Getting to know slide film...

Hey there,

I'm an amature photographer who has been working totally in print

film for some time. But the more I look around, the more I notice

that most all great photos are done on slide film. Can any one

advise me on this? How do you go about making prints from the

slides, and what kind of equiptment do you need for viewing the

slides? I've avoided it until now because I was uncertain of how

it was done. But it seems to be the way to go.

Any help would be fantastic.

Thanks all...

Red.

1. Buy some Kodachrome

 

2. Get a good loupe

 

3. Get a Leica slide projector

 

4. Enjoy

Getting good quality prints from slides can be more diffucult to obtain than

good color neg film. Having prints made digitally (ie. a Fuji Frontier) is

probably the most sensible choice, since R-type prints are dissapearing and

cibachromes are expensive. Also, Kodachrome is a pain in the ass. It

requires different processing (K14) than other slide films (E6), that is difficult to

find. The last time I sent out a Kodachrome roll, it took almost 5 weeks to get

them back. There are many great E6 films available. If you like saturated

colors for landscapes, Fuji Velvia is much better than Kodachrome. If you are

not a fan of saturated colors, Fuji Astia is a good choice. (I haven't tried many

Kodak E6's so I can't comment on them)

P.S To look at slides get, as Hans said, a good quality projector. Or to

examine them personally, get a good light table and a loupe (you can even

use a 50mm prime as a loupe). Light tables are especially good for medium

or large format slides. (A 6x6 slide on a light table can blow your mind).

"<I>But it seems to be the way to go</I>"<P>

If the pre-press of your publisher is set up for slides, or your editors like to view slides on a light table (and most do) then that is the way to go. Otherwise if you want prints, use print film; if you want slides, use slide film.

My tips:

 

-Get some Fuji Velvia 50, Fuji Velvia 100F, or if you're in a pinch, some Kodak Elite

Chrome Extra Color.

 

-For prints, go to any lab with a Fuji Frontier for your prints from slides. All Wal-Mart

1-hour photo labs and a growing number of Ritz/Wolf Camera and Walgreens stores

use Frontiers. The Wal-Mart near me can do an 8x10 print from slide for less than $3,

Walgreens, $4. You'll be pleasantly surprised!

 

-Any slide projector will do for viewing slides. Try your local Goodwill or Salvation

Army thrift shop. Personally, I use my former Grandpa's Argus 300. It still works like a

charm!

 

-If you do shoot slide film, even Kodachrome (Hans' favorite slide film), any Kodak/

Qualex-affiliated lab (Target, Kmart, CVS, Eckerd, etc.) will be able to send it out to

Fair Lawn and process it for you at a very reasonable price. (Expect to pay around $5-

$7 per 36 exposure roll.) Personally, I've had no problems with Kodak E-6

developing. (The same can't be said about their C-41.)

If you want to see some Kodachrome images, look at my portfolio.

Red,

(I forgot to add this...) Do you like slide film for the deep saturated colors they

can give? I personally think that Velvia 50 is MUCH better than Velvia 100F

for this. I find Velvia 100F to lack the punch Velvia 50 offers. Of course, you

may completely hate Velvia as well. Of course, don't use either of these films

for portraits. Also, if you want to shoot slide film indoors under tungsten-

lighting, you will either need to use cooling filters (82A or 82B) for daylight

slide film (most slide films) or use tungsten-balanced film like Fujichrome 64T

or Ektachrome T(64 or 160).

The sharpness of Kodachrome fils is just incredible. Notice the facial hairs on this Chinese woman, taken on Kodachrome 200!

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/2217440

It will be easier to learn with E6 so you don't have to wait for Kodachrome to come back, but certainly try them once and awhile because it is worth comparing results and see which you prefer. Kodak E100VS is also a nice saturated film, but I have not compared it to Velvia 100 yet. It is more informative during the learning process to look at the slides over a light table under magnification. Later when you have a few nice ones a projector, even Kodak, would be useful. Good luck!

If you want prints, shoot color neg film. Otherwise I strongly suggest getting a film scanner and learning how to scan your own slide film because you'll be sadly dissapointed at the quality level of commercial prints from slides, and this includes the Fuji Frontier. Or, buy a projector and lurk in your basement with the lights off. It will hopefully keep you away from society and young children - that's is honestly how I fee about those who shoot film with only the intent of projecting it on a wall.

 

With the exception of repetitious landscape images, I *rarely* see true photograps made from slides unless they are published in a magazine. How anybody can judge the quality of a film looking at a half tone image in a magazine on cheap magazine paper stock and low gamut press ink is beyond me. If you think slides are so wonderfull, the next time you see a cool looking model in a magazine send a letter to the publisher asking for an actual print. You'll find it's nearly impossible.

