Doe, Having been around the block with the color thing and having shot 20+ years of slides and the past 4-5 years of negatives, let me give you a simple observation.
William Robb's discussion of the issues was great! What may have not been evident is that in order to get the color and control that you desire - it will cost you. Whether you find a good lab (costs more) or use slides and do it yourself (computer, scanner, printer AND color calibration), there is a cost involved. As to slides or negatives, if you go the slide route, be prepared to print them yourself. Any other process is unsatisfactory or very costly per print (only show pieces are worth doing). The actual printing stage itself can be done on a digital lab (Fuji Frontier, Agfa D-Lab, etc) but the scan and corrections need to be done by you. There is a very different look to slides and negatives. The look you are trying to achieve can be affected by your choice. Slides tend to have dramatic punch and color. They are very effective when heavy emphasis is desired and when you want to turn heads (so to speak). Negatives have a much more subtle, soft look to them. They tend to pick up the subtle gradations more. This has a less punchy look but an overall dreamy angle. I have personally found that most shots where people are the subject look better on negative film. Many landscape shots look better on slide film. There is not a single right answer here. It has been suggested (and a very good one) to get a good scanner and Photoshop or derivative (Paint Shop Pro, Picture Window, etc). This is a good suggestion for both slides and prints. I tend to have my 35mm negatives just developed ($2.29/roll) and then scan them. The good ones are then corrected and given back to the lab to digitally print or print at home. Slides are the same except they cost more ($5.50/roll). It is quite amazing to compare what the scanner brought out of the negative vs. what the lab printed. One reason for that is the negative can record more range than the paper that it is printed on. William could probably elaborate a bit more on that front. So for me, I have found a good lab that works well with me. It costs much more than the local Walmart, but they work much better with me. I have a scanner and scan my 35mm stuff. I either take negs in that I want printed or digitally correct them myself first. HTH, Bruce Saturday, January 4, 2003, 12:25:40 AM, you wrote: eac> In a message dated 1/4/2003 1:49:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: eac> [snip] >> Print film is more colour accurate than slide film. eac> Wow! What a fantastic reply -- thank you very, very much. eac> Okay, I take back some of what I said -- the appalled part :-) It sounds like an extremely complicated process that could easily go wrong -- even if one could do it onesself to try to satisfy eac> oneself (be able to afford it and be able to set up one's own home lab). eac> And I find it EXTREMELY interesting that you and the lab guy I talked to agree -- that print film is more color accurate. eac> This seems to contradict "common knowledge". eac> But someone in the business should know. I do know I have only shot two roles of slide film so far, and I haven't been as happy with them as with the print film. eac> But that may be the lack of exposure latitude. eac> Interesting. >> Photo labs, by their nature, are a closed loop system. The state >> of the film process affects the colour balance of the negatives, >> which is then adjusted for by the gross colour balance of the >> printer. If you have a film processed at one lab, and then >> printed at another lab, there may be problems with the colour of >> the prints that cannot be overcome, depending on exactly which >> side of the control line the two lab's film processors are >> sitting. >> >> Colour printing is more art than science. >> A good operator can usually determine what the photographer had >> in mind, and print accordingly. Good operators are visual >> artists in their own right, and very good ones. eac> [snip] >>William Robb eac> This is the other thing that immediately struck me. When I took in the 6x4s as a guide for the 5x7s the guy I talked to said, "Oh, I see what you are going for." I found that an interesting eac> comment. Like, yeah, I had had something to do with the color -- how color saturated the pictures were, sort of impressionistic. And it was like he was saying okay, that's the style you want, I eac> get it now. It didn't strike me as a TECHNICAL type of comment at all. eac> There is simply too much here to reply to. Lots to absorb. I will print out and save. eac> Probably that lab wasn't so bad. The trouble was, I couldn't evaluate it. I didn't know enough. When I complained I did tell the guy that I was a novice and couldn't evaluate it. I did think it eac> was nice he redid them for free and told me why they needed the 4x6s as a guide. I just couldn't make up my mind later exactly what had happened -- i.e. how to evaluate it. eac> Now I am rethinking using them (but if I ever do use slides I'd prefer a lab with digital processing). eac> Again, thanks, very, very much. Wow. eac> Doe aka Marnie :-)
