Slide Shooters

<p>I shoot both, but my only working digital camera is a "creative compact" DMC-LX3. The only SLRs I have are film. The main reasons why I have no plans to change that are related to the cameras that shoot film rather than film itself. I'd actually welcome the advantages of cutting out developing and scanning if they didn't mean giving up the many benefits of my film SLRs:</p>

<ul>

<li>Simple, uncomplicated, intuitive user interface that I'm already intimately familiar with.</li>

<li>Lighter bodies. Even the clunkiest Pentax 35mm K-mount film bodies ever made -- the K2 and KX -- are lighter than a K10D (one of the lighter DSLRs!) with batteries. I hike with my cameras, so weight is important.</li>

<li>Smaller, lighter lenses, thanks to the lack of AF motors and electronics.</li>

<li>Brighter finders thanks to the lack of light-robbing partially-silvered reflex mirrors to benefit an AF sensor I'd seldom use in the first place.</li>

<li>Avoids the completely unacceptable risk of losing (as I did last year) the majority of this year's spring wild flower season to battling a weird firmware glitch on a new DSLR.</li>

</ul>

<p>Slide film, for me is the ONLY way. Suspect the madness of the internet and the<br>

ease by which one may post digitally rendering images using a computer<br>

and related software makes digital attractive. Digital replaces strips of plastic film negative.<br>

I don't do prints, for me slide film is still the best way of enjoying my photography.<br>

And I don't have to fiddle with images on a computer; images to me which<br>

could disappear with the press of a key.<br>

And for many of the older photographers we've always used Kodachrome slide film<br>

for best results. There are many individuals that trade colour slides of transportation<br>

equipment (specifically railways). if the image is not on Kodachrome slide film;<br>

it is automatically worth considerably less. Kodachrome lasts, nothing else does.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Digital doesnt even come close to the wonderful impact of a projected slide"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm a full-time professional nature and conservation photographer that shot slides for years - Fujichrome 35mm and 6x9 MF. My current portfolio is 50/50%. I don't miss slides much at all. I did when I had a Canon D60 seven years ago and the color and tone sucked. The modern bodies are fantastic and the color and tone leaves little to miss. Yes, it doesn't look the same projected, but that has no real bearing on the work I do.</p>

<p>I just photographed baboons in South Africa for four months, and the 35,000 frames I shot would have made the project impossible with film. Now I have beautiful, large RAW originals, I have no scanning to do, and the color, tone, and sharpness is absolutely gorgeous and natural.</p>

<p>I can still get my big beautiful 6x9s out and marvel at how cool they are, but to me photography is not about the objects and the nostalgia. I want to to be able to shoot to my hearts content, to create meaningful content without minimal time investment (scanning) that I can actually afford to create for the groups I work with, to not go broke doing it, and to have top notch quality.</p>

<p>I used to shoot a lot of slides, for me the issue is finding a good lab to do 120 quickly and at a decent price. Its a lot harder these days!</p>

<p>35,000 RAW frames - yikes, you could spend the rest of your life trying to process those;-).</p>

<p>Seriously though, I can understand shooting digital, especially if I did photography for a living. In fact, no question about it, I would be using a DSLR. But for me, photography is a hobby, it is my passion. I would rather have 10-15 boxes of slides from a trip rather than 3,000 digital frames. Shooting film has taught me "fire discipline" - I try to shoot only when the shot is really good. I have noticed that with my digital PS, I end up taking lots useless shots, simply because I can (its free). Then I have to surf through tons of images to find the few good ones. My slides not only have a better hit rate, they are so much quicker to edit - simply spread out on a light table, and the best shots quicky jump out at you. Best of all, it gets me away from the computer, a welcome relief from work, where I sit behind a computer most of the day.</p>

