Neg vs Chrome 4x5

[kevs-2323668]

I was leaning toward chrome for the beauty of seeing a chrome after a shoot. But then I decided on negative. Many here note the latitude issue. One person said that negative film even gives an artier look. Anyway, just discovered, geez -- doing negatives makes the cost double if you need proofs printed via a lab. One friend here --Rick --recommended getting an Epson scanner ($800 new), and then making the proofs at home. Any opinions on this subject?

[John Rodriguez]

1) Get a used Epson to save some change. There is very little if any difference in output quality between the 4870, 4990 and V700/750.

2) Get a good book on using curves for color correction, it''s invaluable when working with color at all, but especially with scanned color negatives.

3) There's some good reasons to shoot both E6 and C41. If the range your interested in will fit on the chrome, you'll get better color and tonal separation then with a negative. This is because you get more information per stop with a chrome, with the trade-off of reduced range. So for the best of both worlds, use the film that best matches the intended photograph.

[kevs-2323668]

John, thanks well the v700 is moderately priced:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/426013-REG/Epson_B11B178011_Perfection_V700_Photo_Scanner.html

Scans from it rival the 750?
The other two are discontinued. I'm hesitant to buy a used scanner, kind of like buying a use CD burner no?

Always hated curves. I just use levels for years in PS.

So this is the best route? Don't bother paying a lab to do proofs and don't go to a rental lab to make them (total hassle), still another $500+ out to be in large format land...

But what about just chromes? With 35mm I used to nail it just fine chromes....
One gets better color and separation and one gets more information? Honestly, I don't really want to use both... but who knows....

[Preston]

An older scanner such as those John mentioned, will work. Keep in mind, however, that at some point, drivers for them may not be updated for new OS versions. If you plan to do a lot of scanning, saving your pennies for a V700/750 may be more cost effective in the long run.

I have used both color neg and chrome. At this juncture, I use chrome film (Fuji). Color neg is wonderful for scenes with a high dynamic range, and even in less contrasty situations, the softer gradation can be very pleasing.

There are lots of references for scanning and adjusting/correcting color negs. Do a search on our LF Forum.


"So for the best of both worlds, use the film that best matches the intended photograph."

+1 on this. I'll add that you might consider shooting a scene twice; one with color neg, and the second with chrome film (if the dynamic range isn't too great for chrome). This way, you will have a better idea of how the two compare, and which will work better for a given situation.

--P

[John Rodriguez]

John, thanks well the v700 is moderately priced:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/426013-REG/Epson_B11B178011_Perfection_V700_Photo_Scanner.html

Scans from it rival the 750?
The other two are discontinued. I'm hesitant to buy a used scanner, kind of like buying a use CD burner no?

Always hated curves. I just use levels for years in PS.

So this is the best route? Don't bother paying a lab to do proofs and don't go to a rental lab to make them (total hassle), still another $500+ out to be in large format land...

But what about just chromes? With 35mm I used to nail it just fine chromes....
One gets better color and separation and one gets more information? Honestly, I don't really want to use both... but who knows....

V700 and V750 are the same scanner. Difference is the fluid mount hardware, the bundled software and the lens coating. 4870, 4990 and 700/750 all give similar performance. The previous versions do not. You can buy an aftermarket fluid mount holder for any of those scanners if you want one.

I bought a 4870 used for $200 and it's been perfect for a year now. It works fine with the latest versions of Vuescan, Epson Scan and Silverfast. Personally I use a flatbed to preview images. I'd rather save the money on a used flatbed and put it towards drum scans which I'll use for final prints of the really good images.

Levels are no substitute for curves, especially once you start color correcting C41 scans. All levels do is move the endpoints of the curves, steepening the entire curve. You don't have the ability to change color casts in specific tonal ranges.

If you can fit everything you want on a chrome then stick with chromes. Like Preston pointed out I'll shoot some scenes with both if the range I want to capture is on the "borderline" (5-6 stops).

