Dirk and Carla Wright wrote:
>
> >Negative film (color OR B&W): about 7 ev of latitude.
> >Transparency film (color OR B&W): about 5 ev of latitude.
> >
>
> OK, so why do photog's rave about slide film if it has less latitude than
> print film? Is it less grain in the slide film? Color saturation?
There are a lot of reasons pros use slide film. The biggest, I think,
is that the publishing industry is set up to handle slides. Why? I'm
guessing that a direct positive is much easier for a publisher to work
with than a negative. Also, slides are much easier to show to a group of
editors, graphics folks, etc. (I know lots of you know more about this
than me, and I for one would love to learn.)
But also, grain for grain, slide films are just better. They're
sharper, they've got more color punch, they're contrastier, you can
print 'em on Cibachrome! :>) Try the same scene sometime with Velvia
and Fujicolor whatever. Then compare big prints. You'll pay more for
the one from the Velvia, but it'll be the one you put on the wall.
Course, few wedding photographers are going to go the Velvia/Cibachrome
route. For the opposite reason: it'd be too contrasty, too sharp - even
for a young bride's skin. (Especially thru a Zuiko:>)
> Also, I
> think paper can only hold maybe 5 ev? Does color paper hold more range than
> B+W?
No. What's great about printing on B&W paper is you have 5 'grades' of
contrast latitude available to you. As for color, I can speak best for
Cibachrome. Ilford says that Cibachromes' well-known reputation for
being a high contrast material is actually due to **slides** being such
high contrast originals. (Sounds a bit like marketing chicken 'n egg to
me) But the simple fact is, Ciba paper holds less dynamic range than a
full-range slide. Most slides will need to be masked to bring the
contrast range down to a level the paper can handle.
> (I think B+W holds more, but that's just a gut hunch) So then does it
> not matter much that slide film only records 5ev if you can only print 5ev
> anyway?
Not sure here. Suffice to say, you gotta choose your compositions and
exposures more carefully with slide film than with neg film. And then,
you gotta reduce the range further to get a print. You get so you can
sorta 'previsualize' what you'll have to do to an image in the darkroom
to get a good print. Unfortunately, there is very little short of
filters you can do at the exposure time to help, unlike with B&W where
you could contract the ev range of the neg by develop/exp combos. I've
read (in Photo techniques, I think) that getting a slightly overexposed
slide and pulling it in development will produce an easier-to-print
transparency. I've yet to try this.
In the field, soft light is my friend many times. I love to photograph
on a misty day. Or breaking fog. Ooooh. Love it. Still, the ev range on
the film can be too much. Even something like this photo:
http://www.whitneygallery.com/html/leaves_and_moss.html , which is just
leaves of various colors in diffuse light, requires serious masking
techniques to get the details right on Ciba. It doesn't look like
there's a lot of range, but the brighter leaves will burn out without a
mask when the darker ones look good. It's an easy print once the mask's
done, though.
Conversely, in this one:
http://www.whitneygallery.com/html/twisted_cottonwood.html
there is a far greater dynamic range. The cliff is in shadow and the
tree and grass are in morning sunlight. In fact, the smaller branches
on the tree are pretty burnt out - on the slide. But it doesn't matter
because individually, they are not significant holders of detail. But as
a group, they provide a big punch to the photo and I think the viewer
accepts the fact that they're brightly lit and should be bright. The
mask for this one is heavy, and I still do lots of dodging and burning
to get it the way I like it.
>
> I gotta read my Adams books again (I think I only have two of them though).
Good idea. It's time I read thru the Print and the Negative again too so
I can begin to learn black and white.
Have fun.
George
>
> BTW, someone told me that some digital cameras can record 12ev (!). Is this
> true? Or is this a theoretical limit?
>
> Boy, I've got a lot to learn (and re-learn....).
>
> Be seeing you.
>
> Dirk Wright
>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|