When to use Slide Film and when to use Print Film?

When do most of you decide to use slide vs. print film? Do you use

slide when shooting landscape and print when shooting portraits?

(Are any other such guidelines?)

 

Do any of you use strictly slide or print film for all occasions

(landscape, portrait, street, macro, etc.)?

 

Thanks for any help,

Steve

Use slide if you want to project it. Use print film if you want prints.

If you have no means of making prints from slides, then the question is irrelevant if you want prints.

 

If you have a scanner, you can use either. I prefer slides for their stronger saturation and midtone contrast and color negs for their lattitude and portrait capabilities.

Peter... I really wonder if even half of the all slide frames sold nowadays in the world are

projected. Slide is to be used simply because certain characteristics of saturation and

vividness aren't found in C-41. Well, maybe not entirely true... I'd rather say that we're all

so used to some whell established reputations and predictability of some slide films

(Velvia for instance) that we get to lazy looking for a C-41 replacement. As a whole lot of

us scan, we just don't care anymore.

 

The 2nd main reason is that some slide films also allows to go further than all resolution

barriers C-41 and some real large would look much more grainier with any C-41 film...

when you don't want to go MF or LF, slide films can get you a bit farther.

I use slide film except when I want B&W, when I know that light is/will be harsh/contrasty/unknown, or when I don't have any way to precisely meter.

 

I use film over digital when I want ultra-wide angles.

Well, I think a film like Konica Impressa is comparable to a slide film in terms of acutance and grain. But its a niche film and hard to find.

 

Personal preference really. In general print films are grainier but for some of the work I have been doing recently its inapproriate. Long 4 to 8 minute nightime exposures with NPL that contain lost of industrial lighting. Its to difficult to create a balanced chrome under these conditions given its 4 stop range. Print film is ideal for this. I also prefer Impressa for daytime open sun work to films like Velvia wich are just plain childish looking to me ( I prefer Astia when shooting e6 landscapes due to its color accuracy though it doesnt have the accutance of a film like velvia ).

In this digital era, there really aren't any guidelines. You can get good results with either slide film or negative film. The question is how easy it is to get the results you want.

 

<p>For landscapes, there's really nothing that beats the impact of a projected slide (in a dark room with a good projector and screen, of course). That would suggest that slide film is the thing to use for landscapes. But it's not as simple as that. If you're going to do anything other than project an image (such as printing or scanning), negative film is probably a better choice. Although a digital printer can do a decent job with slides (if a competent operator is running it), it's much easier to get a good print from a negative. Desktop scanners (the sort you can afford to buy) have an easier time with negatives than with slides because their contrast is lower and they don't have dark areas that get overwhelmed by electronic noise. And even if you're one of the half-dozen people who still project slides, it's possible to get very nice slides from negatives (I do this very often in fact, by sending my film to <a href="http://www.dalelabs.com">Dale Labs</a>).

 

<p>For portraits you're probably best off with one of the specialized print films like Kodak's Portra or Fuji's NPC/NPH/NPZ line. These are low-contrast, low-saturation films designed to render skin tones accurately. Used with a lab that's set up for them, those films will provide the best portrait results.

 

<p>For my purposes (travel, landscape, and almost no "people" pictures), I find that ISO 400 print film provides the best balance of image quality, ease of scanning, and convenience. It about fills the bill for an "all occasions" film. So I've been using that almost exclusively for the last decade or so. My current choice is Kodak Portra 400UC (a.k.a. Ultra Color 400), since it has fine grain and vivid but not excessive color. I usually have it printed as slides (Dale Labs returns mounted slides and negatives), which I sort and winnow on a light box. Then I scan the selected negatives, after which I work only with the digital versions.

 

<p>I used to prefer slide film (Fuji RD 100) for its projected impact. But I got frustrated with the narrow exposure latitude, slow speed, and difficulty of getting good prints in the days before digital scanning. Once I switched to print film (and Dale Labs) I never went back. Then I discovered that the grain and quality of ISO 400 print film was very nearly the same as ISO 100 film. The higher speed meant I needed a tripod less, which made things much more convenient. That is one definite advantage print film has-- ISO 400 slide film has much coarser grain and lower saturation than ISO 400 print film.

 

<p>I don't know if that answers your question. It works for me, but your mileage may vary.

My first response was the same as Peter Kim's: "Use slide if you want to project it. Use print film if you want prints." There is at least one additional reason to use a slide film, specifically Kodachrome. If you want your great grand children to see the images in their original condition, use Kodachrome.

Here is an amateur's perspective: I shoot a lot of different print and slide film; a lot of dirt cheap consumer film, and some expensive pro film. When I need speed though, ISO 400 and faster, %90 of the time I shoot negative film. Fast slide film - as far as I am concerned there is really only one, the king of them all, Provia 400F - is way too expensive: I do not buy accross the border from the US, and there is 7-8 CAD price difference between fast pro print film and slow pro slide film one the one side, and Provia 400F on the other. That kind of price difference means that I could get a fast pro print film, AND a roll of additional film like Reala. So as much as I love 400F, speed equals print film for me.

Ted,

 

If you print slides from negatives, does that mean you rated the neg film at the box rating? Otherwise how would the lab know what is the proper exposure? Or do you tell them your ISO rating beforehand?

 

With slides, what you shot is what you get. With print film, correction for wrong exposure can be done at the printing stage. Am I right?

