I must be missing something really basic, so maybe someone can explain this to me...
Why is it that 35mm slide film like Fuji's Velvia (Kodachrome is another issue) looks so color accurate, and is used by professional still photographers rather than negative film and in the movie world, negative film seems to give such a better color and latitude?
I understand that negative film will always have more latitude due to its nature, but Velvia slides I've shot seem to have a full range in brights and darks...
And negative Super 8 film I've transfered with Rank systems always seems to have more realistic colors vs. reversal... am I confusing the extra 3 stops of latitude in negative as better color? I do realize that the colorist affects the accuracy in a transfer, but I've had both reversal (Velvia and Kodachrome) and negative in Super 8 transfered on the same systems.
35mm Slide Reversal vs. Super 8 Reversal
Moderator: Andreas Wideroe
It would be in either the camera or the colorist in charge of the transfer, but not in the film.
By law, if Kodak decides to put, say, Ektachrome 100D (which is E100VS in 35mm) in Super-8, they have to use the exact same formulation that they use for the 35mm version, and if any tweaks to it are made to get it to look better in Super-8, they have to be disclosed.
Kodak tried to sabotage the "private-label" film market a few years back with their own filmstock called "ColorBurst," that was revealed to be about two generations removed from the then-current Kodak Gold line, and provided really bad color. Needless to say, they were found out and promptly chastized. For that very reason, I don't buy Kodak in 35mm with the exception of E100VS, and that's only so that I'll have an idea how E100D would handle things like over- and underexposure.
But, to repeat, it's not in the filmstock itself, since it should be exactly the same emulsion as what's in the 35mm versions.
By law, if Kodak decides to put, say, Ektachrome 100D (which is E100VS in 35mm) in Super-8, they have to use the exact same formulation that they use for the 35mm version, and if any tweaks to it are made to get it to look better in Super-8, they have to be disclosed.
Kodak tried to sabotage the "private-label" film market a few years back with their own filmstock called "ColorBurst," that was revealed to be about two generations removed from the then-current Kodak Gold line, and provided really bad color. Needless to say, they were found out and promptly chastized. For that very reason, I don't buy Kodak in 35mm with the exception of E100VS, and that's only so that I'll have an idea how E100D would handle things like over- and underexposure.
But, to repeat, it's not in the filmstock itself, since it should be exactly the same emulsion as what's in the 35mm versions.
I always loved negative film's quality of "exposure forgiveness", AKA Latitude, compared to that finicky bitch slide film, who always made you bracket exposures of important and contrasty stuff... Hard to bracket super 8 reversal, but with negative cine stock exposure forgiveness, the media's muse comes knocking seductively at your door.
Back in the days, pros (I was one of them) shooting for color magazines, posters, books, menus, brochures, catalogues, advertising, etc.., we shot with transparency film because it was preferred by the reprographics or pre-press departments who converted our photos into page layout negatives or plates given to the union members who ran printing presses.
They could get better results from from trannies than from negatives or prints. The printing presses actually only use four colours (CMYK) of ink, and produce screened negatives for the Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, and Black (K). These screens and the printed output resolution is like 300 or 600 dot per inch. The prepress and printers I knew always carried around a loupe or super strong tiny magnifying glass to check out this level of detail.
Newspapers photographers used black and white or color negs because the in camera exposure lattitude, processing adjustments, and speed had priority because the image qualities output on newsprint's 80 dots per inch was wasted on this low resolution newsprint media. Video and TV's are also about 75 dpi the same as newspapers, although it looks nicer because it's backlit as opposed to prints being reflected light media. Photographic slides look alot better projected or backlit compared to prints from negs.
Portrait, social, public relations, modeling portfolios, weddings, schools, sports, photographers also used negative films because their primary output was the photographic print first, and they had no relationship with magazine production, er.. prepress departments.
Gianni 8)
Back in the days, pros (I was one of them) shooting for color magazines, posters, books, menus, brochures, catalogues, advertising, etc.., we shot with transparency film because it was preferred by the reprographics or pre-press departments who converted our photos into page layout negatives or plates given to the union members who ran printing presses.
They could get better results from from trannies than from negatives or prints. The printing presses actually only use four colours (CMYK) of ink, and produce screened negatives for the Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, and Black (K). These screens and the printed output resolution is like 300 or 600 dot per inch. The prepress and printers I knew always carried around a loupe or super strong tiny magnifying glass to check out this level of detail.
Newspapers photographers used black and white or color negs because the in camera exposure lattitude, processing adjustments, and speed had priority because the image qualities output on newsprint's 80 dots per inch was wasted on this low resolution newsprint media. Video and TV's are also about 75 dpi the same as newspapers, although it looks nicer because it's backlit as opposed to prints being reflected light media. Photographic slides look alot better projected or backlit compared to prints from negs.
Portrait, social, public relations, modeling portfolios, weddings, schools, sports, photographers also used negative films because their primary output was the photographic print first, and they had no relationship with magazine production, er.. prepress departments.
Gianni 8)
Last edited by gianni1 on Tue Sep 12, 2006 12:43 am, edited 3 times in total.
