Printing from slide film

I have run through previous posts in search of a clear answer, and

now bring it here.

 

I'm shooting Velvia 50 (previously shooting Reala). When the slides

came back I was overwelhmed by how sharp and color balanced some of

them turned out.

I felt that seven of the slides were worthy of printing. The purpose

for printing was to then choose which I would enlarge.

First off the cost to print was $3.00 each. And the bad news was

that they were about 2 f-stops darker than the slide.

The lab that I take my film too is a pro lab and am pleased with

previous results. When I asked about the darkness of prints as

opposed to the slide, I was given an explanation that the prints can

never be as vivid or sharp as the slide. He tilted the slide at a 45

degree angle against a white background, and told me that this is a

good indication of what the result of printing would be, makes sense.

Okay, So whats the point of shooting in slide film if you can not get

decent enlargements?

There has got to be a way to acheive good quality prints from slides.

I know very very little about a pro drum scan, other than it is

expensive, which if the result is as good as the slide, I would be

willing to spend.

My question then is this: What are the different choices for

printing a quality slides?

Thanks for your input.

If you want prints, use print (negative) film.

Thanks for your input Hans. I was using Reala. Was looking to get better input then that.

Hans is being curmudgeonly, but it is an oft-quoted refrain and there are some reasons for it.

 

That said, if your lab is making prints that are really two stops darker than the slide, then they are failing you. It's true that a print can't be quite as sharp (it is an elargement, with everything that entails). Vivid is a little bit subjective, but it is true that prints can't have the contrast range or color gamut of a well-exposed piece of Velveeta.

 

All that said, it is absolutely possible to get GREAT prints from slide film. There have been a few threads on that subject recently, and I encourage you to seek them out. I also encourage you to see if there's a Frontier Lab nearby. I won't claim that Frontiers are the best thing since blueberry muffins with peanut butter (what do you like to snack on?), but I have certainly seen good results from Frontiers staffed by conscientious printers. And the process of printing on a Frontier isn't that different between slide and print film.

 

I've seen some truly brilliant results from scanned and optimized slides on Lightjets and other output devices. But that takes a little more work ($). I encourage you to search for some information on those processes as well. Let me know if I can offer any other information. Enjoy.

Find a new lab. I'll second Marshall's comments about Frontiers and Lightjets, but would add that a Noritsu (similar to Frontier) or a Lambda (similar to Lightjet) are also options. Avoid having internegatives or R prints made. There's no reason to anymore with digital printing. If you can find a competent printer and want to spend $, Ilfochrome prints are beautiful too. You may have to send them out of state though.

The tonal range of a slide is greater than any print can reproduce. No print from a slide will be as good as the original. It is impossible to create the tonal scale of transmitted light by means of reflection. If you want prints, use negative film.

Armand,

 

First off, the prints should not have been 2 stops too dark. Did they make an internegative, did they print it directly on to direct positive or Ilfochrome (Cibachrome) paper; or did they scan it in and print it out on a digital printer?

 

Drum scanning is relatively labor intensive, and if you don't personally have one handy, expensive. However, there are less expensive scans, like from a Nikon Coolscan, that are almost as good. Once you have a digital TIFF scan file, you can then send it to any lab that has a Lambda, LightJet or Chromira digital photo printer.

 

Cheers!

Dan<div></div>

Yes, Hans, color print papers have about 2.6 density ranges, where slide films have density ranges up to 3.8. But, one can make a print of a scene by either of these workflows and get similar results:

 

1. Slide film to scanner to RA-4 print

 

2. Negative film to RA-4 print (with optional digital step)

 

The advantage of path two is that the color negative films record a much higher range of scene brightness. Slide films have the narrowest range of scene brightnesses before they block up.

 

So, you get to decide what parts of the dynamic range to compress or clip at printing time with negative film, whereas you have to decide this at exposure time with slide film.

