Back to Film but which one

Digital has arrived and I have dabbled at 5.1 megapixels. I like
digital and can make nice prints up to 8x10 that look great. The next
obvious step is a SLR Digital. I grew up with Canon and have a nice
collection of EOS stuff. The problem is the $1600 for the EOS 20D. So
what do I do? I turn my back and march firmly into the past. I went on
EBay and purchased my first camera again, a Canon A1 for $100. The last
time I had one of these and was what I considered an advanced amateur I
shot Kodachrome exclusively. Now , in the 21st century, I will scan all
new negatives into Photoshop.
My question is, Do I now shoot negatives or slides? The reason I
shot slides in the past is that I had a lot of control over the image
and did not have to worry about how the printer would change my intent.
Since these are now going into Photoshop is their any advantage to
slides? Will I still be able to get that Kodachrome saturated look with
negatives? The advantage to negatives would be the faster speed and
longer tonal range. I really like the print results I get from Fuji
Reala 100. What is the megapixel equivalent of Fuji 100. how about
400?

thanks
--
//Where are we going and why are we in this handbasket?

In article <MPG.1c5031bb9f1827ee98969c@news.giganews.com>,
UnTruth@YourMammasBox.com says...
> Digital has arrived and I have dabbled at 5.1 megapixels. I like
> digital and can make nice prints up to 8x10 that look great. The next
> obvious step is a SLR Digital. I grew up with Canon and have a nice
> collection of EOS stuff. The problem is the $1600 for the EOS 20D. So
> what do I do? I turn my back and march firmly into the past. I went on
> EBay and purchased my first camera again, a Canon A1 for $100. The last
> time I had one of these and was what I considered an advanced amateur I
> shot Kodachrome exclusively. Now , in the 21st century, I will scan all
> new negatives into Photoshop.
> My question is, Do I now shoot negatives or slides? The reason I
> shot slides in the past is that I had a lot of control over the image
> and did not have to worry about how the printer would change my intent.
> Since these are now going into Photoshop is their any advantage to
> slides? Will I still be able to get that Kodachrome saturated look with
> negatives? The advantage to negatives would be the faster speed and
> longer tonal range. I really like the print results I get from Fuji
> Reala 100. What is the megapixel equivalent of Fuji 100. how about
> 400?
>
> thanks
>
Color negative film has greater dynamic range that slides. Many people
think slides are "sharper". Things like saturation and color balance
can be adjusted in Photoshop so I suggest going for negative film.
The lower ISO films seem to have much less visible grain that the higher
ones, even though the number don't seem to show it.
I find 200 ISO a good compromise. Slower and you run into camera shake
and depth of field problems when hand-held, faster you get grain.
Why not buy an assortment and try your self.

--
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail: robertdfeinman@netscape.net

UnTruth (UnTruth@YourMammasBox.com) wrote...
> Digital has arrived and I have dabbled at 5.1 megapixels. I like
> digital and can make nice prints up to 8x10 that look great. The next
> obvious step is a SLR Digital. I grew up with Canon and have a nice
> collection of EOS stuff. The problem is the $1600 for the EOS 20D. So
> what do I do? I turn my back and march firmly into the past. I went on
> EBay and purchased my first camera again, a Canon A1 for $100. The last
> time I had one of these and was what I considered an advanced amateur I
> shot Kodachrome exclusively. Now , in the 21st century, I will scan all
> new negatives into Photoshop.

What scanner do you intend to use? The reason that I ask is that it
is widely stated (I.e. I have read it but not proved it for
myself...) that the flatbed scanners with attachments for 35mm film
cannot handle as dense a negative/positive as the dedicated film
scanners. With such a device, you may be better sticking with
negative film rather than positive, especially some of the more
contrasty/saturated slide film emulsions.

> My question is, Do I now shoot negatives or slides?

For what its worth, I find that slide film gets me a better scan than
colour negative film. Even on something like Reala 100, the grain is
still far more noticeable than on say Sensia 100. This is on a
Minolta Dual Scan Elite II 35mm film scanner.

