Those of you who shoot 35mm slides.

<p>Slides are just plain old amazing. They speak wonders. The images pop right off of them. Even when scanned they give great images. Plus it is something tangable. It is an archival medium which will be here unless you burn it or just throw it away. Plus the cameras to shoot film are great. I like everything about them. Slides don't have a good exposure latitude so they are a great way to make sure that you are good at exposure.</p>

<p>"if there was B&W slide film, I'd try that."</p>

<p>There once was Agfa Scala</p>

<p>There is also the Dr5 lab which takes almost all black and white neg films and makes slides out of them.</p>

My main reason for shooting slide film is just curiosity...I had never used slides before.

 

When I found out Kodachrome was going to disappear, I figured I needed to try it at least ONCE, just to see what it was like. When I got my slides back in the mail, I was completely blown away. I've always used film, but this was the first time I had ever even seen slide film. And I got hooked.

 

Well, here...THIS is why I started (and continued) shooting slides!

 

http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00T90j

<p><em>"if there was B&W slide film, I'd try that."</em><br>

<em>There once was Agfa Scala</em></p>

<p>There now is Rollei Slide Direct<br>

http://macodirect.de/rollei-slide-direct-c-1_6_56_264.html</p>

 

<p>I can't help noticing that the word 'FREEZER' is used an awful lot here.<br>

On a short break to Madrid last March my younger son was astounded when I opted to pack my Minolta Dynax 7 and Fuji Velvia in preference to my recently-acquired Sony Alpha 700. We have just returned from another Madrid trip and again, the 35mm camera was used.<br>

The truth of the matter is - digital photography has made us lazy. One St. Valentine's day present my wife would like is more room in her refrigerator ! <br>

Why do I still shoot them ? the bright colours I suppose, that and the incredible sharpness when projected on a big screen.<br>

Now where are my E6 chemicals ?</p>

<p>I would have probably switched to digital last year if DSLR makers wouldn't have started offering DSLRs with HD shooting. For stills, cameras like a Nikon D700 or Canon EOS 5D Mk II would be good enough for me. I find the video shooting very tempting, but it's still not good enough in today's DSLRs. I will wait until <br>

- large sensor cameras (full frame DSLR like, although I don't absolutely need the mirror) are capable of full HD video shooting at reasonable frame rates - and to me, "reasonable" for HD would be something in the 100+ fps range. Rendition of rapid movements in current HD is just plain inacceptable in my opinion. I'm watching HDTV since its early (analog) start in the late 80's (in Japan) and never understood how the designers could increase resolution on the screen surface so drastically (compared to SDTV) without adequately increasing the resolution in time. Interestingly, James Cameron recently expressed similar thoughts - thank you, James, you give me hope! I hope you're heard by the industry!<br>

- an autofocus working well (fast, continuously) also in video mode<br>

- a wide range powerzoom (e.g. 20 - 400mm - yes for me it needs to start at such a strong wideangle) is offered for such a camera. For me this would be an additional lens specialized for the video shooting - it needs to be good enough for the 2 megapixels required in full HD, but it doesn't need to be as good as lenses for 12 or more megapixel that stills are taken with should be<br>

- players and / or TVs capable to play such high frame rate HD movies are available<br>

- computers and software can deal with such video streams.</p>

<p>There are also some reasons why I still prefer to shoot slides for stills as well, that's<br>

- there is no digital equivalent to a slide projector, at least no affordable alternative with a similar resolution and<br>

- portrait mode (!!! - can't emphasize this enough)<br>

- I have doubts that I'll manage to keep my digital photos alive over several decades - who knows if I'm smart enough to make backups often enough, and even if I do, if I'll be able to retrieve them should my computer ever crash.<br>

- who knows if a computer in 25 years can still read and show Jpegs, Tiffs or, particularly, current camera's RAWs.<br>

A slide sits on the shelf and unless there is a fire or flooding will look much like today in 25 years from now. And, no, they don't need to be Kodachromes - I have E6 slides from the mid 80's when I started taking pictures which still look good.</p>

<p>All this wouldn't probably stop me from switching to digital - in contrast to you,<br>

- I don't "like how you only got a certain amount of shots"<br>

- I don't like to wait for the films to process,<br>

- I hate having to scan them<br>

- I'd rather save the money spent on films, and<br>

- I'd love to switch ISO on the fly whenever I need to.<br>

Anyway, overall digital isn't quite the way I want it yet, so I keep shooting slides.</p>

<p>So many great reasons for shooting slides! I hope some of the digital shooters sitting on the fence give it a try at least once.From the day digital arrived on the scene there has been so much spin and vague promises connected with it versus the reality that it is still a developing technology.I agree entirely with all who question the archive properties because the manufacturers really dance around this issue yet none of them have a clue (then again maybe they do) to how usable those files and software will be a decade from now.As for the human factor just talk with your elderly parents or grandparents (especially if dementia has started to take a toll) for any length of time and imagine yourself in their shoes trying to manage your photographic archive.For me,I sleep better at night knowing most of my history is stored on a physical slide and not in binary code on a IC chip based system.One of the few advantages of getting 'old',most of my stuff was shot on film before the whole world changed. </p>

Les, Great Answer ;-)

You made me laugh.

I guess many of us have accumulated great cameras over the years, but my hat is off to you for such a large collection!

But back to Ray's original question: I shoot slide film because the results look great, right out of the box, no PP required, but even more importantly, because of the AMAZING IMPACT and WOW factor you get when projected. Ray, if you dont yet have a slide projector, pick up a used one - they are very inexpensive now. It will be one of the best photographic purchases you have ever made.

And I guarantee you, you will be stunned when you see your shots blown up to 60 Inches / 2 meters size, with such vibrant, brilliant colors.