[Darren H]

For Chrome Vs Negs it probably comes down to personal preference.

For me at least, I cannot "read" a negative so I shoot chromes. That way I instantly know when seeing it. Plus there is something wow about a chrome on a light table.

FWIW, I also shoot B+W negative film and have that processed by DR-5 so it becomes a positive too for the exact same reason. Hey, B+W chromes are cool. :-)

As far as scanners go, I have an Epson 4990 and I never even max out its potential as a full res on scan is 1.5 GB+ from 4x5. That pretty much chokes my computer. So I dial back power on the scan to get a much more managable 250-500MB file.

Good luck!!

[photobymike]

V700 and V750 are the same scanner. Difference is the fluid mount hardware, the bundled software and the lens coating. 4870, 4990 and 700/750 all give similar performance. The previous versions do not. You can buy an aftermarket fluid mount holder for any of those scanners if you want one.

John not really .. The V750 comes with coatings on the lense(s), dont know how much of a difference it makes, i have not compared scans. but there is a definite hardware difference although not much

[John Rodriguez]

John not really .. The V750 comes with coatings on the lense(s), dont know how much of a difference it makes, i have not compared scans. but there is a definite hardware difference although not much

I think you missed my comment about the lens coating.

[meerkat]

You might find transparency a little easier for color correcting since you'll have a reference to work with. Or just use up one sheet with a Macbeth checker in the frame (it's also worthwhile to do with transparency film.)

Transparency film is more popular with art directors since they can see everything (and it always looks great with light coming thru it, etc..) And with studio lighting everything is controllable.

Negative film for personal use and printing is usually a smarter option (and more forgiving.) But I wouldn't discount one or the other and I'd just use what works for each particular situation, and depending on what the final output is going to be. Both have advantages and disadvantages given specific situations and final output.

As far as "artier" looking, you can make any film look like anything you want in post processing. So don't let that deter you from one film over another.

If you do get an inexpensive flat bed scanner you can set sheets directly on the glass and make quick and dirty reference proofs. Then line up the files on one sheet in Photoshop and print them out. Cut them into single frames and store them with your negatives. A bit more work then using transparency film (where you'll always have a reference to look at) so you'll just have to decide what works best for you in the end.

But instead of analog proofs at your lab, why not have them make low res scans for you? That should be a lot less expensive than chemical/paper proofs.

[kevs-2323668]

thanks guys,
Ok, cool. btw is there another good source then for used scanners other than ebay. or is that the only game in town.
What is fluid mount hardwarde? is that needed for the 4x5 negs?
John, good point, maybe I don't need to print them out! So is that common? Just judge your 4x5's by looking on the computer? All I"m doing is judging which image will be the hero print. (though will be tad laborious, scanning)

Darren, how can you "instantly know when seeing" with a chrome?
btw, anyone else agree with this poster who said, (another forum) that new has more artistic look?

[Larry Gebhardt]

The 4870 gives decent results for proofing, and smallish enlargements (4X or so) with negatives.

You could also get a color enlarger and make proofs (and prints) that way with negatives. That's what I do, though if I want to see one right away I'll slap it on the scanner.

I don't think either has a more "artistic" look. I'm not even sure what that means.

[John Rodriguez]

Kevs, I do print out the flatbed scans. My workflow is as follows, and is pretty common.

- Scan everything after development. I used 2400 spi, I've tested up to 4800 and the incremental gain is negligible.
- Open up the scan in PS and evaluate. Duds are deleted at this stage to save HD space.
- Post process in PS. Everything you'd do to get a nice print.
- At this point I make letter sized prints and evaluate them for awhile. If I really like something I print up to 17x22 and hang it in the living room.
- If I really like a print after living with it for awhile I get the film drum scanned, then start over at step 3.

I bought my used scanner off Craigslist. By fluid mount hardware I mean a holder that allows fluid mounting. Here's the aftermarket version you can read all about - http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/mstation.html. It also has the ability to move up and down to fine tune focus. I don't have one but I have tested shimming my stock holder to find the optimum height.