> The reason I
> shot slides in the past is that I had a lot of control over the image
> and did not have to worry about how the printer would change my intent.
> Since these are now going into Photoshop is their any advantage to
> slides?

As above, I still find the relative lack of grain in slides gives
them an advantage over negative film for me.

> Will I still be able to get that Kodachrome saturated look with
> negatives?

You can post-process to add saturated, correct colour casts etc. in
Photoshop. There's only so much you can do, but in general I find
that I can boost saturation on a well-exposed image beyond the "it's
starting to hurt my eyes point" before any significant posterisation
occurs on both negative and positive film.

> The advantage to negatives would be the faster speed and
> longer tonal range.

400 speed slide films scan for me just fine. If you need to go
faster than that, then you probably are looking at sticking with
negative films.

For dynamic range, the wider response of negative film can be an
advantage. However, I have sometimes got round this by taking two
separate exposures on slide film, one for the shadow detail and one
for the higlights, and then combining them digitally. A bit of an
effort, but sometimes worth it. Less work is to expose carefully for
the highlights and then bring out the "lost" shadow detail in
Photoshop. If the brightness range is not *too* great, this can work
OK.

You can also, of course, do it the old fashioned way and get out the
graduated ND filters to hold back bright skies ;-)

> I really like the print results I get from Fuji
> Reala 100.

Yep. The differences to me are normally small, and if you are only
ever going to do 6x4 prints then they are, IMHO, not worth worrying
about.

> What is the megapixel equivalent of Fuji 100. how about
> 400?

An area of much debate. Go there with caution ;-)

FWIW, my 2820dpi scanner generates somewhere around a 10-11MP image.
If I haven't used a tripod, or have used my (cheap-ish) lens wide
open then it is normally pretty clear that scanning at a higher
resolution would not yield significantly (if any) better results.

As I understand it, a good 35mm film is capable of recording much
more than 10MP *in ideal conditions*, but much of the time I do not
shoot under those. I would like to blame my less-than-top-of-the-
range equipment, but poor/lazy technique is probably more to blame.

Having stated all of the above, my final recommendation is for you to
go out and buy a few rolls of different films and try for yourself.
Your own personal preference / subjects/ shooting style / scanner /
preferred workflow will all influence your final decision.

Hope some of this helps.

Ian
--
Ian Riches
Bedford, UK

Robert Feinman schrieb:

> I find 200 ISO a good compromise. Slower and you run into camera shake
> and depth of field problems when hand-held, faster you get grain.
> Why not buy an assortment and try your self.

I'm using Fuji Superia 400 for a while now. Some test say that this 35mm
negative film has a resolution which even some 100's don't have... An
advantag in my eyes is, that it has an really large range of exposures.
I found +3,-1.5 acceptable. If the available light is sufficient, I'm
using it as a 200. Then this film has a better colour saturation. If
it's needed I'm sometimes use it as 400 or even 800.

I wouldn't recommend using AGFA film. In my experience the 100's
negative 35mm films (for consumers) is even worse in resolution compared
to the Fuji ones...

I'd recommend using negative film if you don't want to use the slides
the "classical" way -- projecting them. The negatives have a better
resolution (at least at higher sensitivities), a much large dynamic
range (so not such big problem with under-/overexposure and you can get
highdynamic pictures directly of a scan if your scanner has 48bit
output). One problem with scanning is, to get the "real" colours because
of the orange mask, though. But good scanning programs help you there...

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:49:55 -0500, UnTruth
<UnTruth@YourMammasBox.com> wrote:

> Digital has arrived and I have dabbled at 5.1 megapixels. I like
>digital and can make nice prints up to 8x10 that look great. The next
>obvious step is a SLR Digital. I grew up with Canon and have a nice
>collection of EOS stuff. The problem is the $1600 for the EOS 20D. So
>what do I do? I turn my back and march firmly into the past. I went on
>EBay and purchased my first camera again, a Canon A1 for $100. The last
>time I had one of these and was what I considered an advanced amateur I
>shot Kodachrome exclusively. Now , in the 21st century, I will scan all
>new negatives into Photoshop.

