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?
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.
John, thanks well the v700 is moderately priced:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...o_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....
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.
+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."So for the best of both worlds, use the film that best matches the intended photograph."
--P
Preston-Columbia CA
"If you want nice fresh oats, you have to pay a fair price. If you can be satisfied with oats that have already been through the horse; that comes a little cheaper."
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.Originally Posted by kevs-2323668
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).
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!!
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.
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.
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?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks