Btw trans are good for scanning too.
Hmm...no offence, but I can't say that's very true though.. From my experience, negs still give better scans. Partly because the wider latitude gives more data, especially in areas which are prone to overexposure such as skies. On the other hand, scanning slides has never been a very fulfilling thing for me.. The colours somehow always comes out slightly less than what I see on my light box. This slight reduction of colours and contrast has made me wonder if the added cost of shooting slides is worth it at the end. And I find myself digitally manipulating the scans to give me a "digital equivalent output"
The problem is that empirical data a.k.a. the many films I have scanned, is that negs often than not gives equal, if not slightly better scans than slide film which costs nearly double the price. Of course some may point out that slides has finer grain, more accurate colours, etc etc of which I do not object to, but if that is the objective, why not shoot digital instead? That said, I also understand that everyone has their own reasons why they shoot film and I'm not in any way trying to blow holes in them.