Hey, I (still) have a Canon A1! Plus a bunch of extras (28 wide angle
lens, a 100-300 zoom, a bunch of filters, close-up lenses, etc...)
Great camera! I love my A1!

And I almost exclusively shot Kodachromes too, which I have been
trying to scan now for about a year and which are causing me untold
amounts of grief and a lot of gray hair... ;o)

> My question is, Do I now shoot negatives or slides? The reason I
>shot slides in the past is that I had a lot of control over the image
>and did not have to worry about how the printer would change my intent.
>Since these are now going into Photoshop is their any advantage to
>slides? Will I still be able to get that Kodachrome saturated look with
>negatives? The advantage to negatives would be the faster speed and
>longer tonal range. I really like the print results I get from Fuji
>Reala 100. What is the megapixel equivalent of Fuji 100. how about
>400?

The key - the way I see it - is dynamic range. Slides have a dynamic
range which, although nominally is covered by most film scanners these
days, in practice leave a lot to be desired. I have a Nikon LS-50
(a.k.a. CoolScan V) which is 14-bit and has *no* multiscanning.

In my tests, however, I have determined that in order to really get
every detail out of those dense Kodachrome shadows, I really need
17-18 bits of dynamic range. I achieve this by scanning twice (once
for highlights and once for shadows) and then combining the two.

So, nominally, it would appear that negatives would be a better bet
because of their reduced (compressed) dynamic range. However, they
cause other problems. For example, detail in slide shadows is not
really that visible, but in negatives these shadows become highlights
and then the detail (or rather the lack of it) as well as noise and
grain become a problem.

So, not really an answer, but a few things to consider. I have pretty
much given up film, but I'm constantly tempted to go back.

I've seen others recommending Velvia as the film for scanning because
of low grain and absence of "pepper spots" but I can't confirm this
first hand. As others have suggested, the best thing in the end may be
to try different film and stick with the one which suits your scanner
the best.

Don.

In article <34nguuF4d4merU1@individual.net>, cs-ml-0110031013@ebz-
dresden.de says...
> Robert Feinman schrieb:
>
> > I find 200 ISO a good compromise. Slower and you run into camera shake
> > and depth of field problems when hand-held, faster you get grain.
> > Why not buy an assortment and try your self.
>
> I'm using Fuji Superia 400 for a while now. Some test say that this 35mm
> negative film has a resolution which even some 100's don't have... An
> advantag in my eyes is, that it has an really large range of exposures.
> I found +3,-1.5 acceptable. If the available light is sufficient, I'm
> using it as a 200. Then this film has a better colour saturation. If
> it's needed I'm sometimes use it as 400 or even 800.
>
> I wouldn't recommend using AGFA film. In my experience the 100's
> negative 35mm films (for consumers) is even worse in resolution compared
> to the Fuji ones...
>
> I'd recommend using negative film if you don't want to use the slides
> the "classical" way -- projecting them. The negatives have a better
> resolution (at least at higher sensitivities), a much large dynamic
> range (so not such big problem with under-/overexposure and you can get
> highdynamic pictures directly of a scan if your scanner has 48bit
> output). One problem with scanning is, to get the "real" colours because
> of the orange mask, though. But good scanning programs help you there...
>
I'll be scanning with a HP Photosmart s20 film scanner
--
//Where are we going and why are we in this handbasket?

UnTruth wrote:

> My question is, Do I now shoot negatives or slides? The reason I
> shot slides in the past is that I had a lot of control over the image

> and did not have to worry about how the printer would change my
intent.

That thought still remains. Yes one can "fix" colors for negative
handling in photoshop, but that's you as the printer in the above
scenario. IOW, "memory" becomes the color reference for images, and
"memory" is typically bad and gets worse as time passes since the
photo was taken.

Mike

A lot depends on what you shoot. I bought a bunch of Reala intending to
take some photos outside (with trusty Canon AE-1 and even older Minolta
Autocord TLR). The colors turned out quite muddy because I live on the
coast with lots of fog. The "cheaper" Superia gave me much better
colors to work with under the same conditions.

