Is There Any Advantage To Slides For An Amateur Photographer

[stu_weiss]

I'm an mateur nature photographer with no dreams of publishing my

work. The object of my hobby is to hang a nice looking 8x12 image in

my family room. So far I've been disappointed with images created from

chrome slides. I'm better satisfied with prints from print film. If

I'm not looking to publish, is there any advantage to shooting slide

film?

[richard_ditch]

A few advantages come to mind: cost; control; feedback; and shows.

 

<p>

 

If your choice of subjects requires a lot of frames to get good images

(animals, especially small active birds for instance), then it will

cost less to shoot lots of slide film and keep only the few good shots

for enlargement. Buying Fujichrome Sensia II 100 in 36 exposure rolls,

with Fuji mail processing from B&H in New York City puts my per frame

cost at about 20 cents. I can afford to discard images that don't

capture what I wanted.

 

<p>

 

Shooting slides means that the images I see back from processing have

my exposure and focus, not those of the person/machine/software making

second order prints from my negatives. That's the control issue.

 

<p>

 

Closely related is the direct feedback I get. Slide film will let me

know immediately if my exposure is correct; bad exposure won't be

masked by the printing process. Although I can "read" a black & white

negative easily, a color negative is a lot harder to judge. The

printing step with negative film can also introduce focus problems

that aren't there in the original media - an out of focus slide tells

me that I or my camera was at fault, not the printer.

 

<p>

 

Finally, slides are a great way to share your work with a group. I can

put together an 80 or 140 slide show on a topic from my slides quite

easily, carry them to a meeting in a single tray, and project them in

front of an audience of 100 people. This is a lot easier than matting,

framing, and hanging even a modest print show of 20 related images.

 

<p>

 

But if you are sure of your goal and don't intend to go beyond the

8x12 image for the family room, print film may be the best choice for

you.

[bobatkins]

The short answer, in your case, is no.

 

<p>

 

If all you want is a print, there's no real point in shooting slides.

Prints from slides are more expensive and more difficult to do right.

Slides do give you better feedback on your exposure control etc. and

they aren't subject to photofinisher errors in printing. They may or

may not be cheaper, depending on which lab you use. Their major

advantage in printing is as a reference. You can tell the lab to make

the print the same color as the slide. With negatives there's always

something of a judgement call as to exactly what color the print is

supposed to be.

 

<p>

 

Since you are satisfied with your prints and disappointed with your

slides, I really don't see why you have a problem in deciding! Just

because most pros shoot slides for publication doesn't mean you have

to as well.

[michael_kronmal2]

In addition to the technical reasons posted above, storage is another

area where slides are better. If you plan on shooting a lot of film,

slides are easier to store and take up less space. Also, if you have a

computer HP makes an inexpensive solution for scanning and printing

"living room quality" prints from either slides or negs. I just plain

prefer the way that slides capture color.

[brad_hutcheson]

To Bob: If you don't feel this contributes anything worthwhile, delete it. I know you would anyway, but this is one of those times when I'm not sure myself, since I have only recently started shooting some slide film due to the death of RG 25.

 

<p>

 

First of all, as far as being disapointed with prints from slides, how did the original slides look? If they looked good to you, how did you have the prints made? I have seen interneg prints from a local lab that were terrible, but then so were the slides. They had some good "digital" prints from slides, and I had one made, since they said it would probably look better than interneg, but it cost twice as much, and they could only go to 8X10. It came out good, but I could still tell it was from a printer instead of an enlarger, so I found a local lab that would send out for Type R prints. I had to send one back, but the colors were much closer to the original, and I got a full frame 8X12 for about $6.50 I have not tried them, but believe it or not, even some stores like Target provide this service. I have also not tried Ciba/Ilfocrome. If you are not sure how the prints were made, try finding out, and having them redone as Type R prints. If they were internegs, you may be surprised.