 

BTW - I've got shoe boxes full of NPH/Frontier prints better than what Han's is posting in terms of color saturation and detail. I'm not going to lower myself by scanning any more and posting them. If you want prints, shoot print film, and find a decent lab. If you shoot a pile of slide film and then get irked you can't get decent prints from them like those cool dudes in a magazine that have the help on an entire pre-press dept, don't blame me because I warned you.

As said above, editors like to look at slides and there is one less press operation to produce the final image from slides, otherwise there is really no great advantage to doing slides if you want prints.

 

Hauling out a projector is a pain, and looking at slides with a loupe is a pain.

 

In the long run, it is what you personally prefer. Slide films are a lot less 'forgiving' than negative films, so you have to be a lot more exacting.

 

I have known a lot of professional photographers for EK, NASA, Nat Geog etc., and number some of them as personal friends. They use the best film for a given job.

 

Consider this. Hollywood uses negative films, not reversal films for making all of their motion pictures. You cannot get that quality and projected image size with sharp low grain from a reversal film!

 

The ECN they use is very similar to the negative film you use in your camera. You can't ask for more than that for professional high quality or for professional endorsement.

 

Regards.

 

Ron Mowrey

I enjoy projecting my slides, and using a slide viewer to look at them also...if I feel like sharing my images, I'll either show a SHORT slide show to guests containing images relevant to their interest or people they know. A properly exposed slide, using a decent projector lens in a darkened room, is a beautiful image indeed. For those rare occasions i want prints from slides, "The Slideprinter" in Denver CO does an excellent job. I just love slides, and love projecting them...I grew up with Super 8 as a kid, so I guess projecting is in my blood!

Scott:

 

These are commercial scans, and not too bad, I hope. They do not, of course, capture the brilliance of color and scale that looking at the chromes directly presents to the eye.

Kodachrome is certainly the best slide film out there (and my favortie), but be wary of Qualex processing, it can be unpredictable. Personally I have had few problems with it, but I'm just lucky. There was a post a while back in this forum a while ago with someone showing off the entire roll of Kodachrome Qualex ruined. Unfortunatly you have no choice but to go Qualex (some small independent labs still do K-14) since A&I discontinued K-14 processing.

 

Kodachrome is by far the sharpest chrome out there (some may disagree) and as Hans said, reproduces skin tones wonderfully. The colour reproduction is exact and the grain is slightly more than the new E-6 films now, however Kodachrome has one thing that all the other slide films don't, it lasts for over 100 years without fading.

 

 

**Just a note, for me processing from Qualex takes almost a month to come back**

 

--Dominic

Hans;

 

Even though you love Kodachrome, many plans for improved Kodachrome were cancelled by EK due to lack of interest. This is well known. I'm not divulging any secret here.

 

However, it is fair to say that EK worked on vastly improving Kodachrome, but just never carried through on it.

 

So, as far as I know, Kodachrome is about 2 generations 'old' compared to any other film. It is high contrast and uses dyes with narrow cut (narrow half band width) that gives vivid color but makes an image on Kodachrome more sensitive to illuminant. When you print it onto Cibachrome, you have to use a different filter pack because of this.

 

I have a box full of comparisons of Kodachrome with all other films from all manufacturers. They are all from the same era as well. Kodachrome did not fare too well even with comparable films. It is good, but 'old fashioned'. It will be discontinued, I'm sure, long before you are willing to 'let go'.

 

Enjoy it while you can.

 

Ron Mowrey

Nonsense, Ron.

 

The current E-6 process was introduced in 1977. The current K-14 process was introduced in 1974. The reason that so many E-6 films have come and gone, while Kodachromes have been relatively stable, is that E-6 films are inherently inferior and always will be. They keep getting closer, but will never reach Kodachrome, because any film that uses incorporated couplers will inevitably be thicker, much thicker.

 

The anti-halation on Kodachrome is also much better than the water-soluble E-6 type.

Ron:

 

By the way, I used a good bit of E-4 Ektachrome, as well as Anscochrome and Agfachrome back in the 70's. They are all faded now, but my Kodachromes look like thwy were made last week.

 

Even my E-6 stuff from the late 70's has faded a little.

"Hauling out a projector is a pain, and looking at slides with a loupe is a pain."

 

I agree, digging out the projector, putting the slides into the tray, setting up the screen... it's a bit of a chore. But looking at slides through a loupe (or in my case, through a 50mm lens) isn't so bad. I really like it, actually. You almost feel like you're "inside" the photo.

