Re: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners
JimD wrote: > Based on the results I'm getting with Provia I'll be using it more,I'll just teach the dogs to be stationary. If you can expand your teaching methods to include kids and publish them on CD or VCR, you'll become a rich man! :-) Best regards--LRA --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
Re: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners
Edwni wrote: >How cheap is the Fuji? I usually buy 36 exposure Supra 100ASA for about >$2.89 USD. And, once again, it may not be optimized for scanning, but Supra >100ASA scans very well. I can get Fuji Superia 24 (not 36) for about US$1.50. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners
The Supra line is supposedly 'optimized' for scanning, but I read somewhere on these newsgroups (I can't cite chapter or verse) that the primary 'optimization' consists of extra protection against scratches as opposed to improved grain. I did also take a roll of Kodak Portra VC 160, and it scanned fairly well. Maris - Original Message - From: "Tom Scales" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 7:06 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners | Supra 100? Am I missing something? | | Tom | | P.S. I'm actually not blown away with Supra. I prefer Fuji in my SS4000 | | > Maris wrote: | > > Slide film is generally less grainy than print film | > > in scanning sky. Have you found any good print film for sky? | > | > Someone mentioned Supra 400. I wish someone would produce | > a 100 ASA print film optimised for scanning! | > | > Rob | > | > | > | > Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] | > http://wordweb.com | > | > | > | |
Re: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners
I buy 24 exposure 100ASA Fuji for about $1.65 in boxes of four at the, gasp, WalMart. Tom > How cheap is the Fuji? I usually buy 36 exposure Supra 100ASA for about > $2.89 USD. And, once again, it may not be optimized for scanning, but Supra > 100ASA scans very well. > - Original Message - > From: "Rob Geraghty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 9:05 PM > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners >
Re: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners
How cheap is the Fuji? I usually buy 36 exposure Supra 100ASA for about $2.89 USD. And, once again, it may not be optimized for scanning, but Supra 100ASA scans very well. - Original Message - From: "Rob Geraghty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 9:05 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners > Michael wrote: > >Rob writes ... > >> Someone mentioned Supra 400. I wish someone would produce > >> a 100 ASA print film optimised for scanning! > >Supra 100 (!?) > > It's been claimed here that only Supra 400 is a new formulaiton specifically > optimised for scanning. Supra 100 is apparently a previous emulsion rebadged? > As far as apparent grain in sky is concerned, I haven't found Supra 100 > to have any advantage over Fuji Superia 100 and the Fuji film is LOTS cheaper. > > Rob > > > > Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://wordweb.com > > >
Re: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners
Michael wrote: >Rob writes ... >> Someone mentioned Supra 400. I wish someone would produce >> a 100 ASA print film optimised for scanning! >Supra 100 (!?) It's been claimed here that only Supra 400 is a new formulaiton specifically optimised for scanning. Supra 100 is apparently a previous emulsion rebadged? As far as apparent grain in sky is concerned, I haven't found Supra 100 to have any advantage over Fuji Superia 100 and the Fuji film is LOTS cheaper. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners
Supra 100? Am I missing something? Tom P.S. I'm actually not blown away with Supra. I prefer Fuji in my SS4000 > Maris wrote: > > Slide film is generally less grainy than print film > > in scanning sky. Have you found any good print film for sky? > > Someone mentioned Supra 400. I wish someone would produce > a 100 ASA print film optimised for scanning! > > Rob > > > > Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://wordweb.com > > >
Re: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners
Rob writes ... > Someone mentioned Supra 400. I wish someone would produce > a 100 ASA print film optimised for scanning! Supra 100 (!?) shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners
Maris wrote: > Slide film is generally less grainy than print film > in scanning sky. Have you found any good print film for sky? Someone mentioned Supra 400. I wish someone would produce a 100 ASA print film optimised for scanning! Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners
Konica Impresa 50 is quite good on sky IMHO. Joel W. >From: "Maris V. Lidaka, Sr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Slide film is generally less grainy than print film in scanning sky. Have >you found any good print film for sky? _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners
