Scanned C41 or E6 best for printing?

[leica dream]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Back in the 1950/60's the only way I could get colour images was through transparences - OK, that has dated me, but it raises a question in my mind about to-day's world.

Please forgive my simple understanding ......

With C41 workflow the camera produces negatives which the scanning process passes through sensors and software to convert to positive images then store as digital images.

With E6 workflow the camera produces positive images ready for scanning to digital format without any intermediate software manipulation.

Accepting that E6 films are usually slower ISO than C41 (I have been using Ektar 100 anyway), my simple logic tells me that E6 scanned images should be "purer" than their  manipulated C41 equivalent and, as such, would therefore produce finer quality prints.

Am I correct or have I missed a vital factor?

[Dazzajl]

For digital prints you’re probably better with E6 but if you wanted to shoot neg film you will still get fabulous results. The amount of loss in quality you might experience from cancelling out the film base tint and reversing the image are negligible. 
 

If you wanted to explore wet prints, really has to be C41 now I think. 

[250swb]

Exposing an E6 film is far more critical than a C41 film which you can over expose and still get a perfectly usable negative. Which leads on to printing and depending on the result you want, and the knowledge you have, and the printer you've bought, and the paper you use, and C41 is a far more malleable starting point. The fundamental point with any film process whether B&W or colour is to have an opinion of what you want and not become blinded in the headlights of what the process simply dishes out, so if you saw a sunset one way and the film didn't see it that way you change it. The idea of 'purer' has never existed in photography or why should there be so many films to make a personal choice from?

Edited December 26, 2024 by 250swb

[erl]

In my experience, which of course is not yours, C41 trumps E6 for 90%+ situations. An exception being in the studio where light ratios and contrasts are controlled. That is when E6 rules. In the real world, where light and contrasts vary constantly, C41 is king. But that is only the beginning. Then you must have access to to excellent processing facilities. Then you must have very good scanning procedures, regardless of which film you employ. Then essentially you must master PP procedures. I wish you a long life because you will need it.

There is hope. It is fun and instructive along the way, so it is worth living a long time. 

[LocalHero1953]

You may be using a scanner which manages its own colour profiling, but in case you are digitising E6 with your own camera, then it is worth knowing of the Wolf Faust colour targets from which you can create your own import profiles for Lightroom. I have one for 4x5 Provia 100F. It was not cheap, but I found it excellent in getting good colours straight off. 

It may not be relevant to you, but I'll leave it here for reference by others.

Edited December 26, 2024 by LocalHero1953

[Einst_Stein]

I scanned my old C41, E6, and Kodachrome, using various scan method, including film scanners HP S20, Minolta Image DualScan III, Epson V600, Polaroid 45A, Leafscan 45, and then Leica X-V with macro filter, Leica M 240 with 50mm on Zeiss scan stand, Contax 645 with Apo-Rodagon 75mm, Contax 645 with C645 120 Marco lens, Leica S3 with S macro lens, and Leica S3 with Apo-Rodagon 75mm.

The E6 and Kodachrome are much easiest to manage when using film scanners, because they least rely on the scanner/film profiles.  

But with digital camera, C41 is the absolute winner. The main reason is the much wider dynamic range of C41. Unlike film scanner,  I no longer need the film profile. Inverting C41 to positive is super easy. Using adobe's curve tool is merely a 5 second's job (then do eye drop WB).  

Dealing with B&w is also easy. Well, it still takes a lot of efforts to get a good result, but that is irrelevant to your question.

So, when I shoot film again, I stopped shooting E6 after the old stocks are running out. It's B&w and C41 only. 

[leica dream]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Really interesting experiences, thank you.

Accepting the strengths/weaknesses of the two film types, what I was trtying to get at was, all processes equal, wheher the quality of final colour output from "as shot" E6 positives scanned colours was noticeably different from "software interpreted negative" colours produced from C41. That is, how do the direct in camera colour E6 images compare with software manipulated C41 negative colours.

