Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/03/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Velvia is 160/80 lpmm, Super G 100 is 125/63 lpmm, and Kodak Royal Gold 25 is 200/80 lpmm. Velvia is the slide film with the highest tested resolution, and Royal Gold 25 (AKA Ektar 25) is the highest resolving print film. I never knew this.....I always was taught that slide film would present the better quality enlagement and scan. For these reasons I put up with the inconvenience of slides. I would be head over heels if I found a print film that scanned better and enlarged better than Velvia! I think Royal Gold 25 may do it.......I'll get my test PhotoCD of scanned RG 25 negs back on Monday afternoon. If both are stored under optimum conditions, how much longer than negatives do slides last? At 09:56 PM 3/28/98 -0500, you wrote: >Francesco: > >Today's print film have high resolution and a better dynamic range than >slide films in the same IOS. Fuji Super G 100 will resolve higher than >Velvia. To PhotoCD or with a desktop scanner the neg film makes a much >better scan, much easier. > >Slide film is the defacto standard in publishing for a few good reasons. 1. >It's easy to edit images on a light talbe. 2. For a long time, kodachrome >was king, and old habits die hard. 3. Nothing has the permanence of >Kodachrome. 4. Many color seperators can't (or just won't) scan from >negatives. > >For you, Neg film might be the best choice. > >I have switched about 1/3 of my clients to neg film. They like to have a >stack of proofs better than slides and I can good quality scans to them, on >a CD in 24 hours. > >Tom > >At 06:21 PM 3/27/98 -0800, you wrote: >>Does anyone have experience with getting color negatives >>scanned onto PhotoCD? I have always believed that slide film >>was the best for getting the ultimate image quality in a scan, >>but a PhotoCD expert I work with sometimes told me that >>color negatives scan MUCH better onto PhotoCD than slides! >>I was shocked, and today I bought a few rolls of print film (Kodak >>Royal Gold 25 and 100) in order to test his theory. In my work, >>my final output medium IS the Internet and an occasional >>8x10 to 20x30 enlargement. I have always thought I would >>get the best results in the scanner and for enlargements from >>slide film. I know slide film is more finnicky and requires more >>accuracy than print film, but I thought it was well worth the >>extra trouble for the quality I received in return. Does anyone who >>has shot extensively with slow print films (Kodak Ektar 25 or Royal >>Gold 25, for example) AND slow slide films (Velvia, for example) >>have any opinions on which film type gives the best (sharpest, >>finest) enlargements or PhotoCD scans? >> >> >> >>Francesco Sanfilippo, >>Five Senses Productions >>webmaster@5senses.com >> >> >>http://www.5senses.com/ >> >> > Francesco Sanfilippo, Five Senses Productions webmaster@5senses.com http://www.5senses.com/