Wheatfield Willie Writed, and I interspersed my comments:
> You make some interesting points. On some I agree, on some,
> I would like to discuss a bit further, and a couple of places,
> well, I just outright disagree (nothing unusual about that, I
> tend to be disagreeable<G>).
I would expect nothing less <g>.
> With the generalizing part, umm, I do think one can
> generalize, with the knowledge that there will be perhaps a
> fairly large percentage of images that won't fit the
> generalization. The subject could, for example, have a very
> short tonal range, short enough for Velvia or Velvia squisher,
> but still look ugly as an Ilfochrome (most any portrait comes to
> mind). Your example seems quite specific, and well suited to the
> media you have chosen (no surprise, you make smart choices).
Bill, my whole contention is based on one being familiar with
the subject's tonal range and the properties of the film being
used. Your example of Velvia and a portrait make that point,
although, I wonder how Velvia might do if the subject and
lighting were appropriate to the film's response
characteristics.
> However, I do think in general terms, most people will be
> happier with prints made from negatives rather than slides).
There's that generalization again. I think many people are
happier shooting negs because they can get away with more
exposure errors and the lab can fix 'em. I'm not talking
about the photogs who understand exactly what they want, and
which films best suit the subject and final image they're
looking for, but rather the average shooter, or the amateur
who, for whatever reason, needs the cushion provided by
negative film and the lab making the print work.
> Let me point out, however, I have never seen a
> Cibachrome/Ilfochrome I have liked. They always seem somewhat
> garish to me (I do know a couple of very good Ciba printers).
I've been shooting slides and making Ciba/Ilfochromes for many
years, and it has become clear that it's most important to
find a printer who understand what you're looking for as
a final result. Since there are probably fewer great
Ilfochrome printers around than there are "acceptable"
negative printers, and since most of the time most people only
want small prints, negative film might well be the best choice
in many instances. However, again, my point is to seek utmost
quality, and match the film, subject, and result as perfectly
as possible. That's why I eschewed the generalization that one
should always make prints from negative film and that slides
are
only for viewing. Also, it should be noted that there are
three contrast grades of Ilfochrome paper. Put an image on the
wrong one and it'll look like garbage.
> Regarding latitude and the like. As long as the scene's
> tonal range fits within the film's latitude, we can consider the
> exposure to be correct. In a 6 stop scene (most fit within this
> range) you get the potential to be out by one stop with negative
> film.
Maybe we're talking about different things here, but I believe
that relying on the film's latitude does not always give the
correct, or ideal, exposure, or result in the best quality
print. The shadows may be a little denser on the neg, the
highlights a little thinner - but as long as the lab can make
an acceptable print, all is well. I don't accept that
philosophy of photography. A few months back I shot one scene
on a roll of Fuji color neg film (don't recall which it was -
sorry). I metered the scene as accurately as possible, using
a Pentax Spotmeter and the meter in the LX. I then purposely
made exposures from 2 stops under to two stops over what
seemed to be the ideal exposure for the scene. I then had the
lab print 'em to 5x7 on Fuji CA paper. It was clear that the
closer the exposure was to ideal the better quality the
print was, although I'll admit there were "acceptable" images
on either side of the "perfect" exposure. So the question is
how much quality is acceptable? Do you need more accurate
exposures when making larger prints, or when there are certain
colors in the scene, or when certain colors are adjacent to
one another?
> In a six stop scene type, most slide films will be
> improperly exposed, simply because they cannot capture six stops
> of detail.
If the range of the scene cannot be captured on the film being
used, then one must use a different film. I'm not saying that
slide film is ideal under all situations, but when the
situation is such that slide film can capture the image as
intended by the photographer, the results can be better than
when using negative film.
> Admittedly, this argument falls down because RA-4
> photographic paper is the great equalizer, capturing only about
> 5 stops. I think Ilfochrome is even shorter range though, at
> around 3 stops.
As noted above, there are three contrast grades of Ilfochrome
paper, so there is more latitude in printing than one might
initially think. That, coupled with a good printer who is
capable of dodging and burning, or who is familiar with
contrast masking
(http://www.lightroom.com/pages/masking_97.html),
allows for some marvelous prints.
