Help: Neg vs slide film
rl...@nb.sympatico.ca
I am looking for advice on the difference between neg film and slide
film. I'm shooting horse portrait pictures at the stand still with
little motion and desire a very narrow depth of field.
I hear most pro photographers use slides.
My 50mm is a Canon 1:1.4 and my 70/200 is at 1:4.5
I suspect I'll be shooting a max. open and the slower film would
help. (?)
I've used slides years ago and remember the lack of grain for posters.
Is there any other way of getting a very narrow depth of field with
the back ground obscured.
Are slides cheaper at initial cost than Neg?
Any help would be great.
Tks Roger
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Fred Whitlock
If your final product is prints, then you should shoot print film and if it
is intended for commercial print reproduction (printing press) you should
use transparency film. I shot horse shows professionally in the 70's. I
used Ektachrome so that I could put on a slide show each evening and take
print orders. I had Cibachromes made to fill the print orders. If I had
it to over again I would simply use print film and show prints. They
didn't have 1 hour mini labs in the 70's. You get shallow depth of field
by opening up your lens and using slow film and/or fast shutter speeds. Be
careful, though not to limit depth of field to less than is necessary to
satisfy the client, particularly with portraits of horse and owner.
Fred
Maplewood Photography
http://www.maplewoodphoto.com
rl...@nb.sympatico.ca wrote in article
<883769881....@dejanews.com>...
gary gaugler
On Fri, 02 Jan 1998 13:42:10 -0600, rl...@nb.sympatico.ca wrote:
>I am looking for advice on the difference between neg film and slide
>film. I'm shooting horse portrait pictures at the stand still with
>little motion and desire a very narrow depth of field.
>I hear most pro photographers use slides.
>My 50mm is a Canon 1:1.4 and my 70/200 is at 1:4.5
>I suspect I'll be shooting a max. open and the slower film would
>help. (?)
>I've used slides years ago and remember the lack of grain for posters.
>Is there any other way of getting a very narrow depth of field with
>the back ground obscured.
>Are slides cheaper at initial cost than Neg?
>Any help would be great.
>Tks Roger
>
Depth of field is controlled by aperture at a particular focal length.
At the same f-stop, depth of field will be wider as focal length
decreases and vice versa. You can look at the DOF scale on your lens
and see that the narrowest DOF is when the lens is wide open and at
the longest focal length setting (200mm).
If your intent is to make prints, then negative film is the most
direct and inexpensive way to do this. Then the speed of the film
will determine the degree of grain. Slower film will have less
perceptible grain than higher speed film. If you are shooting
outdoors and with a little fill flash, ISO 100 film will do a nice
job. If you do not need prints, then by all means, use slide film.
ISO 100 is also fine too.
With the film and your lens, you will need to compose the picture and
either preview the DOF with an aperture stop down button (if there is
one) or use the scale to determine what will be in focus. When you
are viewing the scene thru the lens, the lens is wide open and
whatever is focused will be focused on the film and whatever is out of
focus will be out of focus on the film. If you select aperture
preferred mode where you manually set the aperture, viewing the scene
thru the lens should show the difference in DOF at various apertures
from wide open to fully stopped down.
Gary Gaugler
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Modern surfers use PC boards....you can too at
E-mail: gaugler @ calweb dot com
FCHLDRAY
The big advantag of using slide film is that many magazines will not accept
submissions of print film based on prejudices formed twenty years ago and the
fact that they like to quickly judge submissions through a light board.
That said, when it comes to getting high saturation in colors--and horse
photography is just an area where that can make a good picture--slide films
like Velvia, Provia, the new Etchrome 100SW are very hard to beat. However, if
you intend to have prints made from film-be careful--the price is outrageous or
you will have to settle for ciba processing which not only washes out colors
but knock off a third or two of exposure.
There are a number of print films that supposedly equal pro slide films in
these areas. The one I use is Agfa Ultra, available for about 4 dollars and
some change for 36 exposures. This is a 50speed, narrow lattitude print film.
It has MORE saturation than velvia, whiter whites, and produces startling
results. However, this is a film that takes a lot of initial patience to get
used to--if you use it in perfect conditions with a polarizing filter-the
colors can come out so saturated you think you are viewing a comic book. In
flat light situations, it makes very ordinary photographs look like pro photos.
I have heard this film is being discontinued--bad luck if that is so.
Reala or the new Reala is a great print film for portraits and I think would
also suit your purposes as would Agfa 160--if you can find any on the market.
As to slide films, the new Astia is supposed to cure the skin tone problems of
Fugi slide film and I have seen reallly beautiful provia photos.
The major pay off, of course, is that you need to get correct exposure with
slide film as you are most often limited to 2/3 stops under and 1/3 stop over
while with print film you can go two under and three over. Quite a
difference--especially if you deliberately over expose print film.
Slow slide films, alas, require tripods, while films like Fugi Super G 400
often do not---the grain is so small it can withstand publication in a 10x12
format without giving a clue that it is amateur film.
WtrMelnSgr
Here's a question I've been wondering.......
What exactly is the difference that makes a film a negative or a positive ?
If I hold Tri-x of T-Max negatives up to the light and shift the light to a
certain angle to view the frame against a dark bakground..... I see a positive
image.
Back to direct light.... a negative image.What gives here ?
Thanks
J
Don Baccus
In article <19980106204...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
WtrMelnSgr <wtrme...@aol.com> wrote:
>What exactly is the difference that makes a film a negative or a positive ?
>If I hold Tri-x of T-Max negatives up to the light and shift the light to a
>certain angle to view the frame against a dark bakground..... I see a positive
>image.
And a very nice one, indeed. You see a positive because you're seeing an image
reflected from the film. The part with no silver oxide doesn't reflect light,
while the silver oxide which blocks transmitted light also happens to reflect
light. Voila', image reversed.
However, a positive film material is one which shows a positive image when viewed
by transmitted light. And, color materials don't contain any silver after processing,
just dye, so the reflection trick you've mastered doesn't work with these.
--
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dho...@pacifier.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, at http://donb.photo.net
Mac Breck
rl...@nb.sympatico.ca wrote:
> I am looking for advice on the difference between neg film and slide
> film. I'm shooting horse portrait pictures at the stand still with
> little motion and desire a very narrow depth of field.
Use slow (ASA 50 or 100) slide film for better color saturation.
If shooting horse portraits be sure to shoot the side view, not head on.
Use the lens close to wide open to minimize depth of field if you want,
but at portrait distances (close, ~ 3 to 4 ft.) you won't have much
depth of field anyway unless you stop down a lot. With the 50mm at
portrait range with a 50mm, you'll distort the horse's already long
head.
Mac