanning, or custom printing. So right off, when doing proofs of negatives, your work may not be viewed as good as it "can" be with optimum reproduction.

But of course I am speaking from the standpoint of a working photographer, and not from the standpoint of making art images. My personal "art" negatives, I don't even proof, as I can evaluate the negative just fine. I should add that the client pays for all the transparencies I shoot, but many times they ask me to shoot "variations" from which they select what they want to use.

Color Transparencies have plenty of latitude for commercial work, all the shadow and highlight detail one could need, especially considering that most commercial work is shot with added lights to compress contrast ratios. So are all professional video productions. Watch any TV show. Outside. Faces all have reflected light bounced into them, regardless of where the sun is.

[Bruce Watson]

By "Today, not so much" there I meant that the vast majority of magazine and advertising work has moved to digital capture; that digital capture has largely superseded tranny film. So the art directors these days are more often than not looking at computer monitors and not film on light tables.

Not entirely of course. There are still some people who are quality sensitive and want film captures. As you clearly know.

[keith english]

I'm just sayin' that it's hard to go wrong with modern color negative films. But there's nothing wrong with working with tranny films either. You should work with the tools with which you are most comfortable![/QUOTE]

I think I may try negative film for color, after only shooting chromes for a long time. I always wondered why only 100 EI films were usually available in chromes. Seemed like 200 would be more practical. Since I'm scanning anyway negatives may make more sense. Now I have to find someone to process the 4x5 negatives.