> Now, is a person who is willing to accept a little slop
> accepting less than ideal print quality? Hard to say.
I find it easy to say: Yes. Certainly from my experience.
> Bracketing
> exposure could be defined as deliberately exposing film
> incorrectly, or one could be very uncharitable and say
> bracketing indicates a lack of ability. Personally, I would call
> it insurance, but I digress. If we stay within what the film can
> capture, within it's dynamic range, we are not sacrificing
> quality.
Here again we disagree. If the exposure is not precise, even
though it is within the film's latitude, I contend that there
is sacrifice in quality. Now it may not be much, and it may
not always be obvious, but it's there.
> Gross exposure mistakes will definitely compromise
> quality of print, but gross exposure error is much different
> with negative (2 stops or more) vs. reversal film (less than a
> stop), and much less of a problem to the printer. Please note
> that with negative film, any degree of underexposure is a
> disaster.
Again I must disagree. You seem to be saying that a little
exposure error will not degrade the print. I feel otherwise,
and my own experiment bears this out. However, this is
straying from the original point I was making:
So, it seems to me that, under certain circumstances, one
can
get better quality prints by using transparency film than
by
using negative film. It may not be cheaper, it may not be
easier,
and it may require some attention to detail, but the
results are
worth it.
Note that this is not an unqualified statement. There will
certainly be times when a negative will produce beautiful
results, but it's my contention that there will be times when
a print of a particular scene made from a properly exposed and
printed slide will surpass that of a print made from a
negative.
> The lower amount of latitude you mention is what works
> against the slide photographer. In an extended range scene,
> greater than say 6 stops, slide film is useless.
Sure, but what I'm arguing is that if the film - in this case
slide film - is suited to the range of the scene, then the
print will be just fine. Shoot something outside the range of
color negative film and you'll run into the same problem as
with slide film: the negative can't capture the entire range
of the scene.
> In a short
> range scene, 5 stops or less, slide film would definitely have
> the edge, though one could choose one of the punchier negative
> films (Gold 100) and higher contrast paper, (Edge 8 or Crystal
> Archive) to get to the same place, more or less.
So then, it seems that after all this you do agree with me
<g>.
> I would disagree that you can get a greater range than negative
> film from slide film via any masking process. You can certainly
> get a longer range by masking than by not masking, but you will
> not increase the range past 5 stops (or thereabouts).
I don't believe I said that masking will provide a greater
range than negative film. Masking is a printing process, not
an exposure function, but it allows a greater range to be
printed from a slide than a straight print. That helps
somewhat in making the range of the print closer to what can
be achieved with negative film.
> I suspect what you are seeing as sharper and punchier in the
> Ilfochromes vs prints from negatives is because in the situation
> you are in right now, your scene types match the media very
> well, and shorter range materials tend to appear sharper,
> because of tonal range compression. However, this is just that,
> a specific situation, which perhaps falls outside the
> generalization. You might be less than happy with the results if
> you find yourself photographing a weather vane in a scene type
> with a 7 stop range.
And so, you make my point for me. The media and the scene
much match as well as possible. So, if the scene lends itself
to the range of what the slide film and the printing process
can capture, slides may be the better choice for highest
quality.
> I agree that under certain circumstances an
> Ilfochrome might be more desirable than a C print (other than my
> aforementioned dislike of Ilfochrome as a print media), but I
> still maintain that as a general rule, prints are best made from
> print film.
But the point I was making, and which you agreed, is that if
the subject has a short contrast range, the extra latitude
afforded by negative film
is not needed.
To sum up, I said that if the subject has a short contrast
range, the extra latitude afforded by negative film is not
needed and that under certain circumstances, one can get
better quality prints by using transparency film than by using
negative film.
You said: "In a short range scene, 5 stops or less, slide film
would definitely have the edge ..."
So where do we disagree?
--
Shel Belinkoff
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, visit
http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions.
Don't forget to visit the PUG at http://pug.komkon.org