Slide film is generally less grainy than print film in scanning sky. Have you found any good print film for sky? Maris - Original Message - From: "JimD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 4:15 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners I'm fond of Supra 400 and use it a lot. Recently I've also been shooting Provia 100F when there is enough light. These films are apples and oranges but Supra 400 is real 'chunky' compared to the Provia. It is interesting to do a max zoom on a 4000 ppi file from a 35 mm frame to see what the pixels look like up close. Provia has much cleaner, uniform coloration among sets of max zoomed pixels than the Supra 400 does. This shows up in output in prints from the Provia being more 'sparkly' or 'luminous'. It's kind of academic as I photograph dogs in available light so 100 speed film is a significant hindrance in early and late light where I find most of my interesting pictures. Based on the results I'm getting with Provia I'll be using it more, I'll just teach the dogs to be stationary. -JimD At 10:18 PM 4/28/01 +0200, you wrote: >Maris wrote: > > > I have now tried Kodak Supra 400 and, on the LS-30 at 2700spi it scans > > better than average but I would not consider it exceptional. > > I still have > > grain in blue skies and, > >My experience with Supra 400 is very good. Very little grain-alliasing no >matter in which channel (skin, sky, greens) - especially absence in blue >channel surprised me most. I wouldn't believe that this is 400 ISO film. >Scanned with Dual II 2820 DPI. > >Vlad > > >--- >Odchozí zpráva neobsahuje viry. >Zkontrolováno antivirovým systémem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz). >Verze: 6.0.250 / Virová báze: 123 - datum vydání: 18.4.2001
Re: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners
"Maris V. Lidaka, Sr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'll have to get a Dual II 2820 DPI. "Vladislav Jurco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My experience with Supra 400 is very good. Very little grain-alliasing no > matter in which channel (skin, sky, greens) - especially absence in blue > channel surprised me most. I wouldn't believe that this is 400 ISO film. > Scanned with Dual II 2820 DPI. Maybe you guys need to exchange a slide or neg and try scanning exactly the same piece of film and compare the result? Rob
Re: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners
I'll have to get a Dual II 2820 DPI. Maris - Original Message - From: "Vladislav Jurco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 3:18 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners Maris wrote: > I have now tried Kodak Supra 400 and, on the LS-30 at 2700spi it scans > better than average but I would not consider it exceptional. > I still have > grain in blue skies and, My experience with Supra 400 is very good. Very little grain-alliasing no matter in which channel (skin, sky, greens) - especially absence in blue channel surprised me most. I wouldn't believe that this is 400 ISO film. Scanned with Dual II 2820 DPI. Vlad --- Odchozí zpráva neobsahuje viry. Zkontrolováno antivirovým systémem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz). Verze: 6.0.250 / Virová báze: 123 - datum vydání: 18.4.2001
RE: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners
I'm fond of Supra 400 and use it a lot. Recently I've also been shooting Provia 100F when there is enough light. These films are apples and oranges but Supra 400 is real 'chunky' compared to the Provia. It is interesting to do a max zoom on a 4000 ppi file from a 35 mm frame to see what the pixels look like up close. Provia has much cleaner, uniform coloration among sets of max zoomed pixels than the Supra 400 does. This shows up in output in prints from the Provia being more 'sparkly' or 'luminous'. It's kind of academic as I photograph dogs in available light so 100 speed film is a significant hindrance in early and late light where I find most of my interesting pictures. Based on the results I'm getting with Provia I'll be using it more, I'll just teach the dogs to be stationary. -JimD At 10:18 PM 4/28/01 +0200, you wrote: >Maris wrote: > > > I have now tried Kodak Supra 400 and, on the LS-30 at 2700spi it scans > > better than average but I would not consider it exceptional. > > I still have > > grain in blue skies and, > >My experience with Supra 400 is very good. Very little grain-alliasing no >matter in which channel (skin, sky, greens) - especially absence in blue >channel surprised me most. I wouldn't believe that this is 400 ISO film. >Scanned with Dual II 2820 DPI. > >Vlad > > >--- >Odchozí zpráva neobsahuje viry. >Zkontrolováno antivirovým systémem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz). >Verze: 6.0.250 / Virová báze: 123 - datum vydání: 18.4.2001
RE: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners
Maris wrote: > I have now tried Kodak Supra 400 and, on the LS-30 at 2700spi it scans > better than average but I would not consider it exceptional. > I still have > grain in blue skies and, My experience with Supra 400 is very good. Very little grain-alliasing no matter in which channel (skin, sky, greens) - especially absence in blue channel surprised me most. I wouldn't believe that this is 400 ISO film. Scanned with Dual II 2820 DPI. Vlad --- Odchozí zpráva neobsahuje viry. Zkontrolováno antivirovým systémem AVG (http://www.grisoft.cz). Verze: 6.0.250 / Virová báze: 123 - datum vydání: 18.4.2001