I know people who have built-in screens and a closet that the projector sits in. All you have to do is load the trays, open the little door in front of the projector, and push the button to operate the motorized screen. And trays can hold hundreds of slides in far less space than prints would occupy.

Hans;

 

I have Kodacolor negatives from 1947, and Kodachromes from the same era as well as Ektachromes. The Kodacolor and Kodachrome are in excellent shape, but the Ektachromes have faded.

 

Get that! The NEGATIVES held up well too. I printed a number of them last week with the same filter pack as some Kodacolor Gold. Same exposure as well.

 

Now, do an experiment like the one I have in front of me right now on my light table. Do a ring around in 1/2 stop increments of a studio scene including a MacBeth color checker on Ektachrome, Fujichrome, Agfachrome, Polacolor, and Kodachrome. Include an MTF chart if you have one. Include negative films if you wish, I did. Agfacolor, Fujicolor, Ektacolor, Kodacolor, etc.....

 

Look at the colors in the people and the charts. Kodachrome may look good, but it doesn't reproduce the natural world very well. I have the checker propped up on the wall behind the light table for comparison.

 

This experiement was very carefully controlled under rigid lab conditions. Kodachrome is unsurpassed in sharpness. Thats about it. Color is so-so. Some greens are almost black in my shots. Reds are very vivid as are some greens. Flesh tone is so-so. Now, that is with Kodachrome and then current films (a few years ago). Those other films have improved in grain and sharpness as well as color reproduction. They have it all over Kodachrome.

 

Have any of you ever done this type of experiment? I have.

 

The results tell me that "You use what you like or are familiar with, or what you just plain prefer". There is no exactitude in this preference, just personal opinion.

 

That is why I tell people to try everything once and then pick what they prefer.

 

But if you introduce science into it, you come up with hard facts. Sorry.

 

Regards.

 

Ron Mowrey

I almost forgot.

 

Kodak's published specs for the new Endura Supra paper states that they expect the images to last for over 200 years with satisfactory quality and a minimum of fading. I'm not quoting exactly, I read that on their web page several weeks ago. Go there and see for yourself.

Hans,

 

you are trying to make film preferences seem objective, which is ridiculous. So what if Kodachrome is a wee bit sharper than the E6 films. Many people find the color renditioning of kodachrome to be boring, or as I read once, like shooting through a car window. If you like the more realistic renditioning of kodachrome, more power to you, it's your personal choice. If you prefer more vivid color rendition, than there are many E6 (and C41) films which will destroy kodachrome in that fashion. It's PERSONAL PREFERENCE!!!

P.S

There's a tonne of E6 films available in 120, Kodachrome?

Jason;

 

Thanks. You said it very well.

 

Red;

 

You see, you touched a raw nerve with your innocent but quite meaningful question. It boils down to personal preference, and science be damned. Hans' answer is illustrative of that. He prefers Kodachrome and nothing will convince him.

 

However, the dying market for Kodachrome and Kodak's lack of R&D on the product are evidence to the contrary coming from a massive customer base that no longer prefers Kodachrome.

 

I thank Hans to for his comment on 'good' equipment. Hans, I use Nikon for 35mm, Bronica for 645, and Mamiya for 67. I use Horsemann and Graflex for 4x5 with Schneider lenses and Kodak lenses respectively, so nothing I have is 'cheap'. My picture tests were taken for me by the professional studios at Eastman Kodak by two professional photographers.

 

I have been in photography for over 40 years Hans. It is personal preference for everyone. We use what we personally like. (Except my wife, she uses what I give her. ~grin~).

 

Hans;

 

I have been all over the world and have worked side by side with the pros. They use what they like except in jobs for publication. As stated before, they use transparency films more often because 1) Editors like to look at slides on a viewing table and 2) there is one less operation in making a color printed page from a transparency than a negative, so it is cheaper. However; they use negative films when the scene/job requires it.

 

As one person observed here recently, the pictures in Nat Geog often suffer from being taken using Kodachrome. There may be a grain of truth in that.

 

Please Hans, understand that I advise all photographers to use a variety of films from a variety of manufacturers, and then choose the system and film that most pleases them. Am I mad? I think not. And it appears that some agree with me. You see again? Opinion weights heavily in the photographic arena.

 

Someday Hans, you gotta try developing your own Kodachrome. The process is a real fun thing. Over an hour from end to end.

 

Good luck to you all in your picture taking.

 

Ron Mowrey

Hans;

 

I forgot to comment on the red flowers in Velvia.

 

That is called Cyan Undercut. There is too much Blue and Green interimage restraint on the Cyan (Red) layer. Therefore, detail is washed out. Cyan contributes detail in red objects. Kodachrome has this problem as well, to some extent. I have not worked with Velvia.

 

Ron Mowrey