GMA wrote:
>
> 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.)
Way back, negative color films were bad as compared to slides. However,
today the opposite is true. So far I cannot reccomend any ISO400 slide
film, while almost all ISO400 neg films are excellent (even Fuji
ISO800..).
>
> But also, grain for grain, slide films are just better. They're
See above. Sadly, but I use ISO100 (or less) slide films for past 20
years but happily accept ISO400 negative films for all but the most
critical work. Slide ISO400 films are simply horrible - not only the
grain is enormous but those films are GREEN! Great for artificial light
but not for the skin.
I've heard of new Fuji ISO200 slide film that rivals ISO100 for quality.
Even than, this is only 200..
--
Regards,
Emil Pozar
epozar@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.geocities.com/photoemil
< 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 >
|