<p>Final thought - I am a hybrid shooter. I really like my Panasonic FX-150. It fits in my pocket, and allows me to get painless (scan free) copies of my slide shots that I can review on the spot for exposure issues/challenges, as well as review and admire at night as I lay in bed after a days landscape shooting. Instant gratification, and it builds my anticipation of seeing the slide versions I shot...And when they get back from the lab, they always blow me away! (like no digital image ever has) Also, the FX-150 gives me great screen saver images for my large workstation monitor at work.</p>

<p>Back in 1977 when I got my first SLR (a Canon AT 1) I quickly became disappointed with the results of generally everything I shot with print film.I tried drugstores,Fotomat,real camera stores but the results lacked impact. Lucky for me a friend tossed me a roll of Kodachrome 64 and said "have some fun guy you won't be disappointed".Well,I have never turned back for pleasure photography because the results blew me away.I shoot mostly E6 Elitechrome these days but if were not for the fast thinking of my friend I may of chose basket weaving instead of photography as my primary hobby.Nothing and I mean nothing beats a chrome on a light table for transport back to the moment the image was captured even if it was 32 years ago.Don't even get me started on the aspects of archival storage.......</p>

<p>I would take less shots with film, but only because I would be aware of the cost - and I would wind up missing out. Different situations call for different approaches. I'm never just clicking away blindly with no rhyme or reason. With digital I still take only a couple shots of a typical landscape, but if I'm photographing a troop of baboons frolicking in a field of wildflowers for 6 hours, jumping around the whole time, it gives me the freedom to make sure I get some compelling shots without going broke. I've also done a lot of work in wetlands with wild birds. The freedom to shoot is a huge asset there as well. If I'm out doing macro work of wildflowers my daily number of frames is no different than when I shot film.</p>

<p>As far as processing, the high volume is a drag and a time killer with Photoshop, but Lightroom has made it much much faster. Another example, I photographed festivals in Peru last year for several months. On a great day in Cusco I took 1,000 frames - colorful dancers spinning and moving around for 12-14 hours a day. With irfanview for the first pass, then LR, I could have the whole lot down to 100 in about 2 hours, then have all my intitial tonal and color correction done in another 3 hours. Again, if I were shooting landscapes in the Andes, I'd come home with 50-60 shots for the day, and keep almost all of them.</p>

<p>Agreed 100%. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"One day" was a long time ago in computer terms (sort of like dog years).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The "one day" refers to me, and to many people on this thread. I <em>have</em> seen this and that is exactly my point, that slide shooters need not despair if slide film becomes unavailable. <br>

At the moment usually all I see is people hooking up their crappy point and shoots to the TV - not usually so inspiring. Perhaps JDM is really all wired up and that is great.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Kodachrome lasts, nothing else does.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The Kodachrome hyperbole/fetish is extraordinary!</p>

<p>Yeah, but Kodachrome was so sweet. My first rolls of it were actually ASA 10! When II came out, lots of people were running around freezing rolls of the older film, but I fell in love from the first KII slide I shot. K64 was never the same for me.<br>

I also like really tall, black boots......</p>

 

<p>Me too</p>

<p><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3429/3292762406_fac1a1bb88.jpg" alt="" width="229" height="262" /></p>

<p ><em >I guess I'm hopelessly addicted to chromes ;-).</em></p>

<p > </p>

<p >Well, you’re not alone. So am I. I’m shooting with Velvia’s (all three!) and love Ektachrome as well. </p>

<p >Lately I’ve searched e-bay for 35mm films. I found a 10roll brick of Kodakchrome 25 dated 2002. The seller kept them in a freezer, tested it, and guaranteed that the film is in excellent condition. I’ve never used KM 25, and knowing that this was favorite film of Galen Rowell, I’ve decided to bid, hopping to buy for $60-70. No way, it’s gone for over $200. And it seems like the seller has over 20 bricks like that (or even more). I guess this is the devotion… </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Larry,</p>

<p >Those are nice black leather boots. Where did you get it? Soviet Army parade?</p>

