Anyone still shooting slide film?

[phineas_tarbolde1]

Is there any advantage to shooting slides and then scanning it to digital as

required?

[anupam]

Yes - I can afford the quality cameras to do it - but otherwise I wouldn't say there is much difference for color slides unless one gets into subjective subtleties.

 

-a

[lb-]

an advantage over what?

[william_john_smith]

<I>I wouldn't say there is much difference for color slides.......</I><P>Different from what?

[lahuasteca]

"Anyone still shooting slide film"?

 

Yes, me.

 

"Is there any advantage to shooting slides and then scanning it to digital as required"?

 

I assume your comparing it to straight digital capture, although you may be referring to

print film. The answer to either, I don't know. I'd call myself amateur, fine art, etc. etc. I

do have a Nikon D70s, but, for some reason, I get a great deal of satisfaction carrying

around an FE2 with primes, shooting Fuji Astia 100F slide film, and Kodak 400UC. Let's

just say it's different from the D70s - I can get 11 x 16/17 from either capture method.

Here's some shots from Astia 100F, 400 UC, and Fuji Superia-Reala 100, all hand held,

Nikon FE2, 35 or 50 mm AIS lens, bright sunlight, scanned on Coolscan 4000, resized for

web.

 

http://www.pbase.com/lahuasteca/image/64791291

 

(Fuji Astia 100f)

 

http://www.pbase.com/lahuasteca/image/64565105

 

(Kodak 400 UC)

 

http://www.pbase.com/lahuasteca/image/65713946

 

(Fuji Superia-Reala 100)

[yann1]

I've found Fuji velvia very interesting, but with an old scanner like mine (Epson 2450...) scanning slides was a waste of money... But if you have a real scanner, slides are definitely great.

btw I was very impresed by the quality of Fuji superia 400, scanned with my crappy scanner, Fuji reala is good too. Those color negative films worth a try and they're cheap.

"Advantage over what" "Different over what" they mean that different people have diferent opinion about what quality is, and on this site many fellows become mental if you start to compare the quality given with their camera with another one... Digital vs film seems to be a very touchy subject here for example, so don't mention slide vs digital otherwise... But maybe I have already talked too much on this subject...

[richard_f1]

I do!

 

But the advantage is mainly to be judged based on what gear you have, I think. For

example, I have a nice film camera, nice lenses, and a good scanner. It is more economical

for me to continue using that rig than try to switch to a comparably good camera in

digital. To go digi I'd need to spend more money up front than I am willing or able to.

Everyone has different circumstances.

 

For what I do, the results are great. You can get lovely enlargments with good scans of

slides.

[ilkka_nissila]

Yes, of course. Why do you need to ask? If no one uses it, no one will offer it for sale. When B&H stops selling slide film it means that there are no advantages to using it. I wouldn't hold my breath.

[SCL]

If you have a slide projector and enjoy projection I would say there is clearly an advantage. Also if you want to ensure you have something tangible 40 years from now, I would say there is an advantage. There are lots of us shooting both slides and digital. Last year I actually had to have slides made from digital photographs for a presentation when we couldn't get hold of an appropriate digital projector (they turned out great, cost about $2.50 per slide however).

[RaymondC]

If I were to shoot film I would shoot slide film because its cheaper as no prints are required and I can use a light table. To me if you use a lab or scan yourself, photo film can be subjective as no definite colors on it and there is so much you can do on the computer or the lab's computer.

 

If you are comparing a digital SLR that many many people use, I guess for me its lifestyle. Some pple I know still knit and they like it, they still cook, or make pasta or bread at home because they like it not because its better or cheaper. Some photographer's process their own film as well such as photo film or slide film while here where I am NZ, they don't have small bottles so I can't get into it, lack of demand here basically for a small place here.

 

In the seeable future, I like to use film because medium format and large format digital backs are too expensive. I also quite like to use film.

 

To my knowledge if you are not interested in using film why use it? Why not just use digital like many amateurs or many professionals? Why do something you do not like doing? At the end of the day its to get the image but to do it the methodology you actually enjoy.

 

If you were to ask, 35mm film or digital SLR, even when I enjoy film most most of my works are digital SLR. There I said it.

 

I do hope to get a scanner but that is mostly to scan MF or LF film for my future use or parent's wedding film and to scan my old film in 35mm. To scan my current 35mm film, sorta yes but in the future I may switch to larger film sizes.

[discpad]

Phineas,

 

I used to shoot a lot of digital; and still do for time-sensitive NASCAR work (where speed-to-market is more important than quality). Beyond that, I shoot mostly E-6 medium format (Mamiya 645AFd), since color matching is easier when scanning.

 

Incidentally, I develop my own C-41 (color neg) and E-6 (color slide) film.

[r.t. dowling]

Of course people are still shooting slide film. Just look at all the questions related to slide film in this forum.

 

As to the advantages and disadvantages, there has to be about a million discussions on this topic.

[b_hall1]

For the cost of a scanner might as buy a DSLR...except that the DSLR technology is all over the map. The new Sony DSLR has a self-cleaning sensor, the Fuji DSLR has S pixels and R pixels, the Cannon DSLR's have had high MP numbers and there is one full-frame Cannon DSLR, and Nikon has a DSLR that will work with AIS lens.

 

The film camera is not going to go obsolete in 18 months. And if 35mm is not giving the desired result there is always the move to 645. With a DSLR there is not much anywhere digital else to go...

 

And there is a look to film. Even movies shot in film but shown in digital look like film...