On the other hand, Reala or Kodak Portra in studio conditions with
controlled lighting is hard to beat.

I don't shoot slides because it all goes in the scanner. My slide
projector is about 60 years old and belonged to my wife's grampa. It
does suck down about 400 watts and is quite bright, but the lens is only
middlin and I am far too cheap to buy a newer one.

Back to original question---why buy a 20D? You can find a 10D body for
much less, around $600, that will fit all your EOS lenses and give you
more manual options than you are likely to take advantage of. If you
can shoot happily with an A1 I think you would find the 10D to be a
starship by comarison.

Best of luck!

By accident I discovered if I exposed color negative films at plus one stop
or more I got better scans from the Kodak Pro CD scans. AND in the case of
the accidental discovery it was well over the one stop, something like
three. The reason it was an accidental discovery was that I had bracketed
the color negs, on, one over, two over and then three over (reasoning the
shadows would be better, especially with Photoshop layers). Did not have to
go the layer route when I used the three stop over. Go figure.
Yours,
Tom
"UnTruth" <UnTruth@YourMammasBox.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c5031bb9f1827ee98969c@news.giganews.com...
> Digital has arrived and I have dabbled at 5.1 megapixels. I like
> digital and can make nice prints up to 8x10 that look great. The next
> obvious step is a SLR Digital. I grew up with Canon and have a nice
> collection of EOS stuff. The problem is the $1600 for the EOS 20D. So
> what do I do? I turn my back and march firmly into the past. I went on
> EBay and purchased my first camera again, a Canon A1 for $100. The last
> time I had one of these and was what I considered an advanced amateur I
> shot Kodachrome exclusively. Now , in the 21st century, I will scan all
> new negatives into Photoshop.
> My question is, Do I now shoot negatives or slides? The reason I
> shot slides in the past is that I had a lot of control over the image
> and did not have to worry about how the printer would change my intent.
> Since these are now going into Photoshop is their any advantage to
> slides? Will I still be able to get that Kodachrome saturated look with
> negatives? The advantage to negatives would be the faster speed and
> longer tonal range. I really like the print results I get from Fuji
> Reala 100. What is the megapixel equivalent of Fuji 100. how about
> 400?
>
> thanks
> --
> //Where are we going and why are we in this handbasket?

Of what I have been seeing lately, if you do not develop your own film or
slides, you are going to be out of luck with whatever type of "film" you
use. Everything is going over to digital pretty fast and there will be less
and less real film sold along with the service to develop it. I have a
friend who likes to shoot the Fuji slide film and of recently is having a
hard time finding anyone local to develop the film for him. And he does not
want to send the slides away in the mail to have developed.

Good Luck,

Dan

"UnTruth" <UnTruth@YourMammasBox.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c5031bb9f1827ee98969c@news.giganews.com...
> Digital has arrived and I have dabbled at 5.1 megapixels. I like
> digital and can make nice prints up to 8x10 that look great. The next
> obvious step is a SLR Digital. I grew up with Canon and have a nice
> collection of EOS stuff. The problem is the $1600 for the EOS 20D. So
> what do I do? I turn my back and march firmly into the past. I went on
> EBay and purchased my first camera again, a Canon A1 for $100. The last
> time I had one of these and was what I considered an advanced amateur I
> shot Kodachrome exclusively. Now , in the 21st century, I will scan all
> new negatives into Photoshop.
> My question is, Do I now shoot negatives or slides? The reason I
> shot slides in the past is that I had a lot of control over the image
> and did not have to worry about how the printer would change my intent.
> Since these are now going into Photoshop is their any advantage to
> slides? Will I still be able to get that Kodachrome saturated look with
> negatives? The advantage to negatives would be the faster speed and
> longer tonal range. I really like the print results I get from Fuji
> Reala 100. What is the megapixel equivalent of Fuji 100. how about
> 400?
>
> thanks
> --
> //Where are we going and why are we in this handbasket?