<p>May Day Parade.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I <em>have</em> seen this and that is exactly my point, that slide shooters need not despair if slide film becomes unavailable.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Robin, not that I actually despair (much) of such things, my camera of choice is a 1950's Stereo Realist, and if my preferred method of viewing the slides from this camera is in its companion viewer, what are my options if slide film becomes unavailable? And no, I really don't need any more doorstops!</p>

<p>Hillary</p>

<p>Well yes with your weapon of choice, you would be screwed! I can only speak for myself. For me, despite being an antiquated long time leica user, I can see a future without film if I have to go there. Ultimately, it is the pictures you make not the machinery that makes them.</p>

<p>JDM - oh yes I like boots too!</p>

<p>well, I am a 50+ pre-geezer and shoot film. I prefer slides but shoot a lot of color negatives for family events like holidays, weddings and funerals. I don't disrespect digital capture, but I still believe that slides have that extra image quality that I like. Nearly everyone else in our extended family shoots digital but I occasionally get the shots that win the moment! They whine that I sit on the film for days and they have to wait, and I whine that they take hundreds of frames of the same content! :-) Then I pop in a roll of K64 and the "WOW" factor is magnified! My scanner is here and soon the slide feeder will be busy!</p>

<p>I was dragged kicking and screaming into digital only because the number of pro film developing outlets has dropped dramatically, not becuase of the quality of digital.<br>

If I could buy slide film and get it processed cheaply and quickly, then I would stay with film. Alas the tide is shifting and I am on the steep, new learning curve of digital out of necessity.<br>

I'll still shoot heaps of film...that won't change, but trends are not making it easier. I was going to buy a used 617 camera for landscapes. Prices are around $2-3k for a good used Fuji, and only a bit more for a Linhoff. I may go that way as long as I can still get the positives processed easily. It will be a while before digital medium format becomes inexpensive.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"If I could buy slide film and get it processed cheaply and quickly, then I would stay with film."</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Stephen, Are you in the U.S.? If so, high quality, dependable, relatively fast processing is available through Dwayne's. If you buy film development mailers available through all the major retailers such as B&H, Adorama, Unique, etc., they very likely go to Dwayne's, as does all Kodachrome. You can use the Fuji E-6 mailers for Kodak E-6 film, too, without any problems whatsoever. Of course, film is available though the same retailers, and almost certainly at considerably lower prices than you would pay from your local shop.</p>

<p>To give you an idea of the turnaround time, my last roll of Kodak 35mm Ektachrome was dropped off at the local P.O. on a Sunday night. I'm on the East Coast, Dwayne's is in Kansas. I received the perfectly developed film back in less than 6 days, on Saturday afternoon. Cost of the pro film, development, and postage: right around $13,25. I've been doing this for a few years, now, with only excellent results, no screw-ups whatsoever. Someone posted recently criticizing Dwayne's, but that is totally outside my universe of experience with them, and I'm sure others will back me up on this. Postage can be greatly reduced on a unit cost basis by combining several rolls/mailers in one larger envelope. If it would help to have direct links to any retailer's film mailers, just say so. Jeff </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Nothing and I mean nothing beats a chrome on a light table for transport back to the moment the image was captured even if it was 32 years ago.Don't even get me started on the aspects of archival storage......."</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely, Douglas, great points. As to the first sentence, I can think of one slide immediately of my nephews when they were little, getting off their bikes after riding up to our house on a late winter day... The late afternoon winter light, the feeling of the season that particular year, the facial expressions, that special time in kids' lives, just everything that formed the essence of that moment in time is exquisitely etched in that Kodachrome slide... I don't think that I can adequately describe it, but when I think of that image or actually look at it, I can clearly feel the unique things that a special slide is capable of conveying like nothing else I'm aware of.</p>

