Is it a mistake to switch to color slide instead of color neg?

[craig_sander]

I have been using color negative film for all of my casual shooting for about 13

years. I started using slide film last year for my more "professional" work (if

you can call it that).

However, I'm starting to think that switching completely to slide may be a good

idea. I like the results, and the only problem I have with slide film is getting

prints made or good quality scans.

 

I just need to know if its a mistake to give up on negative film for slides.

Does any one have any thoughts or good sites that give a complete comparison of

the two, including storage, longevity and pros and cons?

 

Thanks so much all.

[nancy s.]

I shoot negatives in the Medium format camera as I do not have a projector for slides from 120 film. I also use this for B&W work.

 

I shoot slides with the 35mm and some of my best stuff is archived on slides. A slide viewed on a screen from 35mm cannot be compared to a negative print IMO.

 

As to archving.. well, I do know that slides can develop fungus. I expect negatives can as well. As films change, so does archivability. My understanding is that some K64 stuff shot 30 years ago shows no color derterioration. Storage is the key to saving negatives or slides.

[rowland_mowrey]

Color negative film has the best latitude, best color reproduction and best reproducability over multiple generations of any type of color film made.

 

Slides are designed with high saturation, and short latitude and are difficult to reproduce.

 

You use what works for you.

 

Ron Mowrey

[robert lee]

"...the only problem I have with slide film is getting prints made or good quality scans."

 

If you're going to project, then slide film is the (only) way to go. For anything else, negative material is better.

 

I shoot for the print, and everything gets scanned in this process. Negative material is simply easier to work with. In particular, the relatively large dynamic range means much more of the original image is retained for processing in the digital darkroom.

[oceanphysics]

<i>the only problem I have with slide film is getting prints made or good quality scans.</i>

<p

????

<p>

Other then <i>that</i> Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?

[ilkka_nissila]

I use different film types depending on the light and the subject. I haven't been able to conclude either negative or slide to be universally better.

 

Slides are much easier to archive and locate. They're cheaper because you don't have to pay for prints. You don't have to scan them to see what the potential of the image is, the light table and loupe will show that.

 

I don't buy the argument about the much advertised exposure latitude of negative film. Yes, there is more latitude, if you only make small prints (ie. <5x enlargement). If you want to make large prints, you need to get the exposure right in either case. And boy, sometimes it takes a lot of light to get the shadows on negative film free of grain.

 

Nothing against negatives ... I shoot a lot of them.

[david_henderson]

Getting the exposures on slide film good enough to make a fine print is not easy if you're new or not prepared to be careful. Neither is it impossible. The mantra of "if you want prints use print film " is looking kind of old and tired now. Top labs like WCI seem to prefer working from slide material.

 

The big advantage I find is that I can make better judgments about what images I should have printed from slides than from colour negs or a cheap small proof, and likewise I find it easier to discern whether scans are adjusted accurately with a transparent original.

 

Frankly today you can go either way as easily as the other. If you prefer slide films or like to project then there's no reason why not to walk that path. Neither could anyone sensibly say that you couldn't make a great print from neg film.

[charles_stobbs3]

I'm probably in a minority (of one) but for my own use I prefer slides in a hand held daylight viewer. No prints, no projector, no computer.

[brettdeacon]

Generally speaking, low ISO slide films have less grain and more detail than negative films. These advantages will only be apparent in prints if you have a scanner capable of recording them, such as a Nikon/Minolta dedicated film scanner or better yet a drum scanner. The larger size film you shoot, the less important these advantages of slide film may be.

[bill_tuthill]

What Brett says about grain might be true, after adjusting for contrast, although C-41 films have lower RMS due to lower contrast.

What Brett says about detail is baloney. <A HREF="http://cacreeks.com/films.htm">Look here</A> for datasheet

resolutions. In particular note the Russian test showing two C-41

films at 145 lp/mm resolution, but two respected Fuji slide films

at only 115 lp/mm.

<P>

Slide films are good for previewing with the naked eye, better

than negatives for drum scanning, and unparalleled for projection.

(Although Dale Labs can make excellent slides from negatives at a

reasonble price.)

<P>

Craig, you need to invest in a Nikon Coolscan V or 5000ED.

Fortunately it's easy to color balance E-6 scans: just match

the slide.

[randall_pukalo]

Now that film is scanned for digital printing at photo labs, any lab can print slides. The days of [difficulty in] getting good prints from slides are long gone. You can also scan them at home if you have a film scanner.

I would suggest switching over to slides for several reasons:

1) getting prints is easy.

2) you have a hard copy reference for what the print should look like

3) modern Fuji and Kodak slides are designed to last 80-100 years before fading, much longer than negatives. Kodachrome lasts virtually forever.