Darren means that it's much easier to evaluate a chrome by looking at it since it's a positive image.

As far as color correction if you use a correction by numbers approach with channel curves it's really easy.

[Preston]

Kevs,

Ari, a member here has an Epson 4990 Scanner for sale. See the For Sale/Wanted forum below.

I am not certain about the 'artistic' look of neg vs. chrome, either. Like Larry. I really don't know what that means.

If you do a good scan and PS work, you should be able to tell if an image will make a nice print, assuming your system is color managed. However, the print is where the rubber meets the road, and I would certainly make a proof of a likely candidate.

--P

[Drew Wiley]

From the perspective of the learning curve, the nice thing about chromes is that you
can shoot the same film on 35mm slides, slap it on the lightbox, and judge the accuracy of the exposure and color, and whether it matches your personal vision.
Once you are dependent upon scanning, however, you are introducing a whole additional layer of variables. It's pretty common for beginners to blame a certain film for problems peripheral to the film itself. And chromes tend to scan better anyway. But achieving a certain "look" is really a personal preference. Once in awhile, I'll shoot the same scene with both a chrome 8x10 and a color neg 8X10. That gets pretty darn expensive, but the two images will come out looking different, each with it particular nuance. Best to get to first base before you make the run to second and try to tweak something in PS that you don't really have a handle on to begin with. Or have a competent lab do your printing initially, just to help you decide which kind of film you like best. It's helpful to see real prints, and not judge this stuff using web images of whatever, unless the web is your sole objective. Most of us have fiddled with a variety of options before we landed on our feet, and mistakes
are a pretty valuable part of the learning curve too.

[photobymike]

I think you missed my comment about the lens coating.

sorry sunday night and a few glasses of wine and i get dyslexic .. :-)

[John Rodriguez]

sorry sunday night and a few glasses of wine and i get dyslexic .. :-)

No worries, I'll be in the same state in a few hours. :D

[kevs-2323668]

Drew,
the whole point of me buying a 4x5 is to make large prints.
Still why wouldn't looking at the scans on the computer be ok, can't tell you which are the best?
If I still had my old film 35.. that might be a good idea. Buy an old film 35 camera and shoot the same subject on chrome, and then go chrome instead of neg, interesting. Just about everyone here does advises going negative.

2400 spi is referring to the scanner? you do 4 up on a letter size print?

"mounting fluid." That contraption, I have no idea what it means, if you would like to explain what is does, please do. Is it necessary to make scans? Fluid involved in scanning?

Curves, I've read books on it, videos, it way to difficult, and I know a couple of much more advance PS users than me who concur.

[Darren H]

John, like Larry said since a processed Chrome is a positive you can see results just by holding it up to a light source and if you use a light table they just flow.

Getting a box of chromes back from the lab is like a kid at Christmas. The anticipation as to what will they look like is part of the fun and seeing them one by one on the light table is wow.

I just do not get that from a processed negative. Looking at a negative I have no idea at all if it is any good. Sure you can scan but with chromes you only scan the good ones, not all of them.

And I would agree with the comment that a flatbed scan is good for prints up into the mid twenty inch size, but for those 40 "+ prints drum scan is the way to go.

[kevs-2323668]

Darren, so you are shooting all your 4x5 with chrome? I was initially going chrome, but so many seem to advise neg.

[Daniel Stone]

I like both, for their own particular "look". It all boils down to dynamic range. In a studio(or controlled lighting) situation, you can make it as contrasty or less as you like. Its all about the # of stops from deep shadows to bright highlights. Even photographs that seem "airy" can have high contrast in reality.

I personally prefer transparencies, b/c of the ease of reviewing my shots once processed by the lab. It also makes it nice to show other people who aren't photographers on a lightbox, even 35mm slides. But an 8x10 chrome, wowzers!

The "kid on christmas morning" mentality sure rings true for me, even after a full year of shooting 8x10 chrome, and more time shooting 4x5 before that.