 

<p>

 

As for why to shoot slides, about the only real reasons are the ones listed above. Control, etc. One thing was left out though. A film like Ektacrome Elite 100 will give you much more saturated colors than print film. I have used a little of it, and ordered some more to play with, but was sent E200 instead, which is not as saturated. I am doing this in an attempt to find a substitute for RG25 so I can strech my stock of it as far as possible. Also, since I only have a few enlargements made per year, and most of the other pictures go into a box or album and rarely see the light of day, slides may be easier to store. Print film will give great results for prints, but if you desire control or a specific look, slide films are worth a try. They will also help you judge your exposures by letting you see what you shot instead of what a lab printed.

[bobatkins]

<em>A film like Ektachrome Elite 100 will give you much more saturated

colors than print film</em>

 

<p>

 

Just guessing here, but you haven't tried Agfa Ultra 50 have you? I

shot some in medium format recently and the colors were amazingly

saturated. Way over-saturated for some subjects and some people's

taste I would imagine. Sort of like a saturated version of Velvia.

For this years rather dull fall foliage though, it certainly

brightened things up a bit!

[brad_hutcheson]

You're right Bob, I didn't even think about Agfa Ultra 50. I'm sure it has some uses, but it is one of those films that I take Phillip's word on. I may eventually try some, and this years fall foiliage might have been a good use for it. I was mainly refering to films I have used personally, and that I (or anybody else) can walk into most stores that sell film and find. That pretty much means the standard Kodak and Fuji amature lines. Even in a medium sized city like I live in a lot of films are hard to find, although I think I have seen some Ultra 50 from time to time. I am also more concerned with an amount of color saturation that doesn't look completely fake, as the user descriptions of Ultra 50 seem to imply it produces. I doubt Kodak's Elitecrome 100 is the best or only film for this, it is just one I have tried that I found acceptable.

 

<p>

 

I am also eager to try the new Portra films, and I have a roll of each now, so I will soon. I don't expect the NC versions to be all that useful for nature photography, but the VC versions sound promising at least.

[brad_hutcheson]

Oh, by the way, <I>Sort of like a saturated version of Velvia</I> is a scary thought.

[jerome_smith]

A Cibachrome print from a nicely done, well saturated slide is a

sight to behold. Try it...you'll like it.

[steve_zellner]

A few weeks ago we had a photo show at the Javits Center in New

York. In addition to camera displays, a number of photo labs were

represented. One of these labs, located in Massachusetts (I'm sorry,

I cannot remember this lab's name) was showing large prints made with

a laser printer known as the Lightjet. These prints were stunning!

 

<p>

 

I inquired about the technical details of these prints. The

representative explained that the majority were made from 4" x 5"

chromes (slides). The chromes were scanned into a compute via a drum

scanner, and were printed using this terrific printer. I asked

whether there were any print examples from 35mm chromes. There were,

and they were impressive as well.

 

<p>

 

The prints made from the 4" x 5" chromes seemed to be 4' x 5'

(large). The prints made from the 35mm chromes were smaller, but

most definitely larger than 8" x 10".

 

<p>

 

As per cost, these prints are quite expensive. I suspect that an 8"

x 10" print costs in the neighborhood of $100. Wow! The large

prints cost up to $1,000! Not to be taken lightly.

 

<p>

 

A Lightjet print may not be practical for you now. However, if you

shoot enough film and do the economics of slide vs print film, you

may find that you will save enough money to pay for the occasional

print.

 

<p>

 

A final comment on print quality from slide film. At the photo

show, there was an exhibition of phtographs by Art Wolfe, the

renouned nature photographer. The prints seemed to average 4' x 6'

in size. The photos were taken on Fuji Velvia film using a 4.5 x 6

cm camera (Mamiya) and were printed by a professional color lab.

 

<p>

 

The prints were absolutely magnificant. I don't know whether prints

derived from print film would have been superior.

 

<p>

 

The point here again is that you might want to look to a professional

lab to make your print. The cost may not be so great and may be

balanced against the savings derived from the use of slide film vs

print film. Have fun!