<br />

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"...I just photographed baboons in South Africa for four months, and the 35,000 frames I shot would have made the project impossible with film. Now I have beautiful, large RAW originals, I have no scanning to do, and the color, tone, and sharpness is absolutely gorgeous and natural..."</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I think that I do understand the possible advantages of a digital SLR in this sort of situation, and feel that these could be the kinds where digital capture might be the best choice... </p>

<p>However, as someone that trusts his film bodies' metering capabilities, I find that for the few professional jobs I've done, as well as a workshop with a N.G.S. frequent contributing photographer, they have been very adequate. For the type of people photography that this entailed, I don't think digital capture would have helped in the least, as it was about capturing the "decisive moment". For this, I think anticipation and thought leading to action was the best path, not firing away and hoping that quality images would best be derived through sheer volume.</p>

<p>Brett, No offense, and with all due respect, but don't those 35,000 frames then require post-processing? I clearly remember my workshop experience where the digital shooters were on their laptops for literally many hours each day (and nights from what they told us), while the film shooters had their slides back each morning and were done with it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=1474813">Jeff Z.</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"></a>, Mar 23, 2009; 10:43 a.m.</p>

 

<p>Brett, No offense, and with all due respect, but don't those 35,000 frames then require post-processing? I clearly remember my workshop experience where the digital shooters were on their laptops for literally many hours each day (and nights from what they told us), while the film shooters had their slides back each morning and were done with it.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>You don't have to addjust all 35,000 frames, only the ones that look like they are going to be used.</p>

<p>For me shoting slides ended up having more post-processing required. I wanted to have all my slides scanned and on my computer, even forgetting the scanning time it takes longer to adjust a slide scan then it does adjust and convert a raw image. Of course if you were to shoot 35,000 slides you likely would not scan more then 1% of them.</p>

<p>

 

<p>

 

<blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>"...I can just imagine what was said about Eastman's roll film by purists in 1900. Their opinion was that glass plates were here to stay for any real serious photography.<br>

It is only a matter of time when the concerns about resolution, high contrast become acedemic with digital cameras become much better than film..."</p>

 

</blockquote>

</blockquote>

<p>Terence, I'm not so sure that this is an accurate analogy, and a certain outcome... Perhaps if the powers that be decide, as they seem to have thus far, to continue on with solely emphasizing digital capture technology, then it will become so...</p>

<p>I suppose what I'm trying to say is that it doesn't necessarily have to be an "either/or" decision. In my view, film photography is a separate technology, and also, a developing one. Consider the several great new films that Kodak has introduced in recent years. They've all been considered to be at least moderate improvements over their predecessors from all I've experienced and read, and are simply outstanding. Why can't both technologies continue to thrive?</p>

<p> I think that integral to much of this is a new business model that has emerged over the last decade, or so. For manufacturers, hardware and software developers, etc., continually introducing "new and improved" digital cameras, and their myriad accoutrements is much more profitable than the old film camera based businesses. Of course, digital is a boon for many purposes, and I don't mean to denigrate it. However, film photography is very appropriate for many, too, and I certainly like transparency films for many reasons.</p>

<p><br /></p>

 

</p>

 

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I can just imagine what was said about Eastman's roll film by purists in 1900. Their opinion was that glass plates were here to stay for any real serious photography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That reminds me of something I read about the author Lewis Carroll:</p>

<p><em><strong>"Lewis Carroll became interested in photography in the infancy of this scientific art form. He was a man of infinite patience and one who paid attention to the smallest detail. These qualities were mandatory to be a photographer in the 1850's. The wet collodion process was demanding indeed. It is thought that he gave up photography when the dry developing process came to the fore, because it made photography too easy. Anybody could do that. Where was the challenge?"</strong></em><br>

<strong><em></em></strong><br>

I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same. However, I'm not sticking with my old Realist out of stubbornness. For me, the format is by far the most versatile and cost-effective, plus digital stereo displays just don't give me that "you are there" feel like my stuff shot on slide film. </p>