-Dan

[John Rodriguez]

Kevs, you should really try both. A couple boxes of film will tell you more then we can, and it won't cost you much.

If you can get the range you need on a chrome, they're fantastic. For times when that's not possible, negatives are there for you.

Fluid mounting - you use fluid when mounting the film to a glass holder with the goal of increasing contrast and reducing the impact of scratches. SPI is short for samples per inch. Try googling SPI and PPI (pixels per inch) in relation to scanning as well as fluid mounting. They're fairly long topics.

[Robert Jonathan]

Don't be afraid of chromes. They have more latitude/dynamic range than people on this forum would like you to believe. Provia and E100G is good stuff.

[Bruce Watson]

Any opinions on this subject?

ROFLMAO! Opinions? Here? :eek: Maybe. Just a few. :D

My own opinion is that the WYSIWYG aspect of a tranny on the light table is the one of the few advantages that a tranny has over a negative. Back in the old days of magazine and advertising work, where the images had to be evaluated by a team including an art director, this WYSIWYG aspect of trannies trumped all else.

Today not so much, because these days that work is nearly 100% digital. It's rare to find LF film being used by anyone outside our little community of artists and hobbyists. So there's not a committee hovering around a light table evaluating shots, there's just me. And I've learned to look at and evaluate a negative on the light table without the crutch of a proof print.

It's actually easier than it sounds. It's like looking at the ground glass -- I only see everything upside down and backwards now if I will it. Otherwise I see everything right side up -- the human brain adjusts. IOW, I've learned how to subtract the orange mask and invert the colors in my head while looking at a tranny on a light table. I'm not alone in this; a fair number of people here can do just that. All it takes is some effort, practice, and a refusal to use the crutch (contact print or scanned image). I only scan the films that make it past this evaluation.

That's my opinion on this subject. I haven't exposed a tranny in more than a decade, so I'm putting my money where my mouth is. But just because this works for me doesn't mean it will work for you. As they saying goes: There are many paths to the waterfall.

[Drew Wiley]

I was simply recommending chromes because you can see exactly what you got on film. You can just shoot 4x5 and put it on a lightbox, or more economically learn about
the characteristics of a particular film by shooting it in a smaller camera, provided you
meter it in the same manner. In other words, you can isolate this variable and perfect
it before you move on to the next. It's difficult to "read" a color neg on a lightbox without quite a bit of experience actually printing them. Another advantage of a chrome is that it does require more discipline with correct exposure, and is good training even if you shoot negs later. Of course you can scan and preview your work
on a screen, but then you've got a whole other set of variables which might be misleading if your intended end result is in fact a print. You'd need to synchronize your
whole workflow to your own printer. That's fine, but then you've got to learn several
things and hope all this different equipment is working properly. View camera technique
itself takes awhile to learn. But whatever ... just take your time and have fun!

[Mike Anderson]

thanks guys,
Ok, cool. btw is there another good source then for used scanners other than ebay. or is that the only game in town.

Epson clearance center:

http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/BuyEpson/ccProductCategory.jsp?oid=-13268

[kevs-2323668]

Daniel, great hearing from you! Do you see neg film as giving a different look? Some here don't see it. Honestly, I have a hard time seeing it to.

Ok: neg is more safe. But being I can proof with both the Canon 5D, and Fuji preview... maybe it's not worth the hassle of proofing, and like you said, chrome is gorgeous to own. But it's just more risky.. right?

[Darren H]

Darren, so you are shooting all your 4x5 with chrome? I was initially going chrome, but so many seem to advise neg.

Yep, all my film work is with chrome. For color that means the Fuji family of Velvia's and Astia.

For B+W that means shooting Efke 25 B+W negative film but having it processed at DR-5 into a positive-just that it is a B+W positive.

Part of that might also be I have no interest or ability to process my own film, I send it all to the lab. Others like the processing. But I just do not have the room or interest in being a processing game.