 

But this doesn't mean one shouldn't print from a slide. You can even uncompress the crunched ends of the tonal range in a digital workflow.

 

As for MP's warning to avoid R prints, that's pretty easy. Kodak is discontinuing the paper and chemistry. Slides get to paper today via scanning. (Only alternative is Cibachrome, and that's a small slice of the market.)

 

As for $3 prints, that's pretty cheap. You won't get the most out of any color film at $3 a print.

 

But Velvia 50 can be scanned. Even on a CCD scanner. Yes, you may lose a bit of the dynamic range. But you're not going to get anyone to do that for $3 in labor and materials. Good color prints are expensive from slides or negatives. They take someone's skilled time.

 

Cheap prints from negatives are better than cheap prints from slides. So I would word Hans's first note as: "If you want decent prints for cheap, use negative film."

 

The big difference now is that with a digital darkroom, you can provide the skilled labor, and have the output done on a calibrated digital RA-4 printer. But there are capital startup expenses (scanner, monitor calibrator, photo editor, inkjet printer). But they are much less than they were for wet color printing, and the learning curve sure isn't as hard as it was for wet color printing...

Armand,

 

A proper print from a slide should not look darker, but it will not have all the

highlight and shadow detail that you can see in the slide. Optical prints from slides

and internegatives are a compromise at best.

 

As others have noted, the best solution is to scan the slide and print digitally, either

by inkjet or photographic laser printers like the fuji frontier, lightjet, lambda etc.

 

I don't think you probably need a pro drum scan. I was happy with my old Nikon LS-

2000 film scanner (2700 ppi) and the newer scanners are even better. Even the old

nikon scanner could find detail in the slide that I couldn't see on the light table easily.

 

Try getting a ccd scan done (it should be way cheaper than a drum scan) or get a

filmscanner for your home and learn to use photoshop. With photoshop you may even

improve on the original slide.

 

Here's an example from Extachrome 400:<div></div>

"What's the point of using slide film if you can't get decent

enlargements?"

 

If you view a slide as being equivalent to a negative- ie. a step on

the way rather than an end product in itself - then it's likely that

you will be better off financially and quality-wise using print film

rather than slide film. The availability of Frontier and similar

printers means that its less of a nonsense to use slide film as a

route to bulk prints than it used to be, but it's still more hit and

miss and its still a bit more expensive than starting with print

film.

 

But tell me, why are you getting little prints done as a route to

decide which of your slides are suitable for enlargement ? Why

didn't you simply look at the slides and decide? If the answer is

that you value small proof prints more highly than transparencies

then I repeat, don't start with slide film. If you're going to start

with slide film then you'll need a light table and a loupe at

minimum to help you assess what you've got.

 

For one-off enlargements it is possible to get excellent prints

from slides. There are a number of ways to do that , but I'm

going to simplify by discussing only those methods available

from a lab- ie I'm not going to get into the area of scanning/file

creation /printing at home since you've given no indication that

you have any interest in that route.

 

Before the advent of quality digital printing , getting large prints

from slides was a lottery. Basically the technology behind

conventional (analogue) techniques like internegs/R

types/Cibachromes wasn't good enough to give a good result all

the time. This limited the size and quality of what you could get,

and contrasty slides in particular were a nightmare to print.

Matching colour precisely to an original slide was very difficult.

That's why these techniques are in the process of disappearing,

and why some people without experience of what has followed

on still indicate that it isn't really possible to get a great print from

a slide.

 

The rise of commercial scan and print alternatives has changed

all that and it is not now accurate to infer that you can't get great

prints from slides. But as ever it depends on the technique you

vote for, the price you're prepared to pay, and the abilities of the

people you choose to do it.

 

On the one hand you can use the Frontier (or equivalent labs).

They will scan and print for you with no major adjustments to the

file outside maybe cropping. In the right hands and with the right

original this can give really good results at an affordable price.