4) If you are only interested in prints up to11x14, shoot a DSLR, the results will be superior. (decent latitude with the latest sensors, and no sharpness loss from scanning film.)

5) The single most compelling reason to stay with film is a slide show! Seeing your slides projected is an incredible experience. Pick up an inexpensive slide projector from e-bay if you don?t have one

[oskar_ojala]

Slide film has a narrower latitude, higher contrast, strong (unnatural?) colors, less apparent grain than negative film. Negative film is typically superior in higher speeds. These are all generalizations, but it can still be said that slide and negative films have different properties. Since I print digitally, I use both depending on the situation.

[alexandros_papaioannou]

Just a question created from what I read here.

 

Can someone correct the sharpness loss from scanning film using Photoshop?

Is there so much loss using a good film scanner,for example,a coolscanner?

 

Thank's

[roger_smith4]

"Can someone correct the sharpness loss from scanning film using Photoshop?"

 

You should be able to get quite sharp photos through Photoshop, especially using a program like PhotoKit Sharpener. Just make sure the film's flat before you scan it.

[david_henderson]

"Is there so much loss using a good film scanner,for example,a coolscanner?"

 

It doesn't matter how much you lose. What matters is whether the file you have at the end of your process is sufficiently sharp and detailed to do what you want. From a film-scanner like a Coolscan you should be able to construct a file that will support a sharp print as big as you can make from any optical process, and maybe bigger. It should look as sharp and as smooth as anything you ( or your designated expert) could make in a darkroom. I don't know how much more than that its realistic to aim at unless- you fancy using a drum-scanner, which will extract a bit more detail and sharpness still.

[alexandros_papaioannou]

Thank you for the help!!

 

I'm new in the whole concept of scanning a film,that's why my questions are a little...simple!

 

I do really like shooting with my manual Canon and I don't believe that a DSLR would make me such happy!!(Randall made me think of it)

 

So I think that a film scanner is the only solution for me,right?

 

Sorry,if my thoughts are a bit irrelevant with the whole topic...

[drjedsmith]

With 35mm film, I cannot seem to get a large print (12x18 to 20x30) of a negative (I've tried all the good ones) to turn out as well as the same size print from a slide (Velvia, Provia, and 100GX). This is with scanning on a Coolscan V, Minolta 5400 or Multiscan Pro, and having print made on Fuji Crystal archive with a Chromega or Epson's latest K3 inks. So at least in my experience, you will have better results starting out from a slide (transparency) if you scan and print digitally.<BR><BR>

That said, and many will probably flame me for this - there is a local pro lab here that can make optical prints from my slides via a 4x5 interneg that rival the sharpness of the digital prints, but have a color all their own. In fact, I actually like these optical prints better because of the different "look" that they have. I don't get them that often due to cost (custom print, hand made = expensive). I find that interesting, because so many people seem to get far superior results with scanning and digital printing. I suppose it just depnds on who the printer is at the lab if you're going the optical route. The digital route just takes that variable out.<BR><BR>

At any rate, enjoy your slides!<BR>

Jed

[rowland_mowrey]

Jedidiah;

 

I've gotten 16x20 prints regularly from 35mm negatives even back in the days of Kodacolor X film.

 

It can be done with a good negative taken with a good camera.

 

Ron Mowrey

[ilkka_nissila]

One of the things that really annoys me with negative film is the inconsistency of commercial printing. I used to take all my C-41 to a certain lab in Helsinki and they would always give me the nicest prints, but today they made an exception and the prints were lousy. Even though I can scan the negatives, I am less tempted to do so because of the poor quality proofs (everything was gray and dull). I know it's psychological ... but with slides I am usually impressed with the images when I see the processed film and am eager to scan and make prints of them.

 

And exposing slide film is easy to learn. Took me a couple of months of playing around with a spot meter, reviewing the results and trying to understand how things work. Okay, maybe it takes years to learn the fine points but really, to get practical slides is not that difficult from the exposure point of view. Especially since some adjustment is possible in post when the images are scanned.

 

To find the optimal film for each occasion, now that's hard! Especially since once you learn some film, they discontinue it and replace with something new and *improved*.

[drjedsmith]

Ron, thanks for that info. Was that with optical printing? I would imagine optical printing of negs is as good or better than that of slides (no interneg to reduce quality). I was mainly referring to scanning and digitally printing - so it is probably my skills as a scanner that are lacking, so I can't seem to get as good of a print with the negs...<BR>

Jed

[ilkka_nissila]

Jedidah, can you post full-res crops of scans of a negative and a slide to illustrate? Maybe someone here will be able to help with what could be wrong with the scans. Post film info and scanner used, resolution scanned etc.

[roger_smith4]

"Ron, thanks for that info. Was that with optical printing?"

 

The days of Kodacolor X were surely before modern scanning (and computing for that matter!)