Slides - Worth It?

[britt_larson]

I know that color slide films are supposed to give you better image

quality and truer colors than negatives. My question is this - if

you plan to make prints from probably at least 1/3 of your pictures,

are slides worth the hassle as opposed to negatives? I know that

many local shops with decent prices must send slides away to be

processed.

 

Also, are prints from slides, in the end, more expensive than prints

from negatives? Or is it the other way around? Thanks! I know I've

been asking a lot of questions lately, but that's the only way to get

answers.

[akajohndoe]

I shot slides exclusively when I was learning photography because what I shot was what I got.

 

And I pay less than $7 per 36 roll for slides locally.

[mikecat]

If you really wind up wanting 12 out of every 36 pictures printed, then you'll probably be better off sticking with print (neg) film.

 

If you're mostly concerned with price, you can get a roll of print film for $2.00 to $2.50 + $6 to $8 for some el cheapo drug store or Walmart processing and wind up with 36 prints (and maybe even a free roll of film or an set of doubles) for about $10 / roll. Go to pro neg film and pro processing and now your at about $15-$20 / roll.

 

With slides, the film will be a little more expensive (even if you're using consumer slide film like Fuji Sensia or Kodak Elite Chrome), say $3.50 to $4 / roll, plus $6-$8 for processing, plus about $1 for each print that you want x 12 = about $20-$24 / roll (and can go up from there).

 

Prints from slides tend to be a little more expensive than reprints from negs - my local pro lab charges $0.60 for C-prints (from negs) and $1.00 for R-prints (from slides).

 

Of course this all depends. If money isn't really the issue - there's nothing quite like seeing the slide esults on a light box. My hit rate on a roll of film is probably more like 3-6 keepers out of a roll (and probably even less if I'm really critical), rather than 12. So, price-wise it winds up something of a wash for me and I shoot both.

 

I've actually found that my local pro lab actually has slightly better prices on slide developing than the local minilabs and they know how to handle them much better since they do much more of it.

[bernhard]

<i> I know that color slide films are supposed to give you better image quality and truer colors than negatives.</I><br><br>

This is not true, maybe it was true 10 15 years ago, but today it is not. I perfectly understand where you are coming from, the erratic print quality in terms of color accuracy was what drove me to use Kodakchrome 20 years ago. But todays top slide films (Provia 100F, Velvia, E100GX, ...) are more known for high saturation and sharpness, but not for color accuracy, that's where older slide films like EPN/EPP or maybe the modern Astia are better.

<br><br>

With todays digital labs, color rendition and sharpness can be outstanding. My personal recommendation: Shoot a roll of Fuji REALA and have it printed at a good Fuji Frontier digital lab. If your goal are prints with 'true' colors that's the best combo I know of. But remember it's not the film or the lab alone. Fuji Reala can look pretty bad from a conventional optical minilab with cheap paper and Long drugs house brand from a Frontier won't be thrilling either.

<br><br>

But Fuji Reala from a Fuji Frontier lab is pretty awesome.

[oskar_ojala]

Depends a bit if you want to work in the digital domain or not; slides are best when scanned, then printed digitally as opposed to printed "traditionally". It's not a bad way for negs either to be printed (actually, it has many advantages over traditional printing). This in turn depends on how you want to work; if you want to take your film to a minilab and then have it printed, negative film is usually the easiest and cheapest route - provided you use a decent digital minilab. If you want to scan your images at home, work on them, then print them at home or send them somewhere for printing, then it's not so clear what you should use.

 

Also, it's not as simple as slides always giving "better image quality and truer colors than negatives", eg. for shooting portraits or events with a 400 speed film, negatives are practically always better. Slides and negs both have their strengths and weaknesses concerning the images they produce. Frankly, I think that film should be chosen based on the situation, ie. choose a film that provides the image you want.

[scott_eaton]

Slides are in my opinion totally and completely pointless for reproduction unless you scan them. If you plan on making a lot of prints, or needing just a general purpose film, stick to the higher quality print films.

[adam_deglmann]

Most people will tell you that if you want prints, shoot negatives. That's what they're made for.

[britt_larson]

I may have been exaggerating when I said I wanted to print 1/3 of my pictures - it's more like 3 or 4 for each 24-exposure roll. I don't get THAT many pictures that are good enough for enlargements! :)

[jonathan_bundick]

Your second question first. Prints from slides can be more expensive if you want quality. Cheap prints can be had at numerous locations, and they look cheap most of the time. This is one area where you get what you pay for.

 

As for using slide film vs print. Don't take anyone�s advice. Shoot several different varieties of both and decide for your self what you like. You get out of photography what you put in so experimentation is a must, and you won't know for sure what YOU like if you don't try it.

[h._p.]

Jonathon's quite right - try it for yourself. For what it's worth, I think that modern 100 ISO colour negative stock scans much more nicely than slide film which I find has just too much contrast for my taste.<div></div>

[ilkka_nissila]

It really depends on your taste and subject matter. You need to explore different kinds of techniques for different subjects and once you get what you want, then stick with it. I can't imagine being without slide film (I'd go digital immediately) but some subjects work better with colour negatives. People photography in contrasty light is one of them.

 

Harvey, that's exactly the kind of flat & muddy results which I hate ... try Astia or Elite 100 for that shot and expose properly. The results will be much better (to my taste).

[britt_larson]

Thanks for all your help - I've decided to buy a bunch of different slide and negative film and test them on various subjects to decide which films are for me.

[h._p.]

"that's exactly the kind of flat & muddy results which I hate "

 

That's exactly my point, Ilkka, you hate it and I like it. I would have found the contrast from a slide film excrutiating for a shot like this. As I said, people have to choose what THEY like (unless they're shooting for someone else, in which case it's a whole different ball game, to use an Americanism).

[marshall]

If you're talking about enlargements of a few images/roll, you can do that with either type of film (Frontier labs can work with either in much the same fashion) and then it becomes, to some extent, personal preference for how you'd like to render the subject matter. If you're talking about making several 4x6s out of each roll (such as when making prints of people shots for friends) then it's definitely still easier to work with negs at many labs. It is certainly possible to produce beautiful prints from slides without scanning, but it tends to be quite expensive to have a really good Ilfochrome print made. Good luck.

[raymond of rish]

I just bought my first slide film 2 days ago - Kodachrome 200. I'll let you know what I think of it as a fellow newbie to slide film. Oh, and I promise I won't steal your post like last time ;)

$10 for 36 exposures! AH!

:)