[piaw]

Lightjets print onto FujiColor paper, the same kind of paper you get when you ask for "Fuji paper" when you send your negative film to the lab for printing. I shoot more for the family room than for publication. However, I've found that it is very difficult to get the same kind of color saturation that you get out of Velvia on a print film, so I shoot mostly slide film. (There's also the cost control issue, which becomes a problem when you're shooting more than 100 rolls of film a year) You only have this much room on your walls, however, so I've found that going to Portland Photographics for a Cibachrome to hang on my wall has makes shooting slides a very acceptable solution for me. 3 out of the 4 prints I made recently were from slides, and I've found that the Cibachrome prints made from slides are simply stunning.

<p>

My advice, then is: check out Portland Photographics' printing service (ask them to do a contrast mask if necessary), and see if you don't like the results better than what you've been getting from a local lab. None of my local labs give me results I like, either from E6 or C-41 (and none of them will print C-41 onto Fujicolor paper, either, which Portland Photographics will do if you ask).

[g_deen]

The lightjet prices quoted above are extremely high. I have recently began experimenting with a lab on Lightjet and Fuji Pictograph (11x14 max) prints and they are very reasonably priced. One thing they definitely have over the Ilfochrome classics is contrast control, and shadow detail without burnt bright areas. Bright areas on Ilfochromes can lack sharpness, even with dodging & burning to even things out. I have not had some of my contrastier images printed through a mask, and should before fully developing an opinion, although I have been told the mask can diminish sharpness some.

 

<p>

 

Last week I had a 24x36 lightjet made of one of my favorite velvia slides (non-nature) and it is quite impressive. Colors are fantastic, detail very much what you see in the slide, and very sharp for this degree of magnification. The reds may not quite match the Ilfochrome (have a custom 20x30 of the same image) for pure luminous punch, but the overall tone, detail, sharpness, and eveness (for lack of a better descriptive) more than make up for it. Print cost is about $120 plus scanning - very reasonable in my opinion. The key is having a technician willing to work with the scan and output to match your slide.

 

<p>

 

Ilfochromes are still very nice with the right slide, but I will look more to the digital / lightjet in the future, particularly when starting with a slide that I know will be difficult to print. BTW, all my custom Ilfochromes were done at Holland Photo which is recognized as one of the better labs for this type of work.

 

<p>

 

As for your original question -- in addition to the other advice you have been given, there is still nothing like throwing your best images on the light table and viewing them with a quality loupe for impact. There are good options available to get the ones you want printed on the wall in beautiful form.

[dick_ginkowski]

The answers got a little far afield and Bob is right about Agfa's

Ultra 50! Very saturated colors.

 

<p>

 

My 2 cents---

 

<p>

 

You may wish to shoot both slide and print film. With slide film, you

can better judge your work as there's greater consistency.

 

<p>

 

Today's print films are great--there are IS) 400 films with grain

structures better than ISO 100 films of 10-15 years ago! But, across

the board, print processing sucks. Prints from 15 years ago look

divine compared to a lot of the garbage today. If you want to know if

a bad image was your fault or the lab's, slides are a better bet.

[m._huber]

The advantage of shooting slides for an amateur is that you know poor pictures are your fault, not the printers. You cannot judge your camera or various exposures without using slides, Then you have a base from which to work. With print film, you can send one negative out five times -even to the same place - and possibly get back 5 different looking prints. With slides you will not always get back a print that matches the slide if there is a lot of contrast or shadows. A lot of people are disappointed in prints from slides until they learn which slides will make good prints. A lot of "wawie" slides become "blah" prints unless the slide is carefully selected. If you have luck with your present printer, prints can show greater contrast and are cheaper and easier to enlarge. In short, I wouldn't use slide film just to make a better print, but rather to check your film, your camera and your technique.