<p>I shoot 35mm and medium format slides and blow my mind by projecting them on a 60"X60" screen with a Rollei universal projector, you can keep digital imaging it's just a passing craze that will disappear like hula hoops, yoyos, and deely boppers, slides rule.</p>

<p>I would probably shoot more E6 if it weren't so obscenely expensive to process (again, I understand the rise in processing prices as places that process the film have had lower volume). It doesn't pain me at all to buy 10 rolls of slide film for something like 5-7 dollars on BH, but the kicker is when I have to pay $14 for each roll to get processed (and not even mounted!) sheesh. I'm considering sending it off to a larger commercial lab at this point and just having to pay $9.</p>

<p>I shoot slides with my EOS 3 because I like "full frame" format and the unique way each film renders the colors: it's like changing every time the sensor's characteristics :-) If you want to understand better this concept, please look at my portfolio: <a href="http://www.photo.net/photos/dallalb">photo.net/photos/dallalb</a><br>

I shoot slides mainly for scanning purpose, because I like to take advantages of the digital benefits in post production...<br>

I’m not interested in shooting a huge number of photos, but I prefer to work on quality and to refine my ability of synthesis: shooting with film can help to achieve this purpose, since every frame has a real cost and you cannot preview the result on the field. I scan and spend time in editing only my best shots. An ideal goal would be shooting only one frame to fully describe the visual potential of a scene and to fully convey my message.<br>

Alberto.</p>

<p>Alberto, you have some beautiful work in your PN portfolio. Thanks for sharing.</p>

<p>Amazing colors, 3D depth,</p>

<p>Les & Larry,<br>

I kind of missed your earlier comment that Nikon has discontinued the 5000 Series Scanner and they are 'offering' only the 9000 ($2600) on a special order basis?What big hearted guys they are.I don't want to hear the old PR garbage "marketing forces" made us do it, this sounds like a load of crap to go digital slr or else.How come they were always back order status if nobody wanted one?I own one plus a Canon 4000US.What do you guys suggest as a replacement down the road?I'll go commercial scanning before I ever buy another product from either of them.Kill off all the film bodies first then the film scanners,what better way to force them into the digital camp like it or not.At this point it would make sense for Kodak and Fuji to join with a third party and produce your own scanners in order to sell more film because it is clear these guys (Nikon,Canon,Sony) could care less if you survive.</p>

<p>Well with there knowledge of scanners you would think Epson would jump in on this. Though then again it could end up like when Cadillac started making sports cars.... :)</p>

<p>You'd think Kodak or Fuji would too.</p>

<p>I have many of the same reasons as the above - fantastic color, great sense of depth, lovely "feel" that seems to evade digital still. I also like how shooting film period slows you down a little bit (though it also speeds you up...no more damn chimping!). At the end of the day, though, I'm finding that my 6x6 slides are just far sexier than 35mm :) 4x5, anyone??</p>

<p>I still shoot slides, though I do not cut them apart and mount them, just leave them in strips like negatives, because the quality I believe still surpasses digital. The hardest part about it is still finding local labs what will do E-6 processing.</p>

<p>What do you mean with this question? I mean, if I do not shoot slide (Velvia 50 in summer, 100 at winter) what should I use with my Nikon F2A and F5?? Or with my Mamiya 645 Pro?? And please don't think that I am a old traditionalist, who has these cameras from my youth. My Nikon F2A, my pride and joy together with the 6 prime Nikkors I use with it, were bought about 9 months ago (OK, I admit, I had an F2 Photomic for 15 years, starting at the tender age of 17). Why?</p>

<p>For a very simple reason, you just can't get the colors you get with Kodachrome (now obsolete) or Velvia with any digital camera without a lot of post-processing and a lot of trial and error. Of course, all my slides get scanned and entered in my Aperture library, just like my digital pictures, but in most cases, these slide pictures don't get any "touch-up" in the softwarem contrary to most of my digital raws.</p>

<p>Oh well, I may be an old traditionalist, but I just love the way these slides look.</p>

 

<p>Color and dare I say, sharpness of a well taken transparency is to my eye still unmatchable in digital, even as good as digital is, even though I shoot digital all the time. I still shoot film including slide film.</p>

<p>I shoot slides and scan selected images because I've grown tired of the way digital requires us to acquire computer storage resources -- additional hard drives, mirroring, Raid 5 or 10 or whatever.</p>

<p>A couple of years ago, I bought two back-up drives because my internal had way too many images on it. After another year of shooting with my Nikon D200, I found my hard drive cluttered and my back-up drives were filling up. At some point, the decreased cost per image became a file management nightmare for me. Sure, I could delete unwanted pictures, but that is just more maintenance that I do not want to manage. File deletion is also contrary to what I learned from photojournalism classes about discarding images.</p>

<p>The storage hassle refreshed my memory about the great auto archival feature of silver and dye-based photography. Oddly enough, I've never heard of file cabinet failure, but I know from my experience as a database administrator electronic storage sometimes lets us down.</p>

<p>When I went to the Great Smokes National Park in October 2009, I shot Velvia with my Nikon F5, whose ergonomics, especially when it came to mirror lock-up functionality, made me not want to touch the D200 anymore for anything except candids.</p>

<p>If I was a working press photographer, I would love digital at deadline because of the speed with which I could move my images to the photo desk. However, because I am just another weekend photographer, I've decided to defer the need for immediate gratification.</p>

<p>Yes but even then I do tend to save at the largest file size and quality I can even with my scanned images... thing is I only shoot 36 or so at a time so it is not as bad as just fireing off a 4GB card and hopeing for the best.</p>

<p>mostly because of Kodachrome. colors look amazing - http://mooostudios.com/americana/americana.htm</p>