Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/03/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 27 Mar 1998 18:21:21 -0800, Francesco Sanfilippo <fls@5senses.com> wrote: > 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! That's the common wisdom. Apparently, those CCD scanners (even the better ones used for PhotoCD) have some troubles with the densest parts of the film. This implies a limitation in shadow detail from chromes, and highlight detail from negatives. The former is more often likely to seem a serious loss, hence the preference for negative material if scanning is known to be the film's most important use. > 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. I haven't done exhaustive scanning tests (maybe the PhotoCD color-balance channels are suboptimal with this emulsion), but if you're trying color negative stock, may I make a recommendation: give Fuji Reala a try before settling on your final choice. I've used the stuff for years (through one Reala reformulation), occasionally comparing it to Kodak's current crop, and I keep liking the way Reala looks the best among 100-speed color-negative films. In the higher-speed realm (unsuited, I guess, for your hyperdetailed babe photos), I've grown fond of Kodak PJM. Dunno what `multispeed' is supposed to mean, but it's nominally 640 speed with a true speed more like 500; usefully less grainy than Fuji's excellent CZ, nice color palette.