Why E6 over C-41?

[Tom Kershaw]

I've noticed browsing around this forum that E6 film seems to get more attention than C-41 colour negative. As colour negative can record greater dynamic range, is generally more flexible regarding exposure, and can be printed economically in the darkroom via the RA-4 process, is the main attraction for large format photographers using E6 film editing on a light box?

Tom

[Paul Mitchell]

Hopefully UniB will be along shortly and he will beg to differ...

Paul

[joolsb]

I use Fuji NPS when I need the extra dynamic range or a higher shutter speed.

But I don't shout about it.

[Steve Smith]

I suppose that unlike 35mm or 6x6 transparencies, which can be fairly easily projected, large format transparencies are always going to have an extra stage or two of processing such as scanning and printing or scanning for book reproduction or even optical printing. The transparency gives a reference as to what the end product should look like which a negative does not.

And they look really cool on a light box!


Steve.

[Dave Tolcher]

Coolness(or perhaps better described as WOWness) on the lightbox for me..... if my main target end product was prints then I would probably shoot digital 35mm over LF. Without the slide as a product then LF is getting harder and harder for me to justify as an amateur and after I have run out of my stock of film could be unaffordable anyway.

Like Jules I do shoot colour neg but only to scan and getting a good scan is not as reproducable as it should be - in my hands anyway. Absolute colour fidelity is not that important to me (otherwise why would I shoot velvia ) so I am not so worried about the slide as a reference.

[Steve Smith]

Although I suggested the transparency was a reference, it doesn't have to have true colour fidelity. After all, you shoot Velvia because of it's interpretation of colours, not in spite of it and even if it is nowhere near reality, it can still be a reference of the image you wanted to achieve when it is transfered to another medium.


Steve.

[Charles Twist]

In reponse to the original question, I am guessing there are a lot of landscape shooters on the forum discussing their particular issues. Amongst that crowd, Velvia and Provia have a lot of sway, although I do believe things are changing as people test different stocks - just in time for them to be discontinued... Guessing again, I surmise that those films are popular due to heroes of the genre using them.
Regards,
Charles

[timparkin]

I've noticed browsing around this forum that E6 film seems to get more attention than C-41 colour negative. As colour negative can record greater dynamic range, is generally more flexible regarding exposure, and can be printed economically in the darkroom via the RA-4 process, is the main attraction for large format photographers using E6 film editing on a light box?

Tom

Transparency film just because of the jewel like colour reproduction. The increased contrast really helps render low contrast scenes giving beautiful colour transitions in light skies for instance. Most grain on transparencies is typically in the shadows and at a dmax that desktop scanners can't really get at. Negative film on the other hand has grainy highlights and hence skies don't have the same smooth transitions and blending colours. However, contrary to my initial understanding, negative film seems to have as high a resolution as transparency film (when scanned anyway). Getting 'beleivable' colour is more difficult with negative film (I know velvia isn't realistic but it can look real). However, using ColorNeg (a great photoshop plugin by CF systems) and either Pro160S (which Julian Barkway has great success with - see his flickr set http://www.flickr.com/photos/25405272@N ... 140696765/ ) or my preference, Portra 160NC, you can get wonderful results.. see my blog post here http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/knapdale2

The good thing about negative film is that it will be around for a long time because of the movie industry (there are more rich wannabe art movie directors/investors than there are rich photographers - and they use a *lot* of film!)

Tim

[Tom Kershaw]

Tim,

Motion picture colour negative film uses a different process to C-41, so I'm not sure how much interconnectedness there is between the two markets (motion picture & stills photography). However, apparently Kodak have used aspects of the technology developed for motion picture for some of their more recent stills films.

http://wwwuk.kodak.com:80/global/en/pro ... path=13328

Tom

[dave_whatever]

Haven't there also been some movies/scenes shot on velvia?

[timparkin]

Haven't there also been some movies/scenes shot on velvia?

Quite a few films have been shot on transparency film, yes

[timparkin]

Tim,

Motion picture colour negative film uses a different process to C-41, so I'm not sure how much interconnectedness there is between the two markets (motion picture & stills photography). However, apparently Kodak have used aspects of the technology developed for motion picture for some of their more recent stills films.

http://wwwuk.kodak.com:80/global/en/pro ... path=13328

Tom

I'm sure you could use the motion picture stock in a stills camera though..

[Tom Kershaw]

I'm sure you could use the motion picture stock in a stills camera though..

As far as I'm aware some people have done this, but there are issues including that motion picture film is generally lower in contrast compared to stills film. I'm also not sure how straightforward it is to get short lengths of motion picture film processed.

Some of the interviews on 'Inside Analog Photo' with Ron Mowrey cover these issues.

See iTunes or http://www.insideanalogphoto.com/

Tom

[Marizu]

When people are considering media choice, they have to consider the whole workflow from the nature of the subject through to the final output. Many here are shooting landscapes in Velvia and scanning it using V750's.
For some reason when they are scanned (possibly due to Tim observations about the nature of the noise) transparencies appear to suffer less from grain (or grain aliasing). I suspect that this advantage diminishes if negs are printed optically which most places do not do anymore.
I am thinking of shooting more colour and I am liking the look of C-41 because the chemistry is cheaper than E-6 and it lasts longer. The films appear to be slightly more expensive, though. It also opens up the possibility of making RA-4 prints using my enlarger.
There is a an 'Inside Analog Photo Radio' podcast dated 04/04/2008 where Ron Mowrey discusses some of the benefits of colour neg film over transparency.
There is also an interesting, current thread on apug entitled, 'Grainy!' that looks at some of these issues.

Marizu

[joolsb]

For some reason when they are scanned (possibly due to Tim observations about the nature of the noise) transparencies appear to suffer less from grain (or grain aliasing).

This is true but there is a big difference between pixel-peeping a 2000+ SPI scan at 100% on an LCD monitor and what appears in a print. I've had 20x16s made from scanned 160S which are indistinguishable from scanned Velvia at the same size. It might be an issue at really huge sizes but I'm guessing that most people don't print much larger than 20x16.