Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/03/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]"Robert G. Stevens" wrote: > A few years ago a sign company hired me to shoot their outdoor signs. They > had just done all the signs at a new hospital. I shot it on both AGFA > Optima 50 and Velvia. The Velvia was finer grained and sharper. The > colour was also more accurate. When I showed the results to the people at > the sign plant, the graphic artist brought both the Velvia and the AGFA > Optima images up on the computer screen that he uses to create the > signs. He commented that the Velvia ones were much better and almost dead > on to the Panatone colours in these signs. While Velvia may have many uses, I don't think accurate, literal color rendition is one of them. This bias in favor of reversal films is something that, IMHO, should be relegated to the dustbin of history. 25 or 30 years ago, yes the only professional color films were reversal films. And the negative films that were available were relative crap. Even as recently as 10 or 15 years ago, the professional negative films were really geared to wedding photographers and seemed optimized for medium format (e.g. Kodak Vericolor). But in the past 5 years, and especially in the last 2 or 3, there has been a revolution in the quality of 35mm color negative films. It probably started with the T grain technology, but it clearly goes further than that. There are now a huge array of professional 35mm negative film types available that span almost every imaginable application and subject. By contrast, reversal films have improved but only modestly. In fact, Kodachrome is still the benchmark, which ought to tell us something. Concurrent with this development has been the move on the part of most print publications to digital technology in the composition of their products. No longer does the engraver need a transparency to work from since everything is scanned anyway. Publishing on the web? Negative is as good or better than reversal. In fact, I think you can make a pretty good case that the balance has swung in the opposite direction. From professional 35mm negative film, which I can get processed on any street corner in the country, I can make high quality C prints directly, scan the negative for use in publications or for further digital manipulation, output digital C prints, output inkjet prints, etc. Leica photography is often available light photography. Available light photography often involves light sources of differing color temperature. Dealing with mixed lighting is something that the best color negative films do much better than any of the available reversal stocks, and the best of the lot are the group from Fuji that incorporates a 4th layer (Reala, NPH, etc.). And when you do use flash with the Leica on interior scenes with mixed lighting, sometimes you want to just punch a little light into the subject. With negative film, you just put a little piece of half or full CTO filter material over the flash, shoot at as wide an aperture as practical, and color correct in the print. Obviously this is impossible with reversal material. There, you have a wide choice of daylight films, only a few choices of tungsten balanced film, and effectively no films at all that deal well with mixed light. So, with the choice of incredibly sharp and fine-grained film (e.g. Fuji Reala), the ability to deal with mixed lighting sources, the ability to handle scenes with a wider range than 3-4 stops, the ease with which the scanner handles shadow detail, the universal availability of inexpensive processing, and the ability to output easily in any format I choose, the choice is a no-brainer. It's color negative all the way. As always, YMMV and I look forward to hearing dissenting views. - -- Rolfe Tessem | Lucky Duck Productions, Inc. rolfe@ldp.com | 96 Morton Street (212) 463-0029 | New York, NY 10014 - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html