I have just always done chomes from when I shot 35mm film in college in the 80's and 90's through medium format 10 years ago to 4x5.

Although, I finally got into the digital game a few years ago and got a DSLR. Now my film usage is significantly less than it was overall. But when I shoot film I shoot chromes.

As others have said try both and see what works best for you. I find that often what other say I should like and what I actually like do differ.

I am silly enough to carry an Arca-Swiss into the field as I did not like working with the Linhof Technica models a friend used. The Linhof is smaller and lighter and easier to carry. However the Arca-Swiss is so much easier for me to work when actually set up. I would rather have the bulk in the pack for the much easier to use on the tripod camera.

In much the same way, I just like chromes better too. But you might find just the opposite.

[Frank Petronio]

Might as well get used to negatives since C41 processing will very probably outlive E6 processing.

And you fellas don't strike me as the sort to mix the raw materials to make color chemistry (it'd be silly without enough volume).

[Lynn Jones]

I've used a 4870 for several years and sure don't plan to replace it. I've used just about every scanner around since 1991 and prefer the flat bed Epsons (which BTW are made by Seiko).

Lynn

[kevs-2323668]

thanks Frank, yeah no chemicals here.

Ok, definitely going for chrome.

Was leaning towards Kodak 100EG. $35 / 100

I see Provia & Astia at $40 for double the amount of sheets.

From my 35mm film days, I remember Provia as being just fine (I think Astia was more considered an amateur film)

All opinions on this highly welcome!

[meerkat]

Might as well get used to negatives since C41 processing will very probably outlive E6 processing.

And you fellas don't strike me as the sort to mix the raw materials to make color chemistry (it'd be silly without enough volume).

That's a good point and probably the bigger issue in respect to the choice of negative versus transparency. A&I have stopped processing all reversal film now, so there's no more E6. They used to do a 1-2 hour turnaround in the 'old days' and were opened 24 hours. Now it's only C41, B+W, and digital.

The Icon (on Wilshire) still does E6 with the Refrema and Kodak chemistry. But even in a big metro area like LA and with a huge media industry, E-6 processing is disappearing and may well be gone soon. C41 probably will probably stick around longer. And it's partly why I stopped using reversal film. And these days, after the drum scanning and the post processing, and going to Lightjet (or inkjet) print output, I really cannot see any actual differences anymore between transparency and negative film. In post, you can pretty much make any material look like anything you want it to look like.

[Drew Wiley]

Fuji makes basically three kinds of chrome film: Astia (relatively low contrast, but now
discontinued), Provia (normal contrast), Velvia (high contrast, high color saturation).
Kodak makes E100G which is normal or medium contrast. All these films are excellent,
but differ in look slightly. The higher the contrast, the more difficult it will be to scan
or print, unless the lighting ratio in the scene warrants a high contrast film. But the topic of specific choice will no doubt open another can of worms concerning personal
preferences. I'd start with one of the medium contrast film.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, I'd strongly disagree with the notion you can make anything look like anything.
Color neg films are more versatile than they once were, but still render colors different
than chromes, often in ways which cannot be post-corrected. And there's no evidence that E6 is in danger anytime soon. At worst, someone might have to send out for processing. As long as chrome film is being sold there will be the need for E6, and Fuji seems reasonably committed to chromes. Doesn't matter, because digital output will require scanning in either case, and once a chrome is developed, you've got the image more or less permanently. One can always switch to negs later if
necessary.

[kevs-2323668]

thanks Guys, I will be then going to the Icon. Why is c41 easier than ec for A&I?

hmmm, no need for the Kodak which give you only 10 sheets, while Provia gives you 20 for about same rate. I may by them all in the beginning to test.

[Ben Syverson]

And there's no evidence that E6 is in danger anytime soon.
No, but negative film sells much better, and with Kodak is distress, Ektachrome is theoretically in more danger than the Portra line. If anything, that's more of a reason to shoot it now, even though I prefer negatives!

