Any views as whether better results are obtained from scanning colour positives (slides) as against colour negative.
Any views as whether better results are obtained from scanning colour positives (slides) as against colour negative.
Color negatives take more work. An over simplied explanation would be that scanner profile software is designed for chromes. So sometimes it is a little harder to find color balance and to get color fidelity (for instance the color neg profiles in Silverfast render blues with too much magenta-I tweak these profiles to my taste and save them-no big deal). But many people (myself included) prefer the longer scale and lower contrast of color negatives (even for b&w prints sometimes).
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
I switched to neg a couple of years ago, after not having used it for many years. The quality of current neg materials is very good.
I scan on a Epson 4990 using Silverfast, I got perfect color using one of the included profiles.
Color negative film is also usually sharper than transparency film when comparing film of the same ASA, though grain may not be as fine.
Using color negative film instead of B&W fim opens up a lot of post-scan processing controls if you plan to print in B&W, though for ultimate sharpness and grain the B&W film has a bit of an advantage.
Sandy King
Agree with Kirk.
The traditional view from production photogs that have high volume is that slides are best, because you can get an exact match to a reference image (the slide.)
For those of us looking for quality - subtle coloration, dynamic range, etc. - negative films can deliver a bit more. But it does take more work.
Scanner hardware is also less likely to be pushed to the max with negative film than with slide. Hard to dig out all the detail in the shadows on a slide, especially on a flatbed.
Bookmarks