lostkase@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>Okay, so this is another what should I do diatribe.. I keep going back and
>forth with print and slide film.
>
So what are you trying to do? What kind of result do you want? How is
the image going to be processed, presented and viewed? You want prints,
negative film is far the easiest, cheapest route. You want slides, the
route to slide from neg is a tortuous and expensive one. You want
scanned images, both are easy to scan with current equipment and
software. I find no difference in efffort or knowledge to get what's on
the film into the computer.
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
> I have shot velvia and elite chrome 100. I
>understand the overly rich color palate of velvia and have used it once. I
>actually liked what it did for the caterpiller on the cat-tail picture link
>I had posted, although it was warm. I also liked the pics I got from elite
>chrome., being the novice I am. Every time I go print film, I'm dissatisfied
>with my local Sams Club rendition of my photographic endeavours.Pro
>developing shop you say? Almost, non-existent here, overpriced with no
>discernable difference from Sams, plus they are closing their doors right
>and left. We've lost two since I joined this distinguished group. What is
>your favorite general purpose slide film? I see Graham seems to favor Agfa.
>Unfortunately, I can't discern whether its his film performance or raw
>talent that I am seeing. I believe I'll stick with Velvia 50 for landscape
>type shots. I'm considering purchasing a 20 roll pack of film, however.
>Velvia seems like fun at the expense of realism. But as a general purpose
>film it makes my family appear cartoonish. I read the reviews at
>www.photographyreview.com , but I've lurked here long enough to respect your
>opinions more. Scanning of the negatives is another consideration, I hold in
>high esteem. I have not tried Provia, Sensia, E200, but where is my bang for
>the buck? I hate diverting from the digital bandwagon, E-1 and all, but I
>want the best quality slide scans also. Help I'm melting......
>
>Bob
>
>
>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"
>
>
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"
|