But you have to find the right place, and it's unlikely to be

somewhere that tries to explain gross exposure differences by

saying that the task is impossible. It isn't, but it is likely that their

set-up and experience are much more orientated towards

printing from negs.

 

Then there are custom solutions which involve scanning

(sometimes but not always on a drum scanner) , the preparation

of a file, and printing on machines such as LightJet, Lambda,

Chromira or whatever. These routes are capable (again in the

right hands) of producing results from slides that would have

been considered extraordinary or impossible just a few years

ago. But it depends as ever on the abilities of the people doing it

and it is by no means cheap if what you want is a one-off print.

There are printers around that can produce for you prints which

are very close indeed to the slide, or indeed enhance it to your

brief. You can get prints from slides from a good lab which will

make you think "hey, did I really do that?" But you'll have to pay

up to about $100 for a single 14" x 11" print - reprints if you need

them would be very much cheaper.

 

I'd point out that the routes available for digitally printing from

slides are not significantly different from the routes to print from

negs if you're using labs. It isn't getting a print from a good slide

that's expensive via a custom route - it's getting a print, period.

Likewise it's entirely possible today to get a print from a neg

that's every bit as vivid and intense as a print from a slide -

because the file can be made to achieve just that.

 

So, back to your issue- unless you value slides for their own

sake , why bother with them? You can achieve everything else by

using print film. You'll find it easier to get a lab that's good at

making prints from negs.

 

 

Neg dupes from slides (Internegatives) are nasty. I've made too many 4x5 internagatives to ever care about making more.

 

David offered some great advice which I can only sum up as if you want economical prints from slides, then find a competent Frontier lab or do your own scanning.

 

What I find somewhat annoying is why we have all these posts showing scans from slide film. And this tells us what exactly?

 

To prove that good prints can be made from slide I'll post a shot I just had made on Kodak Metallic paper from my local Frontier lab. The original was a 6x7 transparency that I scanned on my Epson 1640SU flatbed.

The next upload if from that same file printed on a Fuji Frontier, and scanned directly form the Kodak print.

 

In other respects I stick to print film because about 9 out of 10 times it will yield a better final print than slide. In just this particular case I needed slide film to get the saturation and contrast I needed.

I am, as always, impressed with the expertise of the people on this site, and your willingness and generosity to share it with a novice.

I have been shooting Fugi Reala and was very pleased with it. You hear so much about Velvia here that I just had to try it. Now I'm hooked on it. I take pictures in part because it gets me outdoors and in the moment. The pictures that I think are worthy, I enlarge and give to friends (lucky them). I was using seven prints made from the slides as proofs, probably a mistake on my part but that's to lack of the experience with slides and printing in general.

I see a Nikon coolscan in my future.

Thanks again,

A.A.

Armand, the obvious hasn't been said: slides-transparencies-computer images are viewed <i>while lit from behind</i> whereas prints use natural light falling on the paper. No way you get the same <i>sensory</i> effect, whether the print is made from slides or other media. <p>There is one near choice:<br>KODAK PROFESSIONAL ENDURA Metallic paper.<br>From the Kodak Professional site:<br>"<I>Introducing an extraordinary photographic paper with incredible image stability, a unique eye-catching look, and superior process robustness. KODAK PROFESSIONAL ENDURA Metallic paper offers creative opportunities for both portrait and commercial photographers and additional sales opportunities for labs. With its glossy finish and metallic appearance, it represents another dimension for creating images with exceptional visual interest and depth</I>.<br>My personal experiences with Endura have been extremely good, especially when used with bright landscapes and portraiture.<br> Older women in particular like its �<I>glitzy</I>� qualities. Have your lab print or show you a sample.

Armand, I have gotten excellent result even from Velvia 50 slides by scanning it on a Nikon 4000. Velvia is sometimes difficult to scan but multiple passes will do the trick most of the time to bring out the darker portions of the slide. To convince you that an investment in a good scanner is worth the money spent, send me a couple of your slides and I will scan them and send you back a CD with the digital images, which you can in turn have prints made.

