Slide Shooters

<p>The regular lady who works the film desk at my local camera store was off this weekend. In her place was a 50 something year old guy, who remarked that he went digital about 3 years ago, and would never go back to film. Knowing (guessing) the answer, I asked him if he had been mainly a print or slide film shooter. Of course, he answered print film. I told him I could understand his perspective (but didnt elaborate that my first exerience with a DSLR was similar - I remember thinking "negative film has just become obsolete"....that is, until I realized I was a bit premature in that thought - my initial shots had all been in low contrast, controlled lighting...)<br /><br />Anyways, it got me thinking again. I bet that for most old time print film users, digital was a great boon. No more dust spots, bad scans, time wasted scanning, etc. But Slides, thats another matter altogether. Digital doesnt even come close to the wonderful impact of a projected slide. Nor a slide on a light box for that matter. I dont know, I just dont get the same kick (thrill) out of my digital shots as I do my slides. I guess I'm hopelessly addicted to chromes ;-).<br /><br />Maybe thats why so many old timers who have not tried digital tend to be slide shooters loading Kodachrome, or Provia, or Velvia, etc. If it aint broken, why fix it?</p>

<p>I agree with you. I thought I'd better get with the times and tried to go digital in 2006, and eventually got around to using up some slide film that I still had in the fridge. Upon seeing the transparencies on the lightbox, I got the same rush of "wow" that I felt when I shot my first roll of slide film in 1997. Now I'm back to about 95% film shooting.</p>

<p>I think slide film is the perfect way to keep shooting film (unless a person is into "manually" working with B&W). I've had a Nikon Coolscan IV since 2003 so I can easily scan my favorites for web or print use...or just enjoy the way the film itself looks!</p>

<p>By posting this on a "film" forum, you pretty much guarantee a lot of agreement.</p>

<p>I used slide film almost exclusively until the last trip I took with film cameas, on which I shot mostly color negative. Almost all of my slides were on the slowest Kodachrome I could buy at a given time, although I also shot night and low-light pictures with such classics as GAF 500 and, later, High-Speed Ektachrome. I have an wall of shelves nearly filled with filled steel slide boxes.<br /> I love Kodachrome, but other slide films have never had that gem-like quality for me.I used them only because there were some things KII couldn't do.</p>

<p>However, so far as I am concerned, your proposed conclusion simply fails. I still shoot a lot with film, but given the old and somewhat cranky cameras I use for film, the precision of exposure required for slides is not realistic and I shoot mostly negative films for scanning these days. I do not miss the film days at all, however, so far as actually getting work done.</p>

<p>For display, if you look closely, you see all the grime, dust, and specks in projected images, and the image is never better than the often dubious charms of the projector lens and the graininess or "lenticular" effect of the projection surface. My old Kodachromes (scanned in and "spotted") look much better on a large monitor than they ever could on the screen.</p>

<p>Will I ever stop shooting fim? not likely. However, for me it's a lot like being a historical re-enactor is for some folks -- a lot of fun, but if I had to choose only one kind of image capture, it would always be digital.</p>

<p><em>"By posting this on a "film" forum, you pretty much guarantee a lot of agreement."</em></p>

<p>Well, no place like the Film & Processing forum to talk about film!</p>

<p>I dont shoot slide because it will take a minimum of a month to get them back, with an extra $15 shipping costs for the local photo store to ship it out to get the roll(s) processed.</p>

<p>People and experiences are all different. Maybe if the processing of Kodachrome -- with its lovely palette and wonderful vibrancy -- had been consistent over all these years, so that it didn't give me so many "surprises." Maybe if Olympus -- whose user interface felt like my own hands -- had continued to support its OM line. Maybe if I hadn't purchased a lens whose diaphragm intermittently failed to close down to the proper exposure, so that until I figured out the problem I was lost. Maybe if I hadn't decided to scan a bunch of my best trannies, to discover, in horror, that the images I was blithely projecting for friends were full of dust. I loved shooting slides, for decades, and respect those who still do, but now I shoot digital.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Well, no place like the Film & Processing forum to talk about film!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Except that the OP is about switching from film to digital or not........</p>

<p>This sort of topic frequently appears in "casual conversations." Opinions there might be more varied.</p>

<p>Earlier today I read an article in CameraShopper by Mike Roskin. On a recent overseas trip he shot mostly with digital cameras. One of the things he said he liked about digital was that you could get prints or slides. I have never seen any kind of digital projection system whether it worked with scanned film images or original digital images which looked anything like a real projected slide. There may not be many people who still project slides so when someone sees digital projection it may look good to them. It doesn't look good to me. </p>

<p>Yes, I too like slide film, but digital is not ready for me.... Digital cameras have only been around for a decade or so and compared to the first decade of film the rate of improvement is remarkable.<br>

