Re: [Leica] slide vs. print film for PhotoCD

[Five Senses Productions <fls@5senses.com>]

Thanks for the info......I will be scanning a bunch of Royal Gold 25
negs tomorrow to see if there is a big difference.

At 01:37 PM 3/30/98 -0500, Jeff Moore wrote:
>At 27 Mar 1998 18:21:21 -0800, Francesco Sanfilippo <fls@5senses.com> wrote:
>
>> I have always believed that slide film
>> was the best for getting the ultimate image quality in a scan,
>> but a PhotoCD expert I work with sometimes told me that
>> color negatives scan MUCH better onto PhotoCD than slides!  
>
>That's the common wisdom.  Apparently, those CCD scanners (even the better 
>ones used for PhotoCD) have some troubles with the densest parts of the
film.  
>This implies a limitation in shadow detail from chromes, and highlight
detail 
>from negatives.  The former is more often likely to seem a serious loss,
hence 
>the preference for negative material if scanning is known to be the film's 
>most important use.
>
>> I was shocked, and today I bought a few rolls of print film (Kodak 
>> Royal Gold 25 and 100) in order to test his theory.
>
>I haven't done exhaustive scanning tests (maybe the PhotoCD color-balance 
>channels are suboptimal with this emulsion), but if you're trying color 
>negative stock, may I make a recommendation:  give Fuji Reala a try before 
>settling on your final choice.  I've used the stuff for years (through one 
>Reala reformulation), occasionally comparing it to Kodak's current crop,
and I 
>keep liking the way Reala looks the best among 100-speed color-negative
films.
>
>In the higher-speed realm (unsuited, I guess, for your hyperdetailed babe 
>photos), I've grown fond of Kodak PJM.  Dunno what `multispeed' is
supposed to 
>mean, but it's nominally 640 speed with a true speed more like 500;
usefully 
>less grainy than Fuji's excellent CZ, nice color palette.
> 


Francesco Sanfilippo,
Five Senses Productions
webmaster@5senses.com


http://www.5senses.com/