Re: [Leica] slide vs. print film for PhotoCD

[Thomas Kachadurian <kach@freeway.net>]

Francesco:
At 02:29 PM 3/29/98 -0800, you wrote:
>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. 

Whoops, my mistake. I must have the wrong Fuji Neg film. Perhaps it is
Reala that has higher lpmm. Also, I'm getting this resolution data from the
Midwest Fuji Pro rep (not the sharpest guy). I can tell you that the neg
film makes a much better scan than Velvia from both PhotoCD and my Nikon
LS-1000. I know those from experience. 

I'm still a Velvia man, though. I just love the color palate.

I'm no expert on permanence, but I'll bet there's one lurking here.  As I
understand it, the problem is not inherent, but negative lines tend to be
less exact and more prone to contamination. Also, it seems that
manufacturers have more emphasis on permanence with slide film. 

Kodachrome is a different beast altogether. It is really a layered B&W film
and doesn't use color dyes at all. It's as close as you can get to archival.

Tom
 
>
>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?
>
>