:mrgreen: ](*,) :-Xsimple: the transparencies leave no room for interpretation about hw thr image should look like, while a color neg has not such simple 1:1 mapping of colors - lot is open to "interpretation". For publishing business, a light table with transparencies allows fast and simple judgement about the pics, while negs would need tweaking until they look "right" (and printing in the first place).
Other than that there is no advantage to slides, unless the idea is to project them, of course. However the slide/pro neg/amateur equation has become independent from the original reasons, and most folks who shoot slides do so because they heard "the pros do it" and in order to climb up the photography self-esteem ladder, they also shoot slides, worrying about burning out highlights etc.
Pros use DSLR now, a good reason for everybody to own one, or at least a p&s that remotely resembles a DSLR..
Other than that there is no advantage to slides, unless the idea is to project them, of course. However the slide/pro neg/amateur equation has become independent from the original reasons, and most folks who shoot slides do so because they heard "the pros do it" and in order to climb up the photography self-esteem ladder, they also shoot slides, worrying about burning out highlights etc.
Pros use DSLR now, a good reason for everybody to own one, or at least a p&s that remotely resembles a DSLR..
have fun!
-
MovieStuff
- Posts: 6135
- Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:07 am
- Real name: Roger Evans
- Location: Kerrville, Texas
- Contact:
I can second the reasoning given here: Slides were used in the past by professional magazine photographers because making color seperations from transparencies was easier than making them from neg, which first required a print. A lot of wannabe photogs point out how National Geographic always demanded Kodachrome transparencies as if that were some sort of litmus test for what consitutued a "professional" photographic medium. But the truth is that National Geographic simply needed high quality reversal images to accomodate the color seperation process and, as good as they looked in the magazine, they looked nothing like the quality of the original Kodachrome slides because Kodachrome was never really meant for replication. Any old school color sep guy will tell you Kodachrome was a bitch to work with. They didn't like it but that was really the only choice.
Now, with digital color scanners, it doesn't really matter what you shoot; negs or slides but most publications are turning to digital originals and bypassing both neg or reversal. Pretty much the same latitude issues as reversal but without the wait time for processing. On some high end publications, they will go ahead and shoot negative for special spreads but the days of reversal for publication are pretty much at an end. Great for projection but for offset printing purposes pretty arcane, compared to neg or digital.
Roger
Now, with digital color scanners, it doesn't really matter what you shoot; negs or slides but most publications are turning to digital originals and bypassing both neg or reversal. Pretty much the same latitude issues as reversal but without the wait time for processing. On some high end publications, they will go ahead and shoot negative for special spreads but the days of reversal for publication are pretty much at an end. Great for projection but for offset printing purposes pretty arcane, compared to neg or digital.
Roger
-
Will2
- Senior member
- Posts: 1983
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:18 am
- Real name: Will Montgomery
- Location: Dallas, TX
- Contact:
Sorry, my comment about "pros" using slides was really not part of my main question... I'm probably not making myself clear by emphasizing color since I know that is all about telecine...
When I have properly exposed a 35mm Velvia slide, the image appears to have as much range, sharpness and quality as a negative low asa film shot in the same conditions. This being the case, why does Super 8 reversal look so poor next to negative stock?
Is it simply that the small format or does it have something to do with the nature of the motion picture process? or is it that proper exposure of reversal film is much more difficult in the constantly changing motion picture frame?
Like I said initially, I must be missing something...
When I have properly exposed a 35mm Velvia slide, the image appears to have as much range, sharpness and quality as a negative low asa film shot in the same conditions. This being the case, why does Super 8 reversal look so poor next to negative stock?
Is it simply that the small format or does it have something to do with the nature of the motion picture process? or is it that proper exposure of reversal film is much more difficult in the constantly changing motion picture frame?
Like I said initially, I must be missing something...
Filming technique? Lighting technique? Reversal has less lattitude, less forgivness. It's sensitive, gotta treat it just right. There isn't one correct objective answer, plus plenty of subjective factors like personal preference, etc.. One stab at an answer could be Negative film's wider dynamic range. It seeming ability to suck light onto the image still beats out most digital cameras which are like slide films in that respect, except for everything else like immediacy and feedback.why does Super 8 reversal look so poor next to negative stock?
I would suggest bracketing the shoot one stop over and under... maybe a bit obsessively one and two stops over and under... shoot the sceene five times! LOL.... :twisted: Then pick the best result.
It may be necessary to paint the subject with extra light. In the lighting thread click here I asked which lighting kit to get . The replies mostly suggest three or more expensive quartz or halogen kits. It helps to use at least use one video light on camera or near the camera position. I've got a couple super 8 lamp holders with two sockets for the brillant and dangerously hot 350 watt incandescent bulbs that are perfect for reversal films, but scare the $*%+ out of me and blind and broil everybody else.
Most if not all the high speed films are negative based, although I personally loved the ugly results from pushing 400 chrome E-6, in the right lighting conditions, to 1600... although nobody else saw what I see in it.
