1) Negs have a a brown mask. This has to be subtracted. The color that has to be corrected differs between different films. Getting the color balance right is thus sometimes difficult on negs.
2) Negatives: Generally color reproduction cannot be controlled by comparing it to the 'original', e.g. the negative/slide. 3) Negatives in most cases (comparing same sensitivity films) have higher grain than slide film. As grain is an important factor determining subjective picture quality this might be worth considering when one chooses between these two alternatives. Knut At 10:22 29.08.02 -0400, you wrote: >Is it better or easier to scan 35mm slides or negs? What are the pros and >cons of both. > >Thanks, > >Jim Fellows >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 9:58 AM >Subject: RE: Digital vs.FILM: will digital cameras lose the war? > > > > On 29 Aug 2002 at 13:50, Knut Kampe wrote: > > > > > The question is really where to put the compromise for convenience/max > > > performance. That is something everyone has to decide for himself (how > > > often do I need max performance?). > > > > I agree that the performance of films are improving, there are no desk-top > > scanners that do justice to the best prepared 35mm negatives at this date. > > There is a lot of detail that can't be captured at 4000dpi, a quick >comparison > > of a quality 4000dpi scan vs an original slide under a good 30x + loupe or > > microscope will display the reality. > > > > The question of acceptability really has to be made relative to the >intended > > use of the image, not max performance as such. For instance in catalogue > > production or for product images destined for web dispaly etc I can't > > understand how anyone has doubt that digital image capture is king right >now. > > Performance in these cases roughly translates to ease of colour balance, >short > > turn-around and lack of film costs. > > > > > Also how long do you want to be able to access your images is an >important > > > question! > > > > > > Most digital images taken today will be useless in 20 years -because the > > > quality has moved on, or the storage formats change and the old are no > > > longer readable.... I will always be able to look at the pictures I took >on > > > slides and scan them again (color fading is no longer a problem of >modern films. > > > Lifetime appears to be secure for 50-100 years storage time). > > > > I can't truly accept this mode of thinking, I have images which I scanned >many > > years ago and they are still on my system, readable, usable and backed up. >I > > can also write a slide or neg of any digital image via my film printer or >send > > it to a lab with a digital RA-4 printer and get prints back same as film. >Film > > too has to be looked after just the same. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Rob Studdert > > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html > > > >
