Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site astroatc.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!uwvax!astroatc!johnw From: johnw@astroatc.UUCP Newsgroups: net.rec.photo Subject: Slide film vs Color Neg. film Message-ID: <218@astroatc.UUCP> Date: Wed, 30-Oct-85 00:36:32 EST Article-I.D.: astroatc.218 Posted: Wed Oct 30 00:36:32 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 1-Nov-85 01:58:11 EST References: <298@tekig4.UUCP> <349@vaxwaller.UUCP> <5746@tekecs.UUCP> <1750@peora.UUCP> Reply-To: johnw@astroatc.UUCP (John F. Wardale) Organization: Astronautics ATC, Madison, WI Lines: 72 In article <1750@peora.UUCP> jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) writes: >> Reversal color print processes are not as good as negative print >> processes. MY OPINION: Don't bother to flame if you disagree! > >Why would anybody flame you! :-) After all, it's true... > >... Contrary to popular opinion fostered by the >fact that photojournalists and others who intend their photographs to be >reproduced by ink printing use slides (and the biased editorial position >of some popular photography magazines), the color rendition of color negative >films is "truer" than for slide films. It should seem intuitively probable >that a film that is *designed* for making prints would be better-optimized >for making good prints than a film that was designed for making slides >which are occasionally printed. ----WARNING: This was about prints from slides, you statments meet that, but I'd like to generalize....easy on the flames, one of my 2 aspestous suits is at the cleaners... 1: Why is "truer" better???? As a photographer, I try to create the most asthetily pleasing result!!! This is frequently far from the "truest." (I am not an "ARTsie type" that does wierd pics.) Since a picture is normally removed from its setting, it frequently needs some "boost" to make it grab you, or stand out. Photography (to me) is not for "historic records of the subjects" but rather an attempt to use the photographic media to achieve a result. (An artsie freind of mine has big words for this, but I forgot them.) To put this differently: sometimes I want it to look like a post-card, cuz reality, is just plain BORRING 2: The slide film has better latitude and contrast range. 3: In volume slides are cheaper than prints. 4: When projected on a screen, I find the increased contrast, and bigger-than-life colors (I use Kodacrome) to be *MORE* pleasing, memerable, and possible more realistic than small, flat prints. As for prints from slides that where taken to be slides, I have only poor opinions of ALL the prints from the 4-6 groups I've tryed. Thanks to all those on the net who supplied info on this topic, I've learned alot. (And I'll stick to Kodacrome when I do color, and not make prints, very often.) Also, I've never had inter-neg slide prints....all were 3x5 size junk for friends. > >On the other hand, grain is marginally better in Kodachrome. It's my >personal feeling that image sharpness is not sufficiently good with 35mm >cameras to make that much of a fuss over grain (eventhough I do use >a very fine-grain B&W film myself!) when comparing an ASA 100 film with >Kodachrome, and they don't make Kodachrome for larger-format cameras. >-- >Shyy-Anzr: J. Eric Roskos >UUCP: Ofc: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer > Home: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jerpc!jer > US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; > 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642 -- John W - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Name: John F. Wardale UUCP: ... {seismo | harvard | ihnp4} !uwvax!astroatc!johnw arpa: astroatc!johnw@rsch.wisc.edu snail: 5800 Cottage Gr. Rd. ;;; Madison WI 53716 audio: 608-221-9001 eXt 110 To err is human, to really foul up world news requires the net!