I love it when someone talks sense. I would like to confirm everything
Julian has said through experience.
This leads me on to say what my favourite film WOULD be:
1. Colour reversal - Ease to 'see' and file
2. Density of the actual film material - same as slide but a stop less
in the shadows (should eliminate most scanning probs)
3. Dynamical range film is able to capture - some where between slide
and neg. I find that I don't every really utilise the full range
available on neg film but need more than slide can give me. You would
not need to 'expand' the histogram so much ending up with a less grainy
image compared to neg film.
The above film would look low contrast but a slide isn't the end product
unless you project it. I assume most people on this list want to scan
their slides!
I don't think a film like this will ever be developed because high
quality digital SLRS will come down to sensible prices over the next 2/3
years and our scanners will start to collect dust.
Over the last few years the likes of us lot have been stuck bang in the
middle of the analogue - dig revolution. In 5 years time I think we will
look back and smugly smile that all the problems of dust/scratchs/slides
not flat in mounts/grain aliasing etc.... are all a thing of the past.
Anthony O'Halloran.
Julian Robinson wrote:
>
> >Is this a common problem, i.e., losing the shadows, when scanning slides? I
> >have been planning on going exactly this route - shoot slides and scan when
> >I want prints.
> >
> >-- al
>
> Yes it is a common problem with consumer scanners, even the moderately good
> ones. The basic question is an old one, and the reason is pretty much
> physics, or at least, the nature of film manufacture.
>
> 1) A slide will record about 7 stops of brightness range in a real scene,
> and EXPAND it to about 10 stops of brightness range on the film. I am
> using Ektachrome 100VS for this example, you can see this yourself if you
> look at the graphs at
>
>
>
>
> The input range in D units is around 2.0, and the output is about 3.1 - or
> up to 3.5 if you want to get all the shadow detail even where the colours
> are not accurate. (D of 2.0 = around 7 stops; D of 3.0 = around 10 stops; D
> of 3.5 = around 12 stops). Now a range of 3.5 is above the actual limit of
> most consumer scanners, despite what the manufacturer promises, so the
> simple and unappealing fact is that you will have to lose something when
> you scan a full-range slide. It is usually the shadows that get lost but
> you could choose to set it up so you lose the highlights instead.
>
> 2) Negs on the other hand will record over 12 stops (D=3.7) of a real scene
> and COMPRESS it to about 7 stops (D=2.0) on film. My example is Supra -
> see ...
>
>
>
>
> The film itself has a range of D = 2.0, obviously this is much easier for
> the scanner to cope with and most consumer scanners will scan this range OK.
>
> My observation is that my LS2000 will scan around D=2.5 range. This means
> it definitely misses some of the shadows or highlights on slides. But it
> gets all of a neg, no problem.
>
> So to reiterate:
>
> On a slide you are struggling to capture a film range corresponding to a
> scene range of around 7 stops. Using a neg though, you can comfortably
> capture the whole film range which contains an original scene range around
> 12 stops.
>
> And to put it another way:
>
> WIth slides you are losing the shadows when they get more than 5 or 6 or 7
> stops darker than your highlights.
>
> With negs you still have shadow detail even when they are 12 stops darker
> than your highlights.
>
> The price you pay for the fabulous range you get with negs is:
>
> a) because the brightnesses have been compressed on to the neg film, when
> you scan and "reconstitute" the image to look like the original scene, you
> will have to "re-expand" the image. Doing this will also expand the
> visibility of grain / dye clouds / noise / film imperfections / scratches
> etc so the result is a grainier, less smooth image.
>
> b) same reason, you lose some of the subtlety and nice tonal graduation you
> can get with a slide.
>
> c) same reason, you will have to manipulate the image heavily if you want
> to use ALL that range, because if you printed it straight it would look
> very flat and low contrast. This is because you simply cannot reproduce 12
> stops of brightness on a screen or a piece of paper.
>
> So my conclusion after considering all this has been to use negs for most
> of my general photos, which are usually non-ideal landscapes etc. This way
> I at least capture everything, and I can successfully get it from the neg
> into the computer, and then make a reasonable image from it even if it is
> sometimes hard work. I don't like the noise in the skies and the other
> grainy effects, but that's how it goes.
>
> If I am photographing in controlled flat lighting, such as studio-like
> setting, or landscape at the right time of day, then I prefer to use
> slides, because the final image has that fine smooth tonal graduation that
> you just can't get with a 35mm neg, and there is less "grain" to worry about.
>
snip
> Julian
>
> ...and I didn't venture into the Tomb of the Forbidden Topic even once!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
