I have used Reala, NPS 160, NPH 400/800, and illford XP2 for years and years (for weddings and portraits).

I am surpirsed by what I've read on this forum about slide film. I always thought if you wanted the best shadows, tonal range, and color - shoot chrome. What about ProviaF? Agfa Scala? And of course Velvia? Are even publishers moving to print film because it handles digital better. I guess I'm loosing touch.

-- Brooke Anderson (dnaders@videotron.ca), January 29, 2002

Answers

Before knowledgeable friends answer the above question, I would ask one more question: If the final output is colour print, can a slide produce better or worse quality colour print than from from a colour negative - provided top quality equipment is used. Thanks

-- tom tong (tom.tong@ckh.com.hk), January 29, 2002.

I still think if you are going to have enlargements made, color negs are the way to go. Slides tend to print up with too much contrast compared to color negative film. You can spend a small fortune and have slides printed digitally (Lightjet, others), and the results can be very impressive if you have a well exposed slide. Medium format slides print especially well this way. Last time I did magazine work a couple of years ago, they still wanted slides and made very high resolution drum scans of them.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), January 29, 2002.

Brooke:

As a general rule, transparency film has higher contrast and a more limited latitiude than negative film. I think most fine art photographers use(d) transparency film for the simple reason that you can take the slide to the custom lab and tell them to "print it just like it looks". With slides, you essentially have a "final cut" proof in your hands to show the lab before the print is ever made, and thus a certain level of consistency in the output. With negative emulsions, and the broader latitude for color correction available during the printing stage, there is a lot of leeway in how the final print can turn out, and hence a lot of inconsistency in the output. We've all seen the green-blacks, the warm-blacks, the cool-blacks and the neutral-blacks in a set of prints fresh from the lab. If you get any of those with a slide, you either chose the wrong film, did not filter it properly, or used a really poor lab. Secondly, as a pro you shoot a bunch of film -- perhaps hundreds of rolls -- on one assignment, and the additional cost assosciated with getting prints to proof as opposed to slides can be significant.

But, new advances in negative emulsions are changing that. I used to shoot only Velvia or Provia. Period. I bought it 100 or 200 rolls at a time to insure batch consitency. But now with some of the excellent negative emulsions like Portra coming along, I find myself shooting more of a a 50/50 mix. I still like Velvia, Provia F and E100S, and I shoot them regularly in my 4x5 due to the lower cost to get to a final proof. But I also like the added flexibility of negative films like Portra, and find myself shooting it a lot more frequently in 35mm.

:),

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), January 29, 2002.

Color neg film today is great but it still lags ever so slightly behind chrome in absolute sharpness. That said, once you print a slide you've got to do headstands to keep the contrast in check, and if the detail wasn't there to begin with, you can't put it back (well, I'm not a Photoshop expert, maybe you *can*). My rule of thumb is this: If my end-use is display prints, I shoot negs. If my end use is projection, but I might want to make a display print from certain shots, I shoot chrome. If my end-use is publication, I shoot whatever the publication wants. If they want a digital file, I'm in luck because then I can shoot chrome, neg or digital. If I use the Hasselblad, I can shoot the same image on any number of different films including digital...although I haven't mortgaged the farm yet for a m-f digital back.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), January 29, 2002.

I would agree that the choice of film, if you are shooting film, should be made based on the target output. If the objective is printed enlargements (portraiture and such), negative film is still the most economical and practical solution (in my opinion). Conversely, chromes are still generally preferred for color fidelity, and most magazines still prefer chromes for ease of viewing and for drum scanning. Some magazines, however, are starting to accept color negatives and digital captures.

High quality digital printing is starting to change the equation of getting good quality prints from chromes, however. Cibachrome - er, I mean Ilfochrome prints are expensive and add (usually unwanted) contrast. Digital prints from scanned chromes can avoid that, and preserve the color fidelity. Once printed, however, some of the tonal range of a transparency is lost, or compressed, irrespective of the printing method.

I would also submit that the exposure latitude usually attributed to color negative film is a deceptive fiction. Certainly, an "acceptable" print can be made from a marginally exposed color negative, but not a dead-on print. If one wants the color negative to accurately represent the subject, negative films must be exposed as carefully as chromes. And, if you are working with a pro color lab to print your color negs, you can train them not to make unwanted adjustments with filtration beyond the base filtration required by the batch of paper.

