|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
> NEGATIVES VS. CHROMES > Part of the reason for the preponderance of chrome film use in publishing > is historical -- it *used* to be really hard to get good scans from > negative film, and negative film used to be significantly inferior to low > speed chromes. The cost of learning and calibrating a new way of working > hasn't been justified. But the business is changing, especially in news > publishing, where negative film and electronic cameras are in common use. I shoot for advertising mostly, where negatives are rarely used - just chromes. The main advantage of chromes is that they contain the exact color and exposure values to be reproduced. From the original scan to the final published piece, this information is the guiding light. Even if digital manipulation is necessary, it is often preferable to go *back* to film to provide a standard for correct subsequent reproduction. The film is often accompanied by a digital file to save time and avoid re-scanning. When the 4/c proofs come in for approval, the original film shows if everyone did their jobs correctly. If I used negs, which I would prefer because of greater film lattitude (eliminating a lot of headaches like bracketing, push-pull processing, yadda yadda) then I would still have to spend time (and expense) getting it to transparency film. This requires extremely high resolutions, and for the above reasons scanning labs just don't do enough of it to do it right. But even if they did, it would still have to be "printed" on film, which would be my responsibility to get it "right". I have come to the conclusion that in advertising/publishing nothing can beat a perfect image on original transparency film. Another bummer is that b/w prints are becoming less and less desirable in the industry. Many clients ask us to shoot color transparencies and they just convert it to b/w, which I hate. The creative process in printing is completely lost. Might as well send it to the drug store. The best of both worlds would be the ability to hand them a *b/w transparency*, along with the file, but I'm not there yet. That's why folks like National Geographic prefer chromes - this is the best way to make sure those wonderful colors are 1) captured correctly and 2) reproduced correctly. Regards, Tim Olive - Please do not include an entire message in your response. Delete the excess. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.
[Photo] [Yosemite News] [Yosemite Photos] [Scanner] [Gimp] [Gimp] Users