I'm saving to replace my chemical darkroom with a digital one, using a desktop film scanner like the Nikon LS2000 & inkjet printer.

In the meantime, should I be shooting slides or negatives? At a given film speed, does one generally scan better than the other (colours, tonal range etc.)? I'm a die-hard slide film user, for image "zing", but I'd like to take advantage of the price and ease of use of print films if they scan equally well.

Thanks in advance for information & opinions, Dean

-- Dean Holland (holland_dean@hotmail.com), July 23, 2000

Answers

I don't know what the technical aspects are between the two but in my experience chromes (slides) are juicier and very true to the tonal range of the original, provided a good scanner with tight pix is used. I do all my 4x5's on Fujichrome Pro 50, it is much more expensive that Kodak Vericolor neg film but worth it for the 12x18 display prints I make. I scan with an Epson Pro 1600 and print on an Epson Photo 1200. The LS2000 will do just fine for both but don't scrimp on a printer.

For weddings I use a 6x7 with neg film and scan for proofs. Results are fine but not great. My clients like the proofs well enough to order and I have had no complaints yet.

Because neg film goes through a digital reversal process, it seems to lose anywhere between 1/3 and a full stop in saturation.

For travel and model work I use 35mm chromes (Fuji Velvia Pro 50 or Kodak Elite-II 100) and get great results.

With neg film, faster is more grain, just like a standard print. Because of the dye process, Kodachrome is literally grainless but the processing can only be done by a Kodak lab. The best compromise is a medium speed E-6 based chrome like Fuji or Kodak Elite in the 50 to 100 ISO range plus you have the ability to project them.

For prints up to 8x10 from a 35mm, there is little difference between a neg and chrome. Negs are cheaper and reproduce well. Chromes offer more saturation and need less color tweaking in PhotoShop.

I'd be interested to hear from others who are more versed in photo science on the technical aspects.

-- Gene (RNOGENO@softcom.net), July 24, 2000.

If you want nice transparent shadow detail, use negative film. I can't agree that the saturation is lower with negs. I find that negatives are capable of excellent saturation, straight off the scanner. And in any case saturation and contrast isn't an issue, because any decent image editor can boost contrast and saturation as much as you like. What it can't easily do is put back the subtle shades that certain "in-your-face" slide films don't capture in the first place.
Speed for speed, the results from slide and negative film aren't that much different. I think what confuses people is that 100 ISO is considered fast for transparency film, but that's the slowest speed obtainable in negative film. (Whatever happened to 25 ISO Ektar?)
If you stick to 100 ISO speed neg film, and get it processed professionally, you'll get excellent scans from negatives. Sometimes you need subtle, accurate colour, with a wide subject brightness range, and that's where negative wins.

-- Pete Andrews (p.l.andrews@bham.ac.uk), July 24, 2000.

I personally find that slides are better, both in terms of noise control in shadows, and colour accuracy.

However i think it depends on a host of other factors such as subject, type of scanner (i too use an LS2000), how you maniplate the image, and what you want from the images.

After getting my scanner i noticed a big variation in scan quality from different film types and brands.

I have ultimately settled on Fuji Velvia (for tripod work) Fuji Astia (for when i want more nuetral colours) and Fuji MS100/1000 (for the flexibility). All these films suit the subjects that i take (mainly landscapes, architecture and nature macro-photography.

As far as negative stock goes, i tend to use slower Fuji Superia and Reala.

I'm currently trying a range of films which the aim of putting a review on my web-site (currently under construction) specifically with regard to suitability for scanning. It should be up within a few weeks.

All the best

Martin

-- Martin Ellis (inca@globalnet.co.uk), July 24, 2000.

One other factor that i forgot to mention is whether you want to submit any photos for publishing. This single factor is probably responsible for my bias towards Slide film.

In my experience publishing houses prefer to do their own scanning, almost always from positive transparency only. Only occasionally will they accept negative film.

Just a thought.

Martin

-- Martin Ellis (inca@globalnet.co.uk), July 24, 2000.

Slide films are intuitively easy to scan. It is easier to match the colour of the scan to the slide since you have a reference. Place a piece of fogged negative film on a light table next to an unexposed piece of slide film. You can see through the negative film but not through the slide film. Slide film has a greater dynamic range ( the D Max of Velvia is ~4) whereas negative film has a lower dynamic range closer to 3. The reason that a negative scan often looks flat is that the scanning software expands the tonal range of the scan. What does this give you? Shadows that are dark in a conventional print are much lighter and show much more detail in the scan. Highlights are the problem with negative film because that is where the density is. However because the negative film is less dense than a slide you should be able to get much of the detail out of a negative as long as your scanner has a d max greater than 3.0. One advantage of negative film is the exposure latitude. This will allow you to get both highlight and shadow detail on a single image. You will be able to get this out of a scan but not on a conventional print. Use slide film for the ease of correction, but use negative film for detail. If you use the same type of negative film, and work with if for a while you should be able to get away with just getting the film developed and not printed, This will result in a major cost saving as well.

-- Jonathan Ratzlaff (jonathanr@clrtech.com), July 24, 2000.

I recently did some careful tests of slide film vs. negative film using films of similar ISO ratings and taking photos of the same subjects. Slide films definitely scan with texture in clear blue skies.

Slide films tend to be contrastier, so for high contrast subjects color negative film may produce an effect you find more pleasing. For low contrast scenes, slide film may work better. You can get very good results with either one.

I particularly recommend the new Provia 100F for scanning. For a detailed comparison of Provia 100F and Velvia for digital work, see:

http://www.dl-c.com

Jonathan Sachs Digital Light & Color

-- Jonathan Sachs (jsachs@dl-c.com), July 30, 2000.

Sorry -- previous post should read that slide films scan with LESS texture in clear blue skies than color negative films, indicating less noise and/or apparent grain.

JMS

-- Jonathan Sachs (jsachs@dl-c.com), July 30, 2000.