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), January 30, 2002.

For raw image quality, 50 ISO slide film still beats anything else. At 100 ISO slides and prints are neck and neck for grain, but the slides usually still have a tiny 'edge' in edge sharpness. At ISO 200 and above, despite the advances in slide films (Kodak E200, Fuji Provia 400 F) the neg films run 'way ahead. I've gotten prints from 800/1000-speed pro films that are sharper/richer/less grainy than even Provia 400.

I'm about to experiment with Royal Gold 100, Supra 100, and Reala to see which 100-speed neg film comes closest to my beloved Velvia. (Suggestions welcome for other candidates to try).

Negs have more latitude (not necessarily a lot), both for overall exposure error, and for extremes of contrast within a scene. They also generally handle mixed lighting somewhat better.

So far I've never seen a print film that gets the details that Velvia does, though.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), January 30, 2002.

I'm really impressed with the Agfa Optima II prestige 100 speed film. Try it out for landscapes and to show off that 35 Aspherical. B&H has it--tough to find at the mall stores. Super sharpness and great color, maybe slighlty saturated, superfine grain. The same film in 400 is very nice as well, and it is available in roll film. Nice someone is making a higher speed color neg in roll film that isn't a low contrast film.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), January 30, 2002.

The bad thing about print film is always that you have only your memory of what the scene looked like to provide guidance to the way you want the final print to look. Try telling this to your printer. To some extent the same applies if you are digitally printing it yourself too, definitely the same if you want to get a drum scan and then print of your image. With slides it is unambiguous "match what you see". After a brief flirtation with print film for my Hasselblad, I returned to slide for this reason. But, if you have a dedicated portrait session, then prints are much easier to take as the film is less finicky about exposure and if you use a film like Portra/NPH/NHG etc. then you will get lovely results, especially from a pro lab as this is usually what they are set up to do. But for landscapes and other scenic type photography I just don't think it is worth it. If you plan to do all your own printing then negative film is great. In terms of quality if you pick your films carefully then both slide and neg film can produce equally good prints and there is no doubt that negative film captures more information than slide film in the sense that it can handle contrast levels better - not that you will necessarily be able to successfully transfer them to print, but they will still be there.

Publisher's don't prefer negative for the very reason I said above, you need to reverse the image before you can analyze it and even then you are not necessarily confident that this is what the author intends. Once again an exception is in fashion photography where the skin tone is the preminent issue. Neg film is used a lot here.

Fast (400+) neg films do tend to be much better than faster slide films in terms of grain and possibly sharpness. Mind you I have been impressed with Provia 400F.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), January 30, 2002.

Andy:

You asked: >I'm about to experiment with Royal Gold 100, Supra 100, and Reala to see which 100-speed neg film comes closest to my beloved Velvia. (Suggestions welcome for other candidates to try).<

Andrew answered: >I'm really impressed with the Agfa Optima II prestige 100 speed film.<

I was going to suggest the same... A few years back I was given a few rolls of an ISO 50 version of this film to try out, and thought that it very closely matched Velvia in color saturation, contrast and color balance. As I recall it was about as grainy as traditional 100 speed emulsions, and had a very narrow exposure latitude. I'm not sure if this was part of a test-batch of film I was given to evaluate, or if it was a film that actually went into production -- I don't regularly use any AGFA products, so I don't tend to follow them much. I have not seen the 50 for quite awhile, so I assume it is not available, but the 100 might be worth a try...

:-),

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), January 30, 2002.

I like slides for the reason I think they look better. If I want a print I have one made from the slide. I find I keep more of the highlights this way. With prints from negative film, I never know what I am going to get, but I generally seem to lose the highlights. No matter how blue that sky was, it comes back white on the neg/print, no matter how much bracketing I do.

-- Bob Haight (rhaigh5748@aol.com), January 30, 2002.

The ISO 50 Agfa film that was (IMO errantly)called "the Velvia of color neg" was caled "Ultra". It had almost the same saturation as Velvia, however it was not anywhere near as sharp. AFAIK it has been discontinued, I think I've got one roll in the freezer. The sharpest color neg film was Ektar 25 (later Royal Gold 25)--also discontinued some time ago. Today IMO there is no C-41 film with the sharpness of K25 or Velvia, and the situation will only get worse. As digital takes over the commercial pro market, we can expect the slower, sharper films to disappear first. A real pity if it happens too quickly, as digital is nowhere near intersecting even 35mm film in terms of absolute resolution.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), January 30, 2002.

