Re: grain resolution: trannies vs reversal

[Jesse Goff <jesse@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I always thought a tranny and reversal were one and the same...  I think transparencies are great for certain looks and clients who do not like looking at proofs or who are just too trained to only look at transparencies.  Otherwise, I always try to shoot negatives because of the general increase i what i basically feel is just plain quality.  But it is true that one is more likely to get a better scan with transparencies.  I still shoot negs and have them scanned because i work with a place that can do it right.  They always have to have a proof though.  It is worth the hassle for a lot of shots for me.  It still all boils down to personal opinion but I basically think the latitude of negs outweigh the apparent resolution increase of trannies that I am not even sure exists...

jesse

 /

>As far as I know the general rule is that slide film has higher
>resolution/smaller grain than equivalent speed negative film...
>
>if this is indeed true...does anyone know if this is a property of the
>actual film (slide film being constructed differently than neg), the process
>(different chemicals being used) or if it is simply by design because of the
>application each film type is designed for? ie trannies for projecting up to
>large size vs negs. printing on [relativly] small size paper.
>
>
>I know this is a little off topic so if you don't think the group is
>interested - please reply directly to...
>mlee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>thanx,
>Martin.









	|        J e s s e    G o f f     P h o t o g r a p h y
	|        1 0 9     M i n n a    S t r e e t     # 4 2 8
	|        S a n   F r a n c i s c o,   C A    9 4 1 0 5
	|        w   w   w . g  o  f  f  p  h  o  t  o . c  o  m	     
	|        s t u d i o :   4  1  5    7  7  7    3  7  0  0