Assuming correct exposure why NOT user slide film?

Since I'm not too happy with my labs and the results I get from

negative film (400UC, X-TRA 400, NPH 400, Reala100, etc.) prints,

I'm trying to decide if it would make sense to switch to shooting

slides.

 

I know the old saying, "If you want prints shoot print film, etc.",

but I don't print that much anyway. I get my negatives scanned when

developing and THEN I pick a few I like to print. So it should be

the same with slide film on a Frontier or similar equipment. No?

 

My question has more to do with finding a general purpose slide

film. Most are 100 speed, but I also need a 400 speed. The only one

I can see that seems (from reviews) to be any good is Provia 400F.

There's also Kodak E200 which can be pushed one stop.

 

But how grainy are they compared to print films of 400 speed?

 

Can they be used as general purpose/all around use? Do they have

problems with flash, etc.?

 

I got "criticized" in a post asking if it would be suitable to shoot

a wedding in Provia400F. I'm not sure why. Is it because of the lack

of exposure latitude? I assume so.

 

But exposure aside, assuming I get all/most my exposures CORRECT,

what other reasons are there AGAINST Provia400F or Kodak E200 pushed?

 

Thanks,

 

Alex

Well, you're getting into the general comparison of slide and print films, a topic that has been much discussed. What you're giving up is exposure latitude, as you mentioned. In general, slide films can read less dynamic range in the scene, but contain a greater dynamic range in the result. Thus, negative films compress a greater range into a smaller one. Then they all get printed onto paper, which holds even less contrast range. But the differences don't stop there.

 

At any rate, as with any of these questions, the only real way to answer the question to your satisfaction is to shoot test rolls of similar subjects in similar light on different films and then evaluate them closely. You may find greater apparent sharpness and saturation looking at your slides on a light table, but only you can really answer what will make you happy in your occasional prints.

 

Short form: nothing wrong with using Provia or E200, or even Sensia, as long as you're happy with what you get. Enjoy.

Color neg can handle a scene of much higher contrast than slide film (C41 films have lower contrast than slide film and that can be seen in the end product). It works both ways - a slide of a scene might clip important values or the contrast might not be aesthetically pleasing (eg. skin tones are easily much more saturated and contrasty with slides than with a portrait neg film), but a slide may have more "oomph" when it comes to color gradations.

 

Fill-flash works great with slide film and most advertising pros have been shooting slides all along. IMHO, Provia 400F is a nice film; you should try it to see if it suits you. I use slides pretty much all around use, but I also like to carry color neg film with me since it works better in some situations (I shoot mostly natural light).

 

A lot depends on the look you're after and whether you have full control of your lighting (studio) or not.

The lack of exposure latitude may be an issue for a wedding. The contrast between a groom's black tuxedo and a bride's white dress my be just about as much as slide film can handle. (I can also imagine cases where a background of sunlit stained glass behind the new couple sitting in a moderately dark church may be challenging).

 

Just my 2 cents...

The reason slide film isnt used for weddings is a matter of contrast and latitude.It has too much contrast,and not enough latitude.

I just switched back from Provia 400F to print film for MF portrait work (Portra UC).

 

Why? Lattitude, in terms of lighting AND exposure. Slide films, particularly contrasty ones like 400F, have the lattitude of a shot duck. Meaning, very little if at all. If you're half a stop over-exposed with 400F you are F'd - period, and you ain't going to recover it in Photoshop. 400F has no where near the adaptability of lighting conditions like UC 400 and NPH, and is very touchy with skin tones just like it's close cousin Provia. E200 is certainly the friendlier of the two films in these respects, but you take a serious grain penalty with E200, and 400 UC along with 400F destroy E200 in terms of sharpness and strong color handling.

 

Otherwise, I strongly recommend trying 400F because within it's envelope it IS an extrodinary material. If you think you're going to load up with 400F though and treat it as a general purpose print film, or shoot formal events with it, you are in for a serious rude awakening. High quality, professional print films adapt to the lighting. High quality, professional slide films require you adapt the lighting to them. Even pulled a stop 400F is no match for 400 UC in terms of lattitude, although it becomes an E200 killer.

Thanks guys, and Scott thanks for the usual thoroughness in your replies.

 

That's what I WANTED to hear. That slide (beside the narrow latitude) is bad for other reasons - more grain, contrastier/bad skin tones, etc. Also I was thinking of latitude in terms of exposure and not so much lighting. Thanks for making that point! I KNOW I can take test shots, and I already have. I'm waiting to see the results. But it helps to asks as I can't photograph everything in my tests!

 

If I like it after seeing the results, I'll probably keep some Provia 100/400F for landscape shooting and the print films (400UC, X-TRA 400, REALA 100, etc.) for general use.

 

I wouldn't even be looking at slide film IF I could find a good/consistent pro lab to get my prints at. I'm just very picky. And this doesn't seem like rocket science to me! But apparently the art of printing has been all but lost. Now it's all about being quick, etc. But even then, if the operators of the Frontiers, Noritsus, Pegasus, printers were good and consistent, it would be FINE! But people are lazy since customers don't care about quality so much. Sad but true. In every domain.

 

Life is depressing, no? When simple things are needlessly complicated!

 

Alex

Slide film doesn't have more grain at equivalent speed in general, in fact the current generation of iso 100 films (E100GX, Astia 100F etc.) are less grainy (considerably so in my opinion) than any currently available color negative film.

