69 slides?

[ben conover]

Hi, I am new to photography, I love it. I have shot slide film in 69

format and I am a confused as to what I can do with the slides, the

film is still all in the fridge......

 

How much would it cost to scan a 69 slide with best scanner? Drum?

Are lantern projectors very expensive or rare?

What is the best or most efficient use of 69 slides?

 

Many thanks to all.

[vivek iyer]

Hi Ben,

 

Why are you kepping the exposed film in the fridge? You should gte them developed ASAP. Once developed, you shouldn't keep them in the fridge.

 

If you are going to be maikng 6x9 slides regularly, you may consider getting a flat bed scanner. Professional scans can cost you something around $100 (depending on the quality) for each frame.

 

I am not aware of any 6x9 projectors. 6x6 projectors are common but not inexpensive.

 

Cheers!

[ben conover]

Thanks Vivek, Wow, that's expensive beyong belief...so yes I will get the film proccessed asap. I was considering sending it all (tech pan and other stuff) off to dlab7, are they good? A good flatbed seems the only way to go with slides then, although I am still unsure if I will continue with slides in 69 format. Seems like a slow b/w film is better suited to 69 format, for me. I am most interested in environmental portraits.

 

Cheers!

[jtk]

You'll find that any of the recent Epson flatbeds (3200, 4870,4990) do beautifully with 6X9, fine at least to 13X19".

[david_littleboy__tokyo__ja]

If you spend US$2000 or so on a Nikon 9000, you will able to produce enormous files and breathtakingly sharp (assuming your slides are sharp) 16x24" prints. That's just a tad over a 7x enlargement, and, IMHO, anything much over 7x from film is getting into an area where you have to ask if your viewers will be walking up to the print or not. Up close, a 300 ppi print of a 4000 ppi scan looks pretty soft, but from 6x9, that's a 28x42" print. You may not mind the softness in that large a print.

 

Of course, getting adequately sharp slides requires care (DOF is a lot less than your lens markings indicate), and scanning's an incredible pain. And there's a lot to learn about processing the scans.

 

Drum scans are insanely expensive where I live, so my Nikon 8000 quickly paid for itself. But I'd guess they'd be merely outrageous where you live, maybe in the US$50 to US$100 range or so.

[pensacolaphoto]

Ben, <br> I used to get 6x9 transparencies and send them off to the Slide Printer in Colorado for 16x24 prints. This was before the time of scanners and digital stuff. Now I use print film instead with the medium format cameras.

[gaius1]

I do 6x6 scans of good quality on a CanoScan 9900F (the latest version is the 9950F I believe) - the FAU will take 6x9s too, but only one at a time.

[winfried_buechsenschuetz1]

I have never heard of any 6x9 projectors. Very few (and expensive) ones can do 6x7. I know a guy in Germany who builds projectors for 6x17 panoramic slides (and he makes the cameras, too).

[ben conover]

Great answers, enlightening, I think that I will stick with print film in future, and keep my eyes peeled for a good scanner when I can afford one. Sledging stone in a quarry to pay for it.... Anyhow,

It seems that scanning is becoming better every year so I don't mind the wait. Ireland has very few pro outfits, so I will likely send my stuff to dlab7 or similar for proccessing.

 

Cheers all,

 

Ben.

[ted_chambers]

If it's B&W you're interested in look into dr5, which processes B&W print film as transparencies:

 

www.dr5.com

 

It may be easier to scan positives than negatives.

 

I'll second (or third) the flatbed recommendation. Scanners like the Canon 9950f really hit their stride with the larger film sizes.

[mattb1]

I would caution against a flatbed, especially an Epson. I found they made MF look like 35mm P&S. IMO, a dedicated film scanner will be much better. I know a lot of people like the flatbeds, but I was very disappointed. Remember, you get what you pay for... If on a budget look at the used film scanners from Polaroid and Minolta, get as much resolution as you can afford and ICE will save you a LOT of time. Saving for a good scanner was what I should have done, I wasted a lot of time and money on a flatbed. That said, take a look at them if you must, just do not believe the marketing and only look at scans of YOUR photos BEFORE they modified in the digital darkroom.

 

As you will find out, there are no manufactures that make 6x9 slide mounts. I buy 'bair' mounts, do a search on photo.net to find it, they are a black board mount that has a removable adhesive around the outside. And I also buy the 'shosleves' from print file, and put the film in the sleves and then into the bair mount. Then you can look at them on a light table or hand them to friend without a lot of concern. Becareful of the black board mounts from printfile, they are only presentation mounts and not archival.

 

I've heard that there are projectors in existence, but have never seen one. I'd say skip it.

 

Personally, I like to scan and digitally print them. It is never as good as looking at them on a light table, but still very good results.

[jon_saunders1]

Ben,

 

Assuming that you are refering to dlab7 on Guernsey I've had all my E6 slide films developed by them. This is a mix of 35mm and 120 (6x6). I have been perfectly happy with the results, but am very much an amauter. How they compare to the pro labs in the UK (eg Peak Imaging etc) I don't know.

 

One warning however, my last MF film was not cut very well meaning that one slide had a tiny bit of sky missing in the top corner. It was obvious that it was missing, but almost impossible to notice on the other half of the cut.

 

The 35mm slide for a trip to Africa arrived from 7dayshop this morning, and will all be going to dlab7 when done.

[Andrew in Austin]

The only 6x9 slide projectors I've seen were a couple of pre-WWII, single frame, electric lantern type projectors with a long set of bellows between the lamp housing and the lens. They use impossible to source 500 watt bulbs, which are huge. Each frame must also be mounted between two sheets of thin glass.

 

Scanning 6x9 negs at high resolution produces files that are in the hundreds of megabytes. Storage even with DVD's becomes a problem, in addition to the scan times. A Nikon Coooscan 9000 sells for a mere $1900 US.

[ben conover]

Thanks very much for all the advice. I reckon I will do as Raid says and stick to print film, simply because of the huge file sizes

and difficulties associated with handling such files, on my basic computer. The scanning method seems like a compromise which may not suit my needs, cash being the problem.

 

I got a link to a 69 projector from Chauncey, so I am sure they exist, perhaps just something I could pass on for the moment.

At present I am on a budjet of less is more, so I shall make do with what I have!

 

Cheers.