BW film: Reversal vs. Negative
- Thread starter SDBenassi
- Start date
http://www.google.com/search?q=reversal+film
Reversal has about 4, maybe 6 stops of latitude, and neg has about 11.
Don't rely on third party vendors who are often more expensive than the source. Either order fresh stock from Kodak or Fuji. Reversal should be less expensive than neg.
My short, High Fire Danger! was shot on 16 reversal.
These show some of the limiting latitude of reversal:
Reversal has about 4, maybe 6 stops of latitude, and neg has about 11.
Don't rely on third party vendors who are often more expensive than the source. Either order fresh stock from Kodak or Fuji. Reversal should be less expensive than neg.
My short, High Fire Danger! was shot on 16 reversal.
These show some of the limiting latitude of reversal:
Now that we can transfer directly to DV I much prefer shooting
reversal. I don't have a scientific reason, it's purely emotional
and aesthetic - I just love the look.
reversal. I don't have a scientific reason, it's purely emotional
and aesthetic - I just love the look.
Wow, those shots are really cool. But are you saying that negative would have more tonal range than these shots? Lattitude 6 for reversal vs. 11 for negative, so negative would have what, twice the range, is that how it works? The first and last shot definitely look flat, the last one definitely overexposed. Your film looks really cool though, I'd like to check it out if you have a link to it..
I always thought it was the other way around actually.. a goodly chunk of fashion photography was shot with reversal stock (aka: slide film) and most of those images don't seem to contain a lot of excessive grain. But it really depends on how the footage is shot.. Exposure and developing have a large affect on the level of graininess, excessively underexposing film creates more grain, as does significant over exposure.
Also it would vary depending on the film stock being used. The speed of the film, etc.. faster film generally has more noticible grain than slower film, and the newer film stocks have much smaller grain than older types.
Also it would vary depending on the film stock being used. The speed of the film, etc.. faster film generally has more noticible grain than slower film, and the newer film stocks have much smaller grain than older types.
Reversal has less grain due to the way it works. I was explained why at some point but it was a bit complicated. Has to do something with the fact that it is already half processed when you get it, which is also why it has less lattitude. By the way, if you weren't aware because I don't think it was ever expressly stated, if you have less lattitude you have less room for exposure errors and also less room for exposure correcting during the color timing process.
It would make sense that it would have less grain for the positive image because it's a single piece of film, with negative you have to print a positive from it, so that second iteration of the footage on a new piece of film would inherently add grain, but if the final product is destined to be digital, there's no reason for a positive print because the negative can be telecined, so how that affects the end product with regard to grain I couldn't say.
But you're right, less latitude does mean that you have to be more careful with exposure. It also mean that the extremes of the light range from black to white isn't as wide. So that means the footage would be a bit more contrasty than something with larger latitude.
But you're right, less latitude does mean that you have to be more careful with exposure. It also mean that the extremes of the light range from black to white isn't as wide. So that means the footage would be a bit more contrasty than something with larger latitude.