 

Another question: Can you request for the type of slide film to be made?

<i>If you print slides from negatives, does that mean you rated the neg film at the box rating? Otherwise how would the lab know what is the proper exposure? Or do you tell them your ISO rating beforehand?</i>

 

<p><i>With slides, what you shot is what you get. With print film, correction for wrong exposure can be done at the printing stage. Am I right?</i>

 

<p>As I understand it, the process is a simplified version of what's often used to make paper prints. Specifically, they analyze the density of each negative and correct the exposure to a standard value before making the print (in this case on Kodak Vision motion picture print film instead of paper). So you get the advantage of the wide exposure latitude of negative film. Overexposure (within reason) means finer grain; underexposure means a grainy image with muddy shadows and low contrast. The result is usually a good "average" exposure, but occasionally it might not be what you want.

 

<p>As far as I know, they use a standard filter pack to correct the color for the particular type of film you're using, so the color may vary with the light just as a slide film would. The slides have their own particular color palette just like slide film; you'll either like it or you won't.

 

<p>What you lose with this process is the ability to control the lightness or darkness of the slide through exposure, as you would with slide film. It's the flip side of the advantage of wide exposure latitude. You can't have everything. For me, the slides are just proofs that I use to judge the composition and sharpness so I can decide which negatives I want to scan. Since slides can be magnified with a loupe or a projector, they're better for that purpose than small paper prints (and somewhat cheaper too).

 

<p><i>Another question: Can you request for the type of slide film to be made?</i>

 

<p>No. They print everything on the same type of slide film, a Kodak Vision film intended for making the prints of movies you'd see at the local MegaMultiplex. I'm not sure how much different types of film would vary the palette of the final slides, although I'd bet that slides made from Portra 400UC will have more saturation and contrast than slides made from Portra 400NC. Kodak Vision is fairly saturated, so if you start with a film like 400UC you'll get slides that look something like a high-saturation slide film. As with any film, you'll either like the "look" or you won't.

In the days before everyone could do their own editing in the computer, slide film was a good idea because it gave you a constant reference for the color, even if its compressed contrast range was often a big problem in printing. Also, the best slide films were much sharper than the best print films. Both of those no longer hold much truth. Today I shoot slides only for projection, otherwise everything is C41.

If you're trying to sell your images, some publishers want their materials on slides. I like slides because the colors are better and the grain is lower and what you shoot is what you get. I shoot film for portraits because of the latitude, the look and, if shooting b/w I can do my own processing. I like the way slides scan - with negs, the computer either has to use a film profile or you have to color correct yourself due to the nature of the emulsion. I like film when I need to shoot 800 or above - I like slides when I want to shoot below 100 asa.

>>>> If you're trying to sell your images, some publishers want their materials on slides

 

Yeah, those are so stupid that they want to take a look at them on a light table. If you

make a reverse contact sheet from C-41 you got them all confused :)

Macman,

 

The commercial photographic industry is dictated by the need for high impact images to mostly sell BS which ends up as junkmail or ads in a Sears catalog, and ruled by the tyranny of pre-press technicians. A transparency is simply easier to go to plate with because they don't have to think as much. The 16x20's I made commercially from print film typically end up on somebody's wall as a cherished family portrait for 30 years.

 

The dynamics of print film vs slide film are different enough that you really should be using both if you have a good desktop scanner and know how to use it. While I find Fuji Reala or Kodak UC 400 a billion times more versatile than any slide film, slide film is unmatched in it's ability to pull out fine color gradients and contrast from low key scenes. Even enhancing in Photoshop or shooting digital cannot produce the color gradients that some slide films can when matched with certain subject matter.

It doesn,t matter... if they scan the slide they might as well scan the C-41. It just doesn't

matter at this point. You get a digi file either way... The color separation problems further

on, if any, are going to be the same whether you start from scanning a slide or scanning a

negative.

 

Problem is that a whole lot of them have $20K creo scanners of which users manual they

know only one single page.

They are stupid light table maniacs and that's it.

 

I presented countless printed inverted contact sheets from negatives. But don't you have

the originals ? Of course I do, I wouldn't ask for your money in exchange of the rights

otherwise! Oh, can I see them? Yeah but they're negatives... your stupid mind isn't fit to

figure out what's in them that's why I've been kind enough to scan them and put together

a superb printed contact sheet.... Oh negatives?. that's gonna be a problem! No it's not.

You got a scanner, wtf do you care?

 

And much of it is on that level.

Two posts containing vulgar language have been deleted.

He can count :)

 

Instead of censuring and leaving important info there, I guess it's better to delete them

altogether :)

"Two posts containing vulgar language have been deleted."

 

Photography has always been vulgar - it wasn't even considered art until the 40s(?). Some of the earliest examples were nudes.

<i>Photography has always been vulgar - it wasn't even considered art until the 40s(?). Some of the earliest examples were nudes.</i>

 

<p>What makes nudity "vulgar"? Quite a number of paintings that hang in well-respected museums are nude images. Aside from prissy puritans who consider any display of flesh unspeakably offensive sinful (and the politicians and bureaucrats who pander to prissy puritans by imposing censorship) there is nothing inherently "vulgar" or "offensive" about nudity. Unless, of course, you use an inappropriate print or slide film for the picture....

A nude shot with Velvia, now THAT is vulgar!