 

Provia isn't a good film for skin tone. If you shoot slides, you need to use iso 100 or slower most of the time, because that's where the quality results come from. Negative film doesn't have any better skin tones than e.g. Astia or E100SW in my opinion. When scanned, the grainy look of dark areas from color negs is awful. I nowadays prefer matrix-exposed slide film to print film for outdoor people shots, even though I have to correct the exposure a bit during scanning. What slide film is picky about is the color and quality of the light. Too much contrast is a bad thing, and open shade doesn't work well either. But with the right light, slide film blows away print film. Especially if you scan the result.

 

Slide film is not recommended for varying lighting conditions & unexpected situations (ie. a wedding), because print film has more room for exposure error and can better manage a contrasty scene. Also, print film works well with TTL flash.

 

All in all, I've all but stopped using colour negative film for my own photography because of the shadow grain problem and because with the color matrix meter of the F5, I can better manage unexpected conditions outdoors. The grain in faces and skin tones in general is much finer with slide film. But: it's finicky. Try out different films in different light & subjects.

For landscape photography, you should read some articles at www.normankoren.com as he has a lot of good information about how to make good landscape prints.

I realize 100 slide is fine grained and excellent in those areas. I was talking about 200/400 speed, which I would need many times if I were to abandon print film. At those higher speeds slide IS grainier than equivalent print film. Provia 400F, from what I've read and hear and seen, is the finest grained high speed slide and even so it's still grainier.

 

So above 100 it's pretty much forget slides! So do you only shoot 100 speed all the time? Since I'm into action/street/pj type photography as well, I NEED 400 speed and higher even at times. I'm not the type to carry a tripod around very much. Slide sort of requires that due to the slow speed, unless of course light is plenty, etc.

 

How do you deal with low light photography at 100? And what about scenese that ARE contrasty? Do you just not mind chopping off some highlights? Just curious. I mean pros use slides, look at National Geographic! Great PJ type shooting all on slides! There must be a way!

 

Alex

Do yourself a favor: buy a roll of Provia 400F and a roll of Portra 400UC, shoot them, have them printed (digitally, at least for Provia) by someone you know can provide decent output and compare. 400UC seems to be a great film (haven't shot much yet myself), but it isn't slide film (although it might well be that fir your subjects and taste you don't need slide film at all)

 

In low light situations I use a fast lend or a tripod (works every time :) (ok, ok, there are good fast films too that I use)

 

In real contrasty situations I look if the contrast can be used as an effect, if it can be lowered and then decide whether to shoot or not. 9 times of 10 the light is either bad or I can create a good shot by exposing for those values I want detail in (this mostly means night shooting)

<I>But apparently the art of printing has been all but lost. Now it's all about being quick, etc.</i><P>I feel your pain. I come from a lab background in which every single frame of frame was hand balanced for color and density on professional paper. My Frontier labs are almost as good, but it all depends on the operator. Something in the frame throws the Frontier off, and everything is screwed up. Rarely is it caught.<P>Slide film will only make the problem worse used as in a 'general purpose' roll with consumer photo finishing. Better to keep slide film handy for those situations you know can be dominated by using slide film; landscape, controlled lighting, etc. <P>UC 400 has an edge over 400F in terms of grain, with 400F of course being smoother in shadow areas. 'Shadow grain' as mentioned above is a typical problem with all print films that can be annoying with scanning. 400F though has the typical slide film color intensity and 'snap' that can't be matched by print film. Problem is this usually gets tossed out the window with mediocre lab processing. When pulled a stop 400F beats UC 400 in terms of grain all around.<P>Might be time for a film scanner and printer. I just picked up an Epson 820s for $80 at CompUSA, and on the better papers its makes mini-lab printing look like a joke.<P>Magazines like National Geo and tyical fare have a dedicated pre-press technician that will balance and adjust each frame of film for publication. You don't have this benefit with commercial processing unless you scan. If that same award winning National Geo photographer were to take his work to your same lab he'd likely have the same problems.

Yeah, I get mixed results from labs too. For that reason I've been shooting some Sensia 100 lately (tripod mounted, controlled situations) and the slides are lovely. Scan pretty well too. One bonus: they can be projected. I'd forgotten how good slides look when projected.

A note on slide film and exposure: depending on the intended use (projection or scan) you might want to use different exposures. Denser (darker) for projection, and thinner (brighter) for scans. This means you should bracket several exposures... not easy with busy subjects. Also, expect to do lots of work on the images post-scan, or pay extra for a pro to do the adjustments. It's actually very fun to work over your own images, but takes time (and a good photo program)

"What you're giving up is exposure latitude, as you mentioned. In general, slide films can read less dynamic range in the scene, but contain a greater dynamic range in the result. Thus, negative films compress a greater range into a smaller one"

 

One would think then that scanned and unmasked negatives would show best, on a screen or in DTP. I know the press will use print film for its latitude, but is there not a quality argument for print film also, and is the preference of book publishers for slides changing at all?

Not in the general case. It's nearly impossible to get good results in nature photography on print film. I think in general, excluding people photography in rapidly varying conditions, the quality argument strongly favours (slow) slide film. I've had some neg shots printed and they show up as a grainy mess (while the analog 4x6 prints were ok).