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.
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
.
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.
Bookmarks