Not only that, Barry, but there seems to be confusion on the part of users
as to how best to scan negatives (perhaps slides have similar issues), and
not just color film but B&W as well. From my reading this as often as not
revolves around the film profiles provided by the scanner software these
users employ.
My experience (with the Polaroid SS4000) teaches me that it's best
to eschew the profiles provided by the Polaroid Insight software and
instead generate a RAW TIFF image, then work with that in some other
software (in my case Paint Shop Pro and/or Photoshop). Now maybe it's just
that the scanner I use is especially adept at getting good RAW images out
of negatives (I haven't scanned any transparencies yet) whereas other
scanners are less able to carry out this function, I don't know. I do know
that once I have a RAW TIFF to work with then the battle is half won, and
concluding matters (given a workable exposure to begin with--there's no
question that a bad exposure can fatally compromise the final image) is a
simple enough process.
I've offered this advice a number of times and it seems to be the case that
users either don't know what a RAW image is (and are apparently thus
intimidated), or don't care to go this route due to some perceived increase
on their part in increased complexity of the operation. Either way,
confusion is at work and my impression is that the majority of scanner
users who have these "issues" are not working with RAW scans but rather
with the images they get from those software film profiles. As these latter
images are (in my experience) more often than not anything but optimal, it
stands to reason that these users are already more or less behind the eight
ball--which is why I turned to the RAW method to begin with.
There is also the issue of one's ability to effectively work with an image
in software after the scan, regardless of the quality of that scan.
Anyway, I shoot negative emulsions for two good reasons: they possess
roughly double (or more) the dynamic range of slide films, and they also
have much greater latitude. Now a lot of my shoots are at night where
inherently more demanding light conditions prevail, and the rest of the
time I'm usually in the street where I don't have time to worry about exact
exposure. It only makes sense for someone with those shooting needs to use
the most flexible film (i.e. negatives). In any event, when my final images
turn out bad I have no doubt it's for the reason I either blew the shot
somehow on site and/or the subject did not lend itself to my photographic
intention (again, due to the difficult light conditions) to begin with.
Hell, even some of my Tri-X images turn out looking like crap (the matter
of composition aside), and if you can't get a good image with Tri-X then
for _sure_ it's you and not the film because that's the most flexible and
hearty emulsion I ever heard of. Yet I've read any number of places of
scanner users complaining about the ability to scan good Tri-X pictures.
I'm sorry, but that simply makes no sense.
Bottom line: if you have no reason to project your images (see John Lind's
account yesterday of a professional need to do so), and if you don't work
for an art editor at some publication who demands transparencies over
negatives, then I can see no inherent advantage to shoot slides over
negatives while I can easily tick off (have already done so above) reasons
why negative film might well be preferred . . as a general rule. In other
words, while it's true that one slide film or another might possess a
specific characteristic which is desired over what might otherwise be
obtained using negative film, it is not true that slide films are "better"
than negative films in any inherent sense for the reason that there are
many superior negative emulsions out there which blow away slide films just
the same. Transparencies are _different_ from print emulsions, but then
that's just stating the obvious and really something else. As I know from
my own experience that negative films _can_ be scanned successfully, and
with wonderful results, then the issue becomes one not easily understood here.
One avenue that I haven't pursued is making conventional enlargements from
print film as opposed to those derived from transparencies, but from what
I've read over the years the advantage there clearly lies with negative films.
Of course I have a built-in bias when it comes negative emulsions as these
were what I was trained to shoot back when I was a journalist. I've shot
precious little slide film and my knowledge in this area is (to say the
least) limited. But then I'm not here to say print is better than chrome,
just that print's fine in its own right. If there's a problem with the
latter, better to look to the user or scanner for the reason.
Tris
The difference isn't quite as black and white as you make it out to
be (pardon the pun). There are a number of differences between color
negative and color transparency films. Latitude, saturation, grain,
etc. all come into play. There are many situations where print film
has clear advantages - difficult and variable light, for example.
-
B.B. Bean bbbean@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Bean & Bean Cotton
Co http://www.beancotton.com
Peach Orchard, MO
< 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 >
< 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 >
|