<I>It is impossible to create the tonal scale of transmitted light by means of reflection.</I>

<P>

Actually, just in general reflected and transmitted light build tonal range and color differently. But that doesn't mean that you can't get a great print from a slide. The difference in this for printing is that, generally speaking, a neg captures a wider tonal range than slide and compresses it into a smaller range than slide, while a slide captures a narrower tonal range than neg and compresses it into a wider range than neg.

Dan Schwartz,

 

Was it not possible for you to move to the right to center or "symetricalize" that track oval with the fisheye? Could have been a real nice photo.

I have been amazed at the quality of prints made from slides on a Frontier printer. They come out much better than internegs( at least the ones made at the Qualex or Fuji outlabs).

 

If you get an interneg made at a pro-lab it will come out much better, but it still wont have all the detail that the original positive had.

 

Your best bet will be to scan the slide, color balance the image in Photoshop and then take it somewhere to print( either a Frontier or a Lightjet( which will give you slightly better results)).

Andre,

 

Actually, I shot > two dozen frames from the rooftop, at various H&V angles. That was the best shot, since it (1) Shows the front straight suites and grandstand; and (2) the backstretch grandstands were closed, and empty grandstands make for a bad shot.

 

Cheers!

Dan

Hans wrote:

 

"If you want prints, use print (negative) film."

 

Hans, you also once said that "...the only film worth shooting is Kodachrome."

 

But what if somebody wants prints? You suggest that if they want prints, they should use negative film. But you claim that Kodachrome is the only film worth shooting. So... in lieu of Kodachrome, which negative film would you recommend?

 

I'm not trying to be a smart-@$$. I'd seriously like to know what your thoughts are on this.

R.T. Dowling , mar 27, 2004; 10:54 p.m.

Hans wrote:

 

<b>"If you want prints, use print (negative) film."</b><p>

 

<i>"Hans, you also once said that "...the only film worth shooting is Kodachrome."</i><p>

 

<i>But what if somebody wants prints? You suggest that if they want prints, they should use negative film. But you claim that Kodachrome is the only film worth shooting. So... in lieu of Kodachrome, which negative film would you recommend?"</i><p>

 

Fuji and Kodak make good negative films. I do not use negative film. I use Kodachrome. You will have to ask others about which negative films to use. The only one I know is particulary good is Fuji Reala.

....Which brings me to question if you don't make prints from film what exactly is it good for????

 

I'm waiting for my metallic prints from Konica Impresa to further put to death the myth of the slide.

I have gotten impressive results from internegatives.

 

As for prints reproducing the tonal range of slides, well, the information is there in the print but is limited by multiple internal reflections that cannot be seen at normal illumination levels.

 

Read comments here: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007oKD

 

This other thread has comments on viewing images and image quality.

 

Slides scanned in can make impressive images on-screen or printed, but they are still limited by resolution of the electronic imaging sensors. All films, regardless of their individual faults are still superior to electronic imaging and the new 2 electron sensitization has raised the bar for conventional photography vs electronic of all sorts.

 

In the other thread, the issue of neg vs positive is raised in another way entirely, via the motion picture connection. Please look at it as well before you make up your mind.

 

Regards.

 

Ron Mowrey

I am fairly new to the forum thing and don't know if a plug is allowable or not, but here goes.

 

I worked in a small pro lab in my home town. We used to send slides out to a Fuji lab for printing and never got a print that was good by any standard. We then started sending to The Slideprinters in Colorado. The results were remarkable! The prints looked as close to the slide as any print I have ever seen. This would be my suggestion to you. You can probably get the particulars from a search on the net.

 

IMHO you can't get better results.

I will second the suggestion about using "The Slideprinter" in Denver CO...excellent results, very reasonable prices, decent turnaround time...I was not disappointed!