My experience with negs and slides in the digital arena is the direct opposite of what Brooke suggests.

Back when I was getting chemical prints done at a photofinisher I used nothing but neg film. Now that I have a reasonable digital darkroom setup, I shoot nothing but chromes. For me slide film has it all in this environment - it's easier to edit and store, you can project it, you can print it easily, you have a proof available for colour matching, the print quality (using an Epson 870 and Tetenal paper) is better than I was getting from chemical prints from negs, and in Photoshop you can turn slides into pretty terrific b&w by using the channel mixer.

I used a lot of Supra 400 before I switched, and when I tried to scan my negs on either of my 4000 dpi scanners I was terribly disappointed. The grain aliasing left me with very grainy images, and all my available light work had red and green flecks in the shadows. In comparison, Provia 400F scans with absolutely no problems - no grain issues, and sharp as I need. This would be less of a problem if I shot lower-speed films, but I'mm an ISO 400 bigot :- )

I just scanned some old Tri-X/D76 negs done back in my full-time days. They just couldn't match Photoshopped 400F for image quality - especially the grain.

Since I am doing only digital printing, for me there is simply no reason to shoot anything but chromes.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul@chefurka.com), January 30, 2002.

The Agfa film "Ultra" is a lousy film.The colors are 'poster like' and if you rate the film slower for denser negs,the colors bleed and seem to melt.I used it on an assignment...hoping for ultra sharpness. I used a 400 Fuji(non-pro)film in the other M-body.Tripod for the Ultra.The other body hand held!A photo was chosen for large blow-up.The photo,full length portrait of 12yrs old girl, was blown up to 6'x3'.The ultra was hopelessly unsharp and GRAINY.The Fuji was fine grained,one could read the time on the kids digital watch.I note that most of you in this posting,use professional films. I no longer do.I find the colors muted and soft.Clients in the wedding scene complained that the snaps taken by their relatives were brighter and more colorful....Sure no strong contrasts but definitely dull! I listened.I use standard film,available everywhere.I seldom use wide angles either due to complaints by civilians about 'distortions'.

-- jason gold (leeu72@hotmail.com), January 30, 2002.

I think most fine art photographers use(d) transparency film for the simple reason that you can take the slide to the custom lab and tell them to "print it just like it looks".

Most of the fine art photographers I know who do color use negative film. Go look at Misrach's work, for example.

The bad thing about print film is always that you have only your memory of what the scene looked like to provide guidance to the way you want the final print to look.

Every slide film has its own color balance, different from the original scene. That's one reason why there is a wide variety, people want different looks to their results. Nothing looks like the original scene.

Also, I want my prints to look how I want them to look. The original scene is irrelevant, at least to me, but I know many "fine art" photographers who feel the same way. It's like black and white, you want absolute control over the printing process if you are going to exhibit.

The Agfa film "Ultra" is a lousy film

This and the rest of the diatribe that followed is ridiculous. Many of us use(d) Ultra 50, it prints beautifully for certain types of photographs. I'm still using it and will for at least another 92 rolls. It's not a general purpose film, and it sure isn't a "lousy" film.

Merida Chair and Bed, Agfa Ultra 50, Copyright 1999 Jeff Spirer

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), January 30, 2002.

Most of the fine art photographers I know who do color use negative film. Go look at Misrach's work, for example.

Sure. If they have the time and the money and the lab doesn't get sick of their demands.

Every slide film has its own color balance, different from the original scene. That's one reason why there is a wide variety, people want different looks to their results. Nothing looks like the original scene.

Sure yes we all know this, but nevertheless most of the time I want something like what I saw. If I don't then I can say - see this slide I want it darker/lighter/redder etc. etc. just as with negative (except that with a negative you have to have already proofed it).

It is simply an easier workflow - you can do it with negative film, but it is more work and takes longer to explain or do yourself.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), January 30, 2002.

Beleive it or not, Konica still makes Impressa 50, which IMHO is the sharpest and finest grain neg film. At least I bought some from 8 Elm Photo store in Toronto a few weeks ago. Enlargements up to 10 x 15 on teh FUJI Frontier machine are exquisite!

Cheers

-- RICHARD ILOMAKI (richardjx@hotmail.com), February 02, 2002.