Re: slide vs neg

[P3D John W Roberts <roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 08:10:07 -0500
>From: P3D Eric Goldstein  <egoldste@xxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: slide vs neg

>Ron-

>The two reasons for this are the absolute color reference 

Could you please explain that in a little more detail?

>and the
>precompression of the tonal range (into something more akin to what
>book/magazine/newspaper printing can handle) which reversal film
>provides.

(Doesn't quite fit the stereotype of 'slides are superior in every way'. ;-)

>I don't know what you mean by "accurate," but color negative film can
>record a far greater (up to 6 stops greater) range of contrast than
>reversal film. The difficulty is then finding a medium which will
>support this dynamic range in viewable positive form... paper prints
>don't even come close, 

Do you happen to know the contrast range available on print paper?
The Cibachrome prints I've seen had extremely dark blacks - not sure
about prints from negatives.

>and if you're going to wind up with a film
>positive you may as well for all intents and purposes start with one!

Some of the newest color LCD displays have contrast ratios of 300 or greater -
they might actually be up to the task (though there are no commercial ones
at present which can display the full resolution of a 35mm negative).

One nice thing you can do with negatives even with the lesser range of the
print paper is to choose which part of that huge exposure range you want
to be visible on the print. This permits an artistic choice of effects,
as well as compensation for exposure errors.

John R


------------------------------