But there is no color negative that has resolution as high as Velvia. There
is no media cheaply available which has the dynamic range of slide
projection, slides look "real" on screen. For grain I found the ISO100 slide
is finer than the same speed negative at least when scanned.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
<snip>
>
> In terms of the information on the developed film, neg is superior. It
> has equal or better grain and the range of brightness captured is much
> greater than on slide film.
>
> Slide film is reversal film. In the first stage of development, a
> negative is developed. In the second stage, the negative is reversed to
> a positive chemically. The beauty if this is that it is very consistent.
> Once you learn the film, you can be sure of what will appear on the
> slide. There are a couple of down sides to reversal. First, no one has
> yet come up with a way to do the reversal without increasing contrast
> and losing a lot of the brightness range on the neg. Second, the
> reversal process tends to increase grain size, so getting the same grain
> at the same speed as neg is hard.
>
> The disadvantage of color negative film is that the traditional reversal
> process, printing, is generally in the hands of a highly capricious
> bunch of photo processors. I promise you there is much more beauty and
> truth on your negs than you have ever seen if you get them processed and
> printed by mass market automated equipment. If you haven't looked at my
> example, see <http://www.geocities.com/dreammoose/TechMisc/>. So what
> are you going to do if you want 4x6s? If you want to stay with mass
> market processors, shop around. There are still plenty of places to get
> film processed. If Sam's sucks, try a regular photoshop. Both Kodak and
> Fuji offer processing through them. Many listees have found a 1hr place
> that gives them good consistent results. But remember, they didn't
> generally find it on the first try, or the second.
>
> Another way to go is to convert to digital immediately after processing.
> I get develop and scan at 2000x3000 pixels for $18-19 for 36 exposures
> with on prints. Now I know that is more than Sam's, but the scans are
> way better than regular prints, too, more detail and more dynamic range.
> They also include 800x533 scans that I can put directly on the web and
> the larger ones are fine for anything but big prints. Probably fine for
> that too, but I also have a 2720dpi scanner that I use for a bit higher
> resolution for finest quality. Yes, I could scan them all myself, but
> don't want to spend the time except on those with the most potential.
> With a photo quality printer, I can print the shots I like as 4x6s or
> print them slightly smaller 4 to a page (eight with double sided photo
> printer paper) for instant album pages. And other bigger sizes are easy
> and cheap. I much prefer viewing my work in large size on the computer
> screen to thumbing through 4x6 prints. If you don't like the color
> balance, you just change it! It gets away from this whole slide film
> thing of using different films for different kinds of subjects. "Oh no,
> a Velvetta moment and here I am loaded with Xxxx!"
>
> Just a voice crying in the wilderness.........
> Moose
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|