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. And only an additional amount of time before that high end stuff becomes affordable.<br>

In the meantime I'm shooting film.</p>

<p>I still use a Pentagon 6 I love looking at the larger slides and I find that they are so easy to scan. Closest to Digital I have is a Fuji Instax 200.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It is only a matter of time when the concerns .... become academic when digital cameras become much better than film.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Terrance, in the opinion of many of us that point has already been reached and passed. even in "non-professional" dSLR cameras.</p>

<p>Larry: Yes the Pentacon 6 <em>is</em> a swell 6cm camera once you learn how to load it properly. ;) I shoot negative film though.</p>

<p>JDM<br>

Some things will die hard like me and my 120 Communist cameras... I have a Kiev 88 and 2 Kiev 6s cameras that are my everyday shooters... I don't have to go to the gym because i have my camera bag. LOL</p>

<p>Randall, as I hit 50 last year, I resent the "old timer" statement!<g> In fact, I got out of photography for a decade to work in the technology sector for awhile. I might remind you that us "geezers" were the ones who created a lot of the technology you whipper snappers take for granted today.</p>

<p>In my circles, it was all of the old timers that had the money to buy the first DSLRs. So I don't think it's a young person's game at all. And for the record, we were all experienced film, slide and darkroom users. It was simply an extension of what we were already doing. I don't know too many people who have given up on film altogether. For myself, I have gone back to about 80% of my shots being on film.</p>

<p>I am also 50 and left photography for 20 years got back into it in the early part of this century... I never looked back... only through a viewfinder at the present.</p>

 

I dont know - I usually use an old Bell and Howell Slide Cube Projector for ease of use - pop open the slide box, drop them in the Slide Cube, and your locked an loaded, ready to enjoy the show. Its not a particulary good projection lens, yet my images are always tack sharp with NO visible dust (Dwaynes does a great job, plus the diffuse light source...). Anyways, many times I have gotton really close to the screen, and marveled at the detail, sharpness, and colors, and wondered why people say 35mm isnt good for 24x36. My images are larger, and look simply awesome. Well, maybe thats what a carefully done analog print is capable of, dont know, that was before my time.

And when I use my Leica projector with Elmarit Lens, and glass mounetd slides - WOW.

<p>"Terrance, in the opinion of many of us that point has already been reached and passed. even in "non-professional" dSLR cameras."</p>

<p>And, "film" being 35 isn't saying much. But, I do agree that where 35 excels in the film formats is for slides. At least, it is cheaper to project them on a wall. Than the larger formats. But, on a light table, 35 doesn't come close!</p>

<p>I will never forget the look of a 4x5 Kodachrome on a light table....</p>

<p>I always wondered what the experience of seeing an 8x10" slide would be like. The NY guys still sell 8x10" Ektachrome and Fuji.</p>

<p>I love slide film aND ALWAYS WILL, oops cap lock came on! Velvia is the 3rd love of my life.</p>

<p>I have been using slide film for the last ten years and continue to do so. I also have a digital SLR, but much prefer the look of slides. My current projector is a Leica Pradovit P300IR with 90mm Colorplan lens. I find this really does justice to the images in a way that eludes my digital work.</p>

<p>Best Regards</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It doesn't look good to me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>One day we will probably replace our slide projectors with our largescreen 1080 (or higher) HDTVs using an attached HD/computer (similar to the DVR). I can see that this might be as good (you can zoom the image via a remote for example), but it will be different. I am not ready for this quite yet, but when it happens (and of course with some cameras this can happen already - link up you camera via HDMI direct to the TV) I suspect even slide projector holdouts like me will be prepared to change altogether.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>One day we will probably replace our slide projectors with our largescreen 1080 (or higher) HDTVs using an attached HD/computer</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My large monitor already shows a lot more than HDTV: you might want to look at somebody's pictures on a big computer-grade display. "One day" was a long time ago in computer terms (sort of like dog years).</p>

<p>well, a smile crossed my face when I read your reply to his thoughts as my milage varys. Once I was in love with slides but I found that if I use slide I may as well use digital but if I want great high lights and some shadow detail in contrasty outdoor light. Aside from the "wow" on the lightbox I have found I get better "wow" prints from Fuji Pro160S or Portra.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I agree with you. I think for the most part you were right. I must say I have seen a slide shooter go digital. There was a family friend that was an amazing photographer that shot amazing photos of boats around here in Massachusetts. Unfortunatly, :( I never got to know him well. I have met him on a few occasions. He shot thousand and thousands of slides, and a few years ago he went digital. I am not really sure why. I wish I knew. I could have learned so much for him but he passed two weeks ago. So there may be a few slide shooters that have gone digital, but not many...LONG LIVE SLIDES!!</p>