Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/03/29

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Re: Slide vs.Print film for Scanning
From: Five Senses Productions <>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 15:31:31 -0800

I don't understand your response......

Which Kodak print film are you referring to?  I am concerned with
Royal Gold 25 through 200.  Are you saying these films are made
exclusively for duplicating to slides?  Then why are they targeted
at the general market?

I am not going from negative to positive.  I am using slide film NOW
and have been for the past 2 years exclusively because I have always
been told it provides the best quality for scanning and enlarging.
Now I read and am being told the opposite.....that print film scans
and enlarges better.  I am just asking LUGgers if they have any 
experience in comparing the quality of enlargements from both types
of film and the quality of scans from both types of film.....

At 05:43 PM 3/29/98 -0500, you wrote:
>In a message dated 98-03-29 17:21:36 EST, you write:
> I have asked this question one time already and gotten one good
> comment.  I am posting it again with the hopes someone else will
> see it and comment.
>  >>
> Kodak print film is a low contrast self-masking film specifically designed
> for making slides from color negatives. To go from negative color to
> just for scanning purposes would seem a little redundant when excellent
> results can be obtained directly from the original negatives.  Digital
> do offer somewhat of a loss-less duplication but that is not true of photo-
> graphic duplication & it would be better to stick with the negative or
> Marvin Moss

Francesco Sanfilippo,
Five Senses Productions