[Einst_Stein]

1 hour ago, leica dream said:

Really interesting experiences, thank you.

Accepting the strengths/weaknesses of the two film types, what I was trtying to get at was, all processes equal, wheher the quality of final colour output from "as shot" E6 positives scanned colours was noticeably different from "software interpreted negative" colours produced from C41. That is, how do the direct in camera colour E6 images compare with software manipulated C41 negative colours.

With digital camera, there is no SW manipulation. Merely inverting the lighting in LR is straightforward, practically no machine intelligent.
 It will be all your manipulation. 

By the way, even scanned E6 needs tweak of contrast if your goal is print. My E6 needs a lot of tweak, basically the digital version of silver masking. At least you need to tweak the contrast slope. E6 has less dynamic rage, its contrast slope is much higher than C41 and prints. 

My E6 contrast slope problem is somewhat related to my under exposure practice. At that time, I do over exposure on negative, particularly on C41, and under exposure on E6. If you follow the ISO fave value, this problem should be minimized. 

Edited December 27, 2024 by Einst_Stein

[erl]

It's pretty straight forward. 'As shot' colour between e6 and C41 differs by the look of the orange mask on C41 film. If you intend holding the film up to the light to 'use' or see it, that will be the difference.

Otherwise, both ultimately are 'software interpreted', to use your expression. My extensive experience with shooting high quality colour negative eg. Portra 400, is that when scanned directly to computer, the colour balance and fidelity leaves nothing to be desired. If you scan the forum for my Hasselblad pics (I Like Film thread) you will be looking at basically unmanipulated images. I challenge E6 film to consistently match it.

[LocalHero1953]

12 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

With digital camera, there is no SW manipulation. Merely inverting the lighting in LR is straightforward, practically no machine intelligent.
 It will be all your manipulation. 

By the way, even scanned E6 needs tweak of contrast if your goal is print. My E6 needs a lot of tweak, basically the digital version of silver masking. At least you need to tweak the contrast slope. E6 has less dynamic rage, its contrast slope is much higher than C41 and prints. 

My E6 contrast slope problem is somewhat related to my under exposure practice. At that time, I do over exposure on negative, particularly on C41, and under exposure on E6. If you follow the ISO fave value, this problem should be minimized. 

Just inverting the lighting curve for a colour negative digitised by camera is not enough (though good enough for B&W). You also have to subtract the orange film base (easily done with the eye dropper WB tool) and adjust white and black points for each of the RGB curves. This can be automated, but the whole process is a couple of steps beyond just inverting the lighting curve. For both B&W and colour, this is just to achieve a flat contrast and colour starting point from which you carry out further editing as with a digital image.

[Einst_Stein]

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Just inverting the lighting curve for a colour negative digitised by camera is not enough (though good enough for B&W). You also have to subtract the orange film base (easily done with the eye dropper WB tool) and adjust white and black points for each of the RGB curves. This can be automated, but the whole process is a couple of steps beyond just inverting the lighting curve. For both B&W and colour, this is just to achieve a flat contrast and colour starting point from which you carry out further editing as with a digital image.

I never do inverting or WB by channel. YMMV. 

 

[LocalHero1953]

19 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

I never do inverting or WB by channel. YMMV. 

 

How do you allow for the orange film base? Can you describe your process for inverting? No criticism intended, just curious - unless ou use a black box plugin like NLP, all the methods I have seen (such as the manual process here, which I have automated in PS) are based on removal of the orange, then individual RGB curve adjustment. 

Edited December 28, 2024 by LocalHero1953

[Einst_Stein]

It does not matter. Global WB after inverting. I have also done global WB on edge then global inverting then global WB, but found global WB on negative edge makes little difference. 

I am sure you have your reasons to justify the more tedious method. I cannot say it is irrelevant, but I don’t see it is the only correct method. it is a good advise though. I will leave it to others for detailed evaluation. 

[leica dream]

It all makes a bit more sense now - thanks everyone.