[dan_guynn]

I've only sold a very few photos, and none to National Geo or

Playboy, so I'm still very much an amateur, but here are the

tradeoffs that matter to me:

 

<p>

 

With slides, you get what you shot right away; with prints, you may

have to go back and ask to have it reprinted a stop lighter or darker

(unless everything you shoot is medium tone). This is good if you

shot it right, but slides have less tolerance for error; if you are

often off in exposure, print film can sometimes compensate for the

error.

 

<p>

 

When you do project a slide, you get much more brilliant views than

any print. But it's more work to show "snapshot" slides than prints.

 

<p>

 

From a slide, you can get a great Cibachrome/Ilfochrome, with

contrast mask, at an outrageous price. Or you can send it to Kodak

or most of the local labs. Almost all of them will lose sharpness

and screw up the color, because so many make an internegative first.

And the digital scanners I've tried are limited to 8x10s, so if you

want an 11x14 or 12x18, you're out of luck. There are several one-

man operations that print Cibachromes less expensively, but their

quality control isn't always that good and some of them have horrible

attitude problems.

 

<p>

 

However, I have found one place that does a good and relatively cheap

job of printing directly from slides. I won my first ribbon recently

with a photo they printed from slides: The Slideprinter, P.O. Box

9506 Denver CO 80209.

 

<p>

 

Good luck, whichever way you go.

[rob_hadlow]

Having shot both neg and slide I feel that ypur best result is from

Slides, no questions asked. You get more color saturation and true to

life colors. Sure your lattitude is not as great but the results are

fantastic. Know from an Amature vrs Pro film base, either is good to

some degree, Velvia is my film of choice always with a bit of E200,

howver the amature fujichromes and ecktachromes are not bad in relation

to this. However being a pro shooter I feel that Velvia gives me the

best results, very consistent from box to box. Hence is why the word

pro film, much more conssitent from box to box. The amature stuff is

ok, but the pro is that much better, and the results you get, will make

you keep comming back for more and more. So leave the print film at

home and shoot slide, you won't be disapointed.

Cheers

Rob Hadlow

[bobatkins]

But the original question (which we should not lose sight of) was

"<em>I'm an amateur nature photographer with no dreams of publishing

my work. The object of my hobby is to hang a nice looking

8x12 image in my family room. So far I've been disappointed with

images created from chrome slides. I'm better satisfied with

prints from print film.</em>"

 

<p>

 

Under these conditions, I still see no advantage for <b>this</b>

photographer in using slide film. He's happy with his prints and

not happy with his slides - so why use slide film? It's not for

everyone.

[roy_amatore]

I've yet to print any of my slides, but one factor that weighs strongly in favor of slides is the power of the slideshow! Passing 4 x 6 prints around the room is one thing, everybody reacting at the same time to a large projection is quite another. The communical experience of viewing the pictures at the same time cannot compare with passing pictures around small group.

[gregory_rogalsky1]

Iv been shooting semi pro for 15 years. I have blow my 35mm film coler neg, slides and b+W up to 6x4 feet . If you want prints shoot neg. While possible to get good prints from slides(4x5 interneg) I have found its more trouble than its worth. My secret is to find a good lab and work with them to get the best from your negs. Im lucky , my lab prints all my work full frame, with the edges of the neg showing . If they dont know how dark or light to make a print , or what color correction to do they print more than one. These prints are a good starting point for custom hand printing(burning, dodging, ect) if needed. If you want to make prints shoot neg,and be sure to expose it right. OO

[nan]

<html>

<head>

<title>Untitled Document</title>

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">

</head>

 

<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">

<p> </p>

<p>Slides have less chance of being manipulated by a lab than print film does. Slides go through just one process and its irregardless of the lab technician's color preference. Slides will more likely represent exactly what you shot. Also, slides do have a lower exposure latitude, which will better allow you to learn if you are underexposing/overexposing your images (even if it may be an irritating lesson).

 

Just thought I'd reference an article related to this question, if people still

had questions....</p>

<p><a href="http://www.usefilm.com/articles/selectcolorfilm/index.php">Selecting

Color Film: A Primer</a> </p>

</body>

</html>