Re: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners
I have now tried Kodak Supra 400 and, on the LS-30 at 2700spi it scans better than average but I would not consider it exceptional. I still have grain in blue skies and, I think, in the black skies in night shots (but viewable only if I lighten the sky to lighter than pitch black). I've had to set Vuescan on "Clean-heavy" to prevent it. Other than that, in color and exposure it has worked well. Maris - Original Message - From: "Rob Geraghty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 6:57 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners | JF Mahony wrote: | > i am very interested in negatives vs slides in contrasty situations. i | shoot | > a lot of tennis in the middle of the day with provia 100, E200 or fugi | multy | > speed. i have an LS-1000 and do have trouble losing the extreme | highlights. | > i like the color of slide film better than print. i entend to try print | but | > what kind. | | If you want to freeze action, try Kodak Supra 400 which is supposed to be | optimised for scanning. | | Rob | (I haven't had the chance to try it yet myself) | |
Re: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners
JF Mahony wrote: > i am very interested in negatives vs slides in contrasty situations. i shoot > a lot of tennis in the middle of the day with provia 100, E200 or fugi multy > speed. i have an LS-1000 and do have trouble losing the extreme highlights. > i like the color of slide film better than print. i entend to try print but > what kind. If you want to freeze action, try Kodak Supra 400 which is supposed to be optimised for scanning. Rob (I haven't had the chance to try it yet myself)
Re: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners
You might try Fuji Reala if a 100 speed film is fast enough. It is one of the few low-contrast negative films that has high color saturation. - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 7:37 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners > i am very interested in negatives vs slides in contrasty situations. i shoot > a lot of tennis in the middle of the day with provia 100, E200 or fugi multy > speed. i have an LS-1000 and do have trouble losing the extreme highlights. > i like the color of slide film better than print. i entend to try print but > what kind. i know one of the other photographers used the fugi wedding film > nps (?) asa 160. is kodak supra any good? someone else told me to try asta as > it has less contrast. thank you so much. joanna >
Re: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners
There is no question that most negative color films are lower contrast and have a wider exposure range than their equivalent speed in slide film. If your scanner/scanner software has good ability to translate the dye masks in negative films, you will get better results overall with negative film in high contrast situations. Keep in mind, slides are designed for projection and need that contrast. Astia, which is, I assume, the film you are referring to, is a lower contrast Fuji slide film (lower than the regular Provia, although I am not sure about the Provia F). However, if you have used Sensia II 100, then you have used Astia 100, at less cost. The films are identical. Art [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > i am very interested in negatives vs slides in contrasty situations. i shoot > a lot of tennis in the middle of the day with provia 100, E200 or fugi multy > speed. i have an LS-1000 and do have trouble losing the extreme highlights. > i like the color of slide film better than print. i entend to try print but > what kind. i know one of the other photographers used the fugi wedding film > nps (?) asa 160. is kodak supra any good? someone else told me to try asta as > it has less contrast. thank you so much. joanna
Re: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners
i am very interested in negatives vs slides in contrasty situations. i shoot a lot of tennis in the middle of the day with provia 100, E200 or fugi multy speed. i have an LS-1000 and do have trouble losing the extreme highlights. i like the color of slide film better than print. i entend to try print but what kind. i know one of the other photographers used the fugi wedding film nps (?) asa 160. is kodak supra any good? someone else told me to try asta as it has less contrast. thank you so much. joanna
Re: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners
"Alessandro Pardi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > the scene I chose for my test was a *bit* contrasty, still the slide was > well exposed, and details in the shadows were perfectly visible even by > holding up the slide against a window. I expect that *all* the Nikon scanners will fall down in shadow detail because of the low intensity of light from the LEDs. The intensity of sunlight or a projector bulb is far greater than a scanner LED. > What I meant to test wasn't the > latitude of negatives vs. slides, which needs no test, but the capability of > the scanner to read from a slide, which has a higher density than a negative > (that is, there is a bigger difference between the lightest and the darkest > values *on the film*: this was another point agreed upon in the photo.net > thread I mentioned). OK, but separating what is a dynamic range problem and what is a lattude problem is a challenge. > I didn't use Vuescan, but I played with Nikonscan analog gain and each > Photoshop trick in my bag, still the difference between the two scans was so > big to convince me that it was an unfair match, given that the negative > already has the advantage of a wider latitude. Try Vuescan. You may find the extra 2 bits per channel helpful. Having said that, sure, shadows in dense slides are a hassle, but I'd prefer the fine grain of Provia 100F any day. Rob
RE: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners
Rob, the scene I chose for my test was a *bit* contrasty, still the slide was well exposed, and details in the shadows were perfectly visible even by holding up the slide against a window. What I meant to test wasn't the latitude of negatives vs. slides, which needs no test, but the capability of the scanner to read from a slide, which has a higher density than a negative (that is, there is a bigger difference between the lightest and the darkest values *on the film*: this was another point agreed upon in the photo.net thread I mentioned). I didn't use Vuescan, but I played with Nikonscan analog gain and each Photoshop trick in my bag, still the difference between the two scans was so big to convince me that it was an unfair match, given that the negative already has the advantage of a wider latitude. If anybody is interested, I can post (maybe off-list) the two jpgs of the scans (the image was of a street partly lit by the late afternoon sun and partly shadowy, and the slide scan has washed out colors in the sunny parts and way darker shadows). -Original Message- From: Rob Geraghty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: venerdì 27 aprile 2001 00.23 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners Alessandro wrote: > After reading a long thread on photo.net, which finally stated > that, due to Dmax values, low-end scanners work best with > negatives and hi-end with slides, I made my own little test > with my LS-30 by shooting the same (a bit contrasty) scene > with Kodak Supra 100 and Fuji Provia F 100, and can confirm > that the scan from the negative is FAR better With a contrasty scene there will always be more detail in a neg than a slide. There is always (AFAIK) more exposure latitude in neg film than slide film. However, I am surprised that you consider Supra 100 "far better" than Provia 100F. My conclusion is exactly the reverse using the same scanner for *well exposed* images. Basing your conclusion on a high contrast image isn't IMO reasonable, but it depends on what you're expecting to achieve. > Back to the question: is the (theoretical) 4.0 Dmax enough to > have scans from slides at least as good as those from negatives? I'd be interested to hear the responses from others with more expensive scanners but as far as I can make out, the answer is no - simply because the information isn't on the film.
RE: filmscanners: Negatives vs. slides in new scanners
Alessandro wrote: > After reading a long thread on photo.net, which finally stated > that, due to Dmax values, low-end scanners work best with > negatives and hi-end with slides, I made my own little test > with my LS-30 by shooting the same (a bit contrasty) scene > with Kodak Supra 100 and Fuji Provia F 100, and can confirm > that the scan from the negative is FAR better With a contrasty scene there will always be more detail in a neg than a slide. There is always (AFAIK) more exposure latitude in neg film than slide film. However, I am surprised that you consider Supra 100 "far better" than Provia 100F. My conclusion is exactly the reverse using the same scanner for *well exposed* images. Basing your conclusion on a high contrast image isn't IMO reasonable, but it depends on what you're expecting to achieve. > Back to the question: is the (theoretical) 4.0 Dmax enough to > have scans from slides at least as good as those from negatives? I'd be interested to hear the responses from others with more expensive scanners but as far as I can make out, the answer is no - simply because the information isn't on the film. If you have high contrast situations where you want to catch the highlight and shadow detail, you're better off with negs. But if you have fairly even exposure situations, the best thing I've tried on my LS30 is Provia 100F. On wednesday I went for a scuba dive, and quite deliberately chose Fuji 400 negative film because I wanted to capture as wide a range of light as possible. I knew the exposures would probably be inaccurate. But if I'd been photographing a model in open shade out of the water, I'd have used Provia. :) Rob PS Try Vuescan and multiple passes with the LS30 and slide film. It should reduce noise and bring out a bit more shadow detail. Also with Vuescan you can get 10 bits per channel while Nikonscan only gives you 8. Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
