Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: neg or tran for scanning?

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    949

    neg or tran for scanning?

    I am planning on trying some colour film for a change and I'm wondering which is best for scanning.
    Transparency or Negative film? Leaving aside the colour mask in negative film, which film type is usually capable of recording the greatest contrast range? I have heard that transparency is only good for 5 stops but I think that was for use in making cibachrome prints and not for scanning.

    Any clues would be appreciated.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    184

    neg or tran for scanning?

    If you are going for contrast range - negative film usually wins. If you are going for grain size/sharpness, most people will say tranny film wins.

    Some labs don't know how to scan negs well - but once that hurdle is overcome, I've had great results scanning color negative film. Do a search - this topic comes up about twice every week. There are no shortages of opinions to be found.

  3. #3
    Kirk Gittings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Albuquerque, Nuevo Mexico
    Posts
    9,814

    neg or tran for scanning?

    I echo Will's sumation. Color negs benefit most from the grain masking of a wet mounted scan. But it is not an issue unless you are making a pretty big print. Since I don't print above 16x20 grain is not an issue. I prefer negs then with the greater contrast range.
    Thanks,
    Kirk

    at age 71:
    "The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
    But I have promises to keep,
    And miles to go before I sleep,
    And miles to go before I sleep"

  4. #4
    Abuser of God's Sunlight
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    brooklyn, nyc
    Posts
    5,775

    neg or tran for scanning?

    Acording to Kodak's own data it's no longer true that tranny film has the edge in sharpness. The mtf data seems to give a slight edge to neg film. Tranny film will probably always be less grainy, though, because grain size is largest in high density areas ... which is the shadows in reversal film, where the grain gets hidden, but is the highlight areas in neg film, which is where it's most obvious. But as Kirk says, how relevent this is depends on your enlargement size.

    Scanning negs is definitely more work, and requires better software (and knowledge of how to use it). But you will have a much easier time getting good exposures, especially if you're working in lighting conditions that you can't control. i take pictures outside, often in bright sun, so I use negs.

  5. #5
    Resident Heretic Bruce Watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    USA, North Carolina
    Posts
    3,335

    neg or tran for scanning?

    Did you do a search before you posted this question? It's been anwered again and again on this forum. If you go to the search box and type in "negatives vs. trannies" this is the first return:

    http://largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/502573.html

    This one if from about six weeks ago. Lots to read here and in the other threads. Enjoy.

    Bruce Watson

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    949

    neg or tran for scanning?

    thanks for replies so far.
    Technology changes so fast that what was good advice last week may not be now. e.g. new film or scanner on the market.

    the main thing was which gives greatest contrast range on film, hence my placing it in the film section and not digital.

    next time I'll search and then ask questions...

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Dec 1997
    Location
    Baraboo, Wisconsin
    Posts
    7,694

    neg or tran for scanning?

    Don't feel bad Rob, if everyone searched before posting questions here there wouldn't be a forum.
    Brian Ellis
    Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
    a mile away and you'll have their shoes.

  8. #8
    windpointphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Racine, WI
    Posts
    259

    neg or tran for scanning?

    Here's an idea. Buy a box of each and try them both, same time, same picture, different lighting conditions and subjects. Then you'll know and you won't ever have to ask or worry about this subject again. Which will put you ahead of about 90% of the other folks.

  9. #9

    neg or tran for scanning?

    I've considered this very question - though have settled with neg for now. The only thing giving me pause for thought is that the lower DR associated with neg film would result in the fact that optical and aliasing errors/artifacts would be exaggerated (in theory) relative to chromes. That is to say, if neg film has a lower DR - than it is using far less of the sensors' range than chrome would - and hence must be expanded relative to input from a chrome. (Read: limited histogram)

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Aylesbury, Bucks, UK
    Posts
    79

    neg or tran for scanning?

    A question to those that prefer negative film for landscapes - what film do you prefer?

Similar Threads

  1. Scanning in Los Angeles
    By Mike Boden in forum Digital Processing
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 3-Feb-2006, 11:16
  2. Scanning in NYC
    By paulr in forum Resources
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 27-Oct-2005, 16:15
  3. New Scanning Option
    By George Stewart in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 20-Aug-2005, 20:54
  4. scanning b/w issue
    By Herb Cunningham in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 22-Feb-2005, 00:29
  5. Betterlight Scanning Back for Film Scanning?
    By William Leigh in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 18-Dec-2004, 13:50

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •