slide film the rises and the fall, and should i go for slide film?

The disappearance of E6 could be a truth, but is E6 the only slide film chemical

out there? I know Fuji Sensia can be processed by other slide film chemicals. I

recently found out cvs can help me send out my exposed slide films to kodak to

process. Does anyone know any pros or cons of letting someone develop my slide

film?

 

Lets do the math, a roll of sensia in bh is aroun 6.25, and plus another 6.00

from the processing that will be 12. Will it be worth it? I am not planning to

get a darkroom. I want to stick with digital yet, with slide films. Am i making

the right choice?

 

Film equals archival.

Slide film requires very precise exposure. Some of your other posts suggest you may be fairly new to film and especially slides. Before spending your money, make sure you know how to properly use an exposure meter.

Slides will force you to improve your exposures. As for cost - yes, it isn't cheap. But the results can be stunning.

E6 is the most common, but Kodachrome is still being made and processed - K14. It is more archival, but the newer E6 films have got to be close, honestly. And they have less apparant grain.<BR><BR>

It is well worth it to shoot a roll of slides at some point in you photographic career and see what you think. You will not get that kind of micro-contrast in a negative. The kind that just makes a landscape pop out at you. Not that negs are bad - they are very good at retaining detail. Slides are just stunning when exposed correctly. Check out a few of the scans in my gallery here. They are all slide film.<BR><BR>

Yes, slides will make you grow as a photographer and get very good at metering a scene, and knowing when to take your camera off of auto-exposure and when to let it have its way. :-)<BR>

Jed

Slides will make you want to improve your exposure. But unless you take meticulous notes while shooting, merely using slide film won't help you improve exposure one bit. You'll be playing a guessing game.

 

I honestly have to say digital is the best tool for learning about exposure and the nuances of your camera's meter.

 

That said, yes, buy and shoot some slide film. Let someone else develop it. Enjoy the unique color palettes, and see where it fits in your artistic style.

Why slides at all? The only advantage in a slide is for projection or viewing on a light table, both of which are largely obsolete except for personal satisfaction. Most images are distributed (or shared) as prints or digital files, for which negative film has decided advantages.

 

The principal advantage of negative film is dynamic range - 8-10 stops compared to 3.5 to 5 stops for reversal film. Negative film rarely "blows" highlights, given due diligence, and has enormous capacity for shadow detail. Reversal film fails on both counts. Of course, to get the best out of negative film (any film, actually), you need a scanner and printer (or a darkroom), and a LOT of practice.

 

Negative film makes more sense economically. A roll of film costs $3-5 and processing (only) is $3-5 per roll. A set of prints costs another $10-15, unless you do them yourself and just "cherry-pick".

Film is archival? Maybe black and white on polyester backing (or glass). In case you haven't heard, there's a couple of generations worth of film on nitrate base that have disintegrated in storage. Many of us of the Kennedy era have examples of slides faded to shades of orange and negative color film only reproducible as black and white.

 

"Things ain't like the used to be - and they never were" - Will Rogers

E-6 chemistry is made by several vendors. All slide film available today (except

Kodachrome) is E-6 compatible. Fuji slide film is E-6, they just call their version of E-6

by another name. E-6 will not go away today, or tomorrow. You can always process slide

film at home, you don't need a darkroom if you have a changing bag to load film into

light-proof tank for processing. I still use around 100 sheets of 4x5 E-6 per month, and

process it myself.

There is a reason slide film, not negative film, was used by all the pros not so long ago - because the results are so much more spectacular than negative film. So do try slide film. And if you have a modern camera with a decent exposure meter, dont worry, it will come out great. Even an $80 Stylus Epic exposes slides beuatifully.

With that said, you still need to use common sense/think about what you are doing when shooting in extreem contrast situations, whether using slide or negative film.

See this post on flickr to help keep your costs down:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/ishootfilm/discuss/72157601574874556/

<i>There is a reason slide film, not negative film, was used by all the pros not so long ago - because the results are so much more spectacular than negative film</i><p>This is <b>not</b> why slide film was common for pro shooting. It primarily had to do with the process for printing and the ability to do accurate colors with the source as reference. In the pre-digital publishing world, this was not possible with negatives unless a reference print was provided, which was a real pain in terms of workflow. Also, slides were far easier for selection, easily put on a lightbox and viewed by an editor. Pros provided slides because it fit these workflow requirements.<p>When digital arrived, this changed. Calibrated monitors with digital images, whether scanned images or from a digital camera, eliminate the need for a reference.

Edward (do you like "Ed"?) I have emailed you off forum about slide/neg film - not sure which you will check sooner.<BR>

Thanks,<BR>

Jed

Jeff is right about why a good percentage of photographers used reversal film.

 

Gene is correct in his statements regarding E6.

 

Edward: consider that when I view a carasel of projected slides from the 50s through 70s, I can tell the Kodachromes from the Ektachromes and that one roll of Agfachrome I shot, just by looking at the colors. The Kodachromes did not fade. The current Kodachrome will last just as long. Current Kodak Ektachromes/Elite will do better than the 60s versions when processed correctly but not as well as Kodachrome for long term storage.

 

I shoot Kodachrome in my stereo camera since the viewer I have requires transparencies. When Hi-Def 3D displays are available and affordable, I'll be able to scan and display them that way.

>>>When digital arrived, this changed. Calibrated monitors with digital images, whether

scanned images or from a digital camera, eliminate the need for a reference.<<<

 

But if the white balance has been set incorrectly, is there not the same need for a colour

reference as with film, or is the WB issue the same with digital as with slides, that is, a matter

of adjustment? (I've been shooting B&W in digital and therefore don't know).

 

--Mitch/Bangkok

If you shoot digital indoors under tungsten light without setting the white balance, you will get a yellow cast on the image capture (photo). It is the same as if you shot slide film indoors without using a color correcting filter or tungsten slide film.

Yes, that's true James. It's obvous: should have thought of it.

 

--Mitch/Bangkok

Yeah, but this is my first shooting on slide films, maybe I like the shadows and the highlights from slide film when shot under tungsten light.

"Why slides at all? The only advantage in a slide is for projection or viewing on a light table, both of which are largely obsolete except for personal satisfaction."

 

The main reason more me is that they basically allow you to use the zone system in color. I have times down to N - 2.5 with Provia. Not being able to significantly pull back highlights with C-41 films is a HUGE disadvantage.

 

They are also the best option for a quality color printing on a press. If I wanted to print a real photo book, I would shoot transparencies without even considering anything else.

 

They scan much better than negative films.

 

If you are so inclined to print them, Type R prints from transparencies destroy RA prints for quality and longevity. Most things aren't worthy of a Type R print, and/or don't require one to do it justice, IMO, but when something IS worthy, there is nothing like it. Let's not mention dye transfers (stockpiled matrices still used by my work to print from Ernst Haas' transparencies on order).

 

Transparencies destroy digital for high-end detail retention and subtlety of gradation.

 

Negatives are best for your every day prints. They can be recovered from extreme exposure and color problems. However, to a serious and/or "professional" photographer, they have far more disadvantages than transparencies, in my opinion.

 

Keith

<I>Transparencies destroy digital for high-end detail retention and subtlety of gradation. </i><P>Why doesn't your gallery reflect this? Seriously, can you provide me with an image *you* shot with 35mm slide film that I can't match the 'subtlety and graduation' with my dSLR.

Getting personal doesn't change the facts. Anyone can see by simply taking a quick look at a sensitometric curve that my statements cannot be reasonably disputed. You probably just don't know what to look for. What the heck, though. I'll feed the trolls:<BR><IMG SRC="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6351677-lg.jpg"><BR>digital<BR><BR><IMG SRC="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6335271-lg.jpg"><BR>film<BR><BR><IMG SRC="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6330716-lg.jpg"><BR>digital<BR><BR><IMG SRC="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6018329-lg.jpg"><BR>film.<BR><BR>Also, I do not live and breathe by my Internet portfolio an some entertainment Website such as this. It's a place for me to throw up mostly my day to day digital stuff so I can show it to friends. Why would I take photos with the intention of putting together a killer Internet "portfolio"? Besides; even if I suck, I'm still right.

Also, if you are going to quote somebody, get it right, otherwise it is not a quote.

 

It's "gradation", not "graduation".

 

It's also subtlety OF gradation, not subtlety AND...