[filmscanners] Re: Scanning negs vs. slides

["Julian Robinson" <jrobinso@pcug.org.au>]

At 00:11 17/04/02, Tony wrote:
> > never that smoothness velvetiness or richness that a well exposed slide
> > brings.
> >
> > But that said I use negs almost always, for the reasons Tony said here.
>
>I can't say I've particularly noticed this with similar-ISO materials, eg
>400 slide vs 400 neg (neg wins!) or 100 slide vs 100 neg (tie, more or
>less). A possible exception may be slower materials like Kodachrome and
>Velvia, I haven't shot negs of comparable speed. The heavier dye densities
>of tranny should produce more diffusion and less obvious grain, which would
>support your case, however I do tend to downrate neg by ~0.5 stop whenever
>possible just 'cos it has the effect of diffusing grain.

My thinking is that even if the actual grain in a slide is the same in
"density amplitude" as it is in a neg, then you will do better with a slide
because you scan it as you see it i.e. the final image contrast is roughly
what is on the slide.  With a neg, the final image contrast is much greater
than the limited density range you have on the neg, so you have to expand
that limited range of density to get your contrast, and in the process you
also expand the visibility of  the grain.

My recent slide experience is with Astia (=Sensia II) which I really like.

Cheers,

Julian


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body