[Leica] 400ISO slides (part 2)

[imx <imxputs@knoware.nl>]

The Macbeth color checker chart is the base for the sensitometric analysis
and the color comparison. The emulsions for slide film are much more honest
than their color neg collegues. Generally the color reproduction and
differences in color hues are light years ahead compared to the color neg
emulsions. One notes that the demands for color neg (exposure latitude,
acceptable colors in all kinds of color temperature, high contrast range of
the object) are too much for the emulsion: the loss of color accuracy is one
obvious consequence.
After using slide film and doing a test of color neg I am always shocked at
the loss of overall quality with the color neg films. And by now I have
tested almost every color neg film on the market. (and slide films too!)
Now on to the films at hand. One quite remarkable observation which holds
for all three films (E200, EPL400 and 400F) is the low density of black. In
previous generations of slide film I could measure an easy Dmax of 2.2 and
even sometimes 2.5. In the old days  one could see the meter stop at D=3.0,
but that is nostalgia. Now we are happy to get D=1.85. It is obvious that
the low maximum density is needed for good scan quality, but it is too low
for brilliant projection. A change in habit that is being picked up by the
slide film manufacturers I suppose. By the way, the maximum density of the
deep black in a slide film is now lower that that of a high quality BW
print, where D=2.2 is still the norm.
The Macbeth chart has a grey scale running from 0.05 (white) to 1.5 (black)
in six steps: 

        400F        EPL400X     E200 at 400
0.05    0.22        0.26        0.23
0.23    0.39        0.42        0.43
0.44    0.62        0.60        0.69
0.70    0.92        0.91        0.98
1.05    1.28        1.38        1.38
1.5     1.66        1.81        1.71
base    0.10        0.10        0.14
max D   1.85        1.81        1.83

These figures tell you all you want to know. The contrast range of the
object is 1:30 and it easy to see that the films cannot handle more. The
400F and the E200 have a bit more tolerance in the shadow area, the EPL400X
can handle specular highlights more routinely.
Note that the 1:30 range is compressed by te 400F to 1:7.5, the EPL400 to
1:6.9 and the E200 at 400 to 1:7.4.

I will spare you the rest of the data. The exposure latitude of the 400F is
the least (from -1/4 to +1/2), Greatest with K400 which can handle easily
±1/2 stop). E200 at the 400 push has a bit wider latitude than 400F, but is
at its best at +1/2. So the 400 push should be 320 on the exposure meter.
The grey values are true greys with only a very slightly bluish cast for all
three films.

It is not my habit to rank films as there are too many variables involved
and applications to look at. And luckily I am not forced to abide to
consumerism. 
The 400F and the E200 (at 320) are a close match with that perennial
Kodak/Fuji difference in philosophy (acutance versus fine grain (in this
order). When projecting the slides all three films performed well, with the
EPL400 a bit gritty (Tri-X like) and the others more like Tmax100. Still you
should try them all three to find the film that suits your style.
I used my M6 and the Tri-Elmar for these tests, which is a great combo with
the 400ISO slide films. Maybe one should bury some preconceived opinions
regarding this lens. It is an excellent performer and very versatile when
snapshooting/grabbing candids.
           

Erwin