At 21:12 12/30/99 , Charlie Loeven wrote:
>Number one reason for anyone shooting slides instead of negatives is
>WYSIWYG*.
>I would have no way of accurately judging the full potential of a print by
>viewing the color negative. A myriad of things could be wrong with the
>print. I believe that the computer and negative scanner has helped
>this situation to a great degree.
Exactly why I switched almost completely to reversal. Couldn't find a
processor within reasonable distance that could consistently color balance
and expose prints properly. Prints were "all over the map," some
invariably with dust specks. Even got some back once from an out of focus
enlarger. Got tired of sending prints back to be reprinted. One processor
in particular kept claiming it was my camera. Switching to "chromes"
eliminated 950f the problems; the first roll of Kodachrome 64
miraculously repaired my OM system.
I very occasionally use color negative when the entire roll is intended for
prints to send to others, or to get a Picture CD for web use. The average
consumer has been "dumbed down" to accept whatever they punch out of the
print machine by being consistently told it's not the fancy super automated
print machine, it's their camera or photographer error.
>I have no idea but have no reason to believe that transparency film is in
>itself sharper or more capable than negative film. Just the opposite is
>true when comparing latitude.
When I started to use a lot of Kodachrome and Elitechrome, I checked out
reversal grain structure. Kodak's and Fuji's slower chromes are extremely
fine grained. Following is the diffused rms granularity data on Kodak and
Fuji chromes:
Kodachrome:
25: 11
64: 12
200: 19
Elitechrome:
100: 10 (same as E100S)
100EC: 11 ("Extra Color," same as E100VS)
160T: 13 (tungsten balanced)
200: 12
400: 19
Astia:
100: 10
Provia:
100F: 8
100: 10
400: 15
1600: 22 @ EI800; 25 @ EI1600; 30 @ EI3200
Sensia II:
100: 10
200: 15
400: 15 (resolving power not as high at lower contrast)
Some films such as Elitechrome with Kodak's T-grain will show grain more
dramatically with sharp, jagged distinct edges. Kodachrome has a softer
grain that isn't quite as pronounced, but it's not the smooth pebbled look
of Tri-X either. By comparison to some of Kodak's B/W negative films:
Tmax 100: 8 (D-76)
Tmax 400: 10 (D-76)
Plus-X: 10
Tri-X: 16 (pro version is 17)
If you have used the faster chromes and been disappointed with grain, they
are at or only slightly higher than the grain structure of Tri-X. It's why
I don't use them! Try one of the ISO 100 or slower ones which get you in
the realm of Plus-X and Tmax grain structure. The exception is Elitechrome
200 which has similar grain structure to the other ISO 100 chromes.
BTW if you're going to compare these numbers to other manufacturers' data
(Fuji, Agfa, Ilford) make certain you read the micro-fine print about how
it's measured! They don't necessarily do it *exactly* the same way and
that will make a difference in the resulting numbers. Kodak stopped
publishing this data on their color negative films :-( and now uses their
own obscure "print grain index" instead. Even their tech data sheet about
how "PGI" is measured doesn't give enough details, or any method to
translate to an rms granularity.
[Miniscule OM Content Follows]
When I switched to the 100 and 64 chromes, all my cameras took a sudden
leap in consistent exposure, color balance and became very high resolution.
The first roll of Kodachrome 64 miraculously repaired all the problems a
particular print processor had diagnosed as wrong with my OM-4.
-- John
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|