[meerkat]

If you're a hobbyist you'll probably think differently about color film processing and the impact that the digital paradigm has had in the commercial world. But the reality is (and always has been) that the commercial world kept the labs and service bureaus alive, not the hobbyists.

The Icon has been discussing keeping their Refrema running or not in the future. It will all depend on demand. And to be honest, A&I had pretty much lost their 'lustre' ever since David Alexander and James Ishihara sold the company. Their current focus has changed now and their decision to drop E6 was about several factors. But demand was a very big issue.

Transparency film was the material choice of commercial studios for decades, but today service companies like Industrial Color have pretty much put an end to that http://industrialcolor.com/capture-services/ Demand for E6 processing has really dropped precipitously. Instead of looking at 'chromes on a light table,' art directors expect to look at a big monitor. And immediately, not hours later.

At least that's the case here in LA. I can't speak for other parts of the country as I'm only connected to people here.

[Frank Petronio]

I can't think of any advantage to chromes at all, I only see them as a hinderance to getting the best photo. But they look nice on a light table, I'll give you that.

Perhaps you could mount them on light tables to display them. No, wait... then they fade....

But knock yourselves out!

[John Rodriguez]

Frank, the difference is density range per stop. Chromes have higher density then negatives and they cover a narrower range of stops. Whether or not it matters in the final print depends on the image.

[Drew Wiley]

Frank - I can give a lot of reasons for chromes, hundreds of em in fact. Ever seen a well made Cibachrome? It's nearing the end of that era; but I've got no regrets. Nobody is going to mistake those for inkjet or C prints. And once I retire I can finally
start some serious dye transfer work - another strong justification for chromes. But
I'm not against color negs; I print them too - just a completely different look.

[Frank Petronio]

Dye Transfers and Cibas are great but would you really recommend, in good conscience, either of those to a newb?

[Drew Wiley]

Well, I dove in head first, Frank. And funny thing, you can still find old ads touting not
only how easy Cibachrome is for the home darkroom, but even dye transfer! (I guess it
certainly was, compared to carbro!). Printing directly from color negs is possibly even
easier than basic black and white darkroom, though one can choose to do fancier things of course. But it this instance it looks like scanning etc is going to be involved.
But what the heck - once someone gets their feet wet, it's easy enough to decide what water temperature they like.

[kevs-2323668]

Frank, here are the two advantages
1) no scanning for proofs. It's comes back from the lab and you are done. That's a huge nuisance factor eliminated. If you don't see that as an advantage, then you can come by and do my dishes!
2) I'm with Drew, chrome is 100% nicer to look at than a negative.

That said, if E6 is no longer being made, I'll be shooting negative, no problem...
No client on this project, just me doing fine art....
I do agree that negative is a bit safer...that was the only reason I was tilting to it before.

[Drew Wiley]

I've shot and printed color neg off and on over the years for certain modest commercial
jobs, esp portraiture. It was easy enough. All my personal work was done chrome. But
I knew the era of Cibachrome was going to end, so in the past few years have gotten
a lot more involved with Portra and now Ektar negs. Meanwhile chromogenic papers have themselves significantly improved. But I still keep a few holders loaded with E100G
or whatever. I've got way more chrome shots on hand than I'll ever have time to print.
If twenty of them get dye-transfer printed, that would be surprising. Certain others I'll
make internegs from. There's no silver bullet out there. But with a big chrome on a light
box, you pretty much know what you've got before you spend any more time and money. And I'm glad I learned the difference between a film's range and the cornball
philosophy of "latitude" - i.e., sloppiness. With chromes we learn pretty darn fast about correct exposure technique - there ain't much "latitude".

[Roger Cole]

thanks Frank, yeah no chemicals here.

Ok, definitely going for chrome.

Was leaning towards Kodak 100EG. $35 / 100

I see Provia & Astia at $40 for double the amount of sheets.

From my 35mm film days, I remember Provia as being just fine (I think Astia was more considered an amateur film)

All opinions on this highly welcome!

Where are you seeing these films for these prices? Those are great bargains if accurate. (For that matter, now that Astia has been discontinued, find it at all can be touchy though there is undoubtedly some still out there.)

[John NYC]

I shoot b&w, color neg and chromes in medium format and 8x10. Each has its own look and I find different uses for them. I strongly prefer chromes for night shots, though I have seen someone use Fuji 160 neg film that makes nice color shifts at night. For daylight, what I pick depends on the scene, and I always have both color options with me in holders ready to go.

If you are always scanning and then printing from your scans, you can shoot either without any bother. Live it up while it is here and shoot a load of E6!

[kevs-2323668]

Roger, BH photo! sorry $35 / 10, not 100

Fuji for 20

[Roger Cole]

Roger, BH photo! sorry $35 / 10, not 100

Fuji for 20

Yeah, that's more like what I thought! I shoot neg in 4x5 (mainly, but have some E6 I bought expired) but for that price I'd have bought up some E100G! I like that film a lot in 35mm.

[Preston]

"(I think Astia was more considered an amateur film)"

Kevs, if I remember correctly, Astia was developed to be used as a portrait film. It has a more neutral color balance in order to produce more 'realistc' skin tones, and has slightly wider dynamic range than the other Fuji films.

In my opinion, Astia, and in particular the 100F emulsion, is not an amateur film--it's how it is used that is important. I have used a lot of it over the years and have come to like the way it handles landscapes. I have also found that it is easier to scan (at least for me and my equipment) than other Fuji films. I am sad, actually, that it is going away.

--P

[John NYC]

thanks Frank, yeah no chemicals here.

Ok, definitely going for chrome.

Was leaning towards Kodak 100EG. $35 / 100

I see Provia & Astia at $40 for double the amount of sheets.

From my 35mm film days, I remember Provia as being just fine (I think Astia was more considered an amateur film)

All opinions on this highly welcome!

Astia was not an amateur film, it just had a different color profile.

I use both Provia and E100G in 8x10, and they are both excellent. Provia has better reciprocity characteristics if you are doing night shots, but E100G skews colors in a nicer way at night, imho. They both work excellently during the day, but each have a slightly different color cast tendency.

[Brian Ellis]

. . . btw, anyone else agree with this poster who said, (another forum) that new has more artistic look?

No, I don't agree. I have no idea what an "artistic look" is.

[kevs-2323668]

Thanks, will test them all then. Interesting that a film (Astia), a chrome film is considered to have more latitude than another chrome film. So then its safer to shoot in a way? It's going away? It's on the BH website. Curious, when shooting BW for transparency, how does that work? Is it more pricy? Wouldn't you want BW to have a negative? hard to imagine BW without a negative....

[BrianShaw]

No, I don't agree. I have no idea what an "artistic look" is.

Often that expression means "out of focus"... which can be done with any film ever made.

[Frank Petronio]

Often that expression means "out of focus"... which can be done with any film ever made.

Impossible Project film is really artistic.

[Ben Syverson]

Astia is gorgeous, and does have slightly more latitude than other chromes. A well exposed Astia shot looks about like a well exposed JPG straight from your DSLR. So if you can nail the exposure, it looks fantastic. But it's still relatively easy to let the shadows block or the highlights clip, just like digital.

With that said, it's phenomenal to see a really perfect exposure in 4x5 or 8x10 chrome!

[John NYC]

Curious, when shooting BW for transparency, how does that work? Is it more pricy? Wouldn't you want BW to have a negative? hard to imagine BW without a negative....

Not sure where you misread. B&W is neg film.

[kevs-2323668]

John, I was commenting that Darren said he goes from BW negative to BW positive, if I understand that correctly.

[federico9001]

Slides are certainly much easier to scan, but color negs allow much more control (much wider latitude - lower contrast, more neutral colors etc...);

Generally I would prefer slides only for art repro (paintings etc...) in artificial light, or for low contrast scenes in daylight where very clean and saturated colors are needed.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/castorscan