 BetterPhoto Member |
Picture Quality with Film Types Is it true that slide films are sharper than than print film? When I see prints made from slide film the quality is so much more outstanding than print film. I've also heard that it is cheaper to work with slide film but print film gives you a bigger range of film speeds to work with.
|
|
|
|
||
BetterPhotoJim.com - Jim Miotke  Contact Jim Miotke Jim Miotke's Gallery |
No - both slide film and print film can produce extremely sharp results. Most professionals do, however, use slide film for a number of reasons. The only reason it seems less expensive to work with slides is that you only pay, at first, for the roll of film and the processing of that film; you do not pay immediately the cost of making prints from these slides. This can be expensive but at least you can be selective and only have the lab print your best shots. I mostly shoot with slide film these days. My main reason: the people who buy images like 'em. Print film allows for a great margin of error with exposure and makes it super easy to get prints into your photo album. The whole film debate often reminds me of taking SCUBA lessons. Although most students are concerned about the possibility of meeting a shark, most instructors will tell you that meeting a shark is the least of your concerns; it is much more important to know how to handle the bends, loss of air supply, etc.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John A. Lind |
Jim's right about sharpness with the additional observation that if you want equally sharp prints from similar speed color negative it requires a good printer. Nearly all prints from slides are done by a professional imaging house at greater cost with higher customer expectations and greater care taken in making them. One factor not mentioned is archival life. Traditional B/W negative and transparency (slides) have a much greater archival life than "C-41 process" color negative and chromogenic B/W. The archival life of color negative (including chromogenic B/W) is about 20 years before detectable fading and/or color shift. Most of the color negative from the 1960's is now suffering this loss, much to the dismay and disappointment of those who made the photographs and their children. Transparency and traditional B/W negative is much, much longer. If very long archival life is important, then you will want to use a transparency film. The longest color archival I know of is Kodachrome which approaches nearly 200 years in reasonably dark storage with protection from high heat, humidity and chemical pollutants (fungus is the greatest risk). Unlike the original Ektachromes, the newer ones are almost as archival as Kodachrome. By comparison with 25-30 year old faded and color shifted color negative my wife has (nearly impossible to print properly), my father's 50 year old Kodachromes, and 60 year old B/W negatives and prints look like the day they were returned from processing. -- John
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||