[andy andrews]

Try projecting medium format slides and you'll never go back. And it isn't expensive, as some would have you believe. There are some fine buys out there right now. I bought the ne plus ultra of mf projectors, the Linhof/Leitz Ideal Format with 6x7 module AND 35mm module (lens, changer and condensers), from a friend for $500. For an even bigger thrill, go to a Beseler Slide King, which will project any slide up to 85mm square. I just bought one for $56, including $30 freight! Don't worry about slide mounts. Just get some 1/16 inch polycarbonate and sandwich the chromes between. Tape chrome to mount on one side only, to allow for expansion, then tape the sandwich together with 3M Flue Tape, a bullet-proof, heat-resistant aluminum tape you can get (or order) at your friendly neighborhood hardware store. I slide them through the gate like a film strip - which is what they are. I'm fortunate to have a 9 x 20-foot white beaded screen at the hall where my camera club meets. When you see a panorama of desert wildflowers at that magnification with that luminance and incredible detail, you won't want to look at another 35mm or digital presentation again. Now, where can I find an 8x10 projector with a 1,000-watt Xenon lamp? Please, Doctor, help me!

[frank_oddsocks]

A slide projector will give better results than a digital projector. The very best digital

projectors only do 1080 pixels vertically; the ones most people have do 720. They get

away with lower resolution because the picture is moving.

 

If you already have all the film camera equipment, have been shooting slides for a long

time, and aren't shooting huge volumes, it's much cheaper to stay with slides, because you

needed a scanner anyway to make prints from your existing collection of slides. If you're

starting out, stick with digital.

[frank_oddsocks]

In "very best" above, I am excluding the $100,000 ones used in commercial cinemas. They

do 4096 pixels vertically and are not available to the general public anyway, due to

copyright concerns of the studios. I meant domestic projectors, like the $20,000 Ruby.

[david_henderson]

"Any advantage"

 

1.Of slide film vs print film as a vehicle from which to make prints?

 

Well with a good film scanner there's no disadvantage, and some of the top labs prefer to work from them. I like slides because I like their look, find it easier to select photographs for printing, and easier to colour match an original with what I see on a monitor, and to compare a proof with an original.

 

If on the other hand you want to print all or most of what you take, especially to small proof size, then I think you'll find it easier to find a Frontier or similar lab that will make good prints from negs than from slides.

 

2. In scanning to print rather than printing optically?

 

Loads of advantage here including better lab availability, and frankly just better prints, so long as you (or someone you pay) is able to make a good file set up for the printer you're going to use. To realise the quality advantage either you or the lab you're working with has to be competent. Just having the hardware/software doesn't entitle you to great prints.

[mark_punch]

Yes.....Provia 100, in a Leica RE w/ 50mm f2 Summicron R....90mm f2.8 Elmarit R, and 28 f2.8 Elmarit R....and it looks incredible !!...it's why I sold ALL my Canon digital stuff ( as good as it all is ) and went back to film & Leica lenses.... The 3D & color rendition of Leica made me a believer.....yes, the best of Canon & Nikon are great, but Leica rules !

[edgar_njari]

"Anyone still shooting slide film?"

 

me, among other people, while I like the smooth look of negatives, I prefer having an "original" in my hands. I don't trust print services (unless its manual optical or done from my own files), and I can't really affoard professional scans of every frame I shoot just to see the picture in its full glory, so the only choice I have for seeing every picture I shoot in its original quality is shooting slides.

And I can still scan and print from them.

Though I wish there was a slide film out there with latitude of negative film (like Portra NC)

 

 

"Is there any advantage to shooting slides and then scanning it to digital as required?"

 

no, go shoot digital

[charles_stobbs3]

Yes, although I normally have no need to make prints or convert to digital. I am having pictures from a trip scanned commercially to see how useful the scans will be.

[felix müller]

I only shoot on film for tree reasons: I would have to build up a complete new SLR system (I shoot pictures with a OM-2), which is too expensive. Film has more contrast than CCD or CMOS sensors, specially slide film. And the projected picture quality from slides is still a lot better than the one from a beamer.

[robert goldstein]

The main reason that I continue to shoot slide film is that I love the results that I get and I love the camera that I use to get those results (a Contax G2 with assorted lenses). I have never used a digital camera, but I doubt that anything that I could afford would allow me to do better than my Contax/Astia combination. However, I'm certainly not ruling out the possiblity that I will test the digital camera waters one of these days.

[edgar_njari]

Felix, what kind of argument is to say that film has more contrast?

 

Contrast is one of the basic properties of any image, and can be easily adjusted with one little slider in photoshop. Or curves or anything.

 

It's like saying one TV in the store is better than the other one because the first one is turned on a better channel while on display

 

I think you may have expressed yourself wrongly, or something

[randall ellis]

Certainly! I shoot 4x5, MF, and 35mm transparency film (I can't afford to feed the 8x10 E-6 film unfortunately...) I also shoot a lot of 35mm (and some MF) in stereo format because the realism is just stunning, especialy the MF slides. Call me old fashioned, but there is NOTHING like seeing a transparency of any size. It is just one of those things that has to be experienced to be appreciated.

 

As far as scanning goes, I almost never do it so I can't really add anything there. This is one of those things that you must decide yourself if it fits your needs.

 

- Randy

[andy andrews]

Phineas, for an example of a scans from chromes go to http://www.notcontaxg.com/document.php?id=12475&full=1

That was scanned on my Epson Perfection 4990. The overwhelming advantage of film is that the highlight details are not blown-out, flesh tones are not a cadaverous hue and there are no pattern distortions, even in the most complex and detailed scenes. And the camera I used was a 36-year-old Rolleicord that cost me $75.