Why Shoot Color Positives?

[bwcolor]

In the good ole days I use to shoot a good bit of positive film in both 6x7 and 35mm for resolution and I liked what Astia did for skin. Now, I can approach positive film resolution with Ektar 100 and I tweak exposure to give me saturated nature photos, or skin tones to my liking. Why are you shooting "slide" material and what am I missing?

 

[robbert]

When you underexpose Ektar 100, do the colours also come out differently as with slide film?

 

[bwcolor]

Here is an excellent review by Roger Hicks:

http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/reviews kodak ektar 100.html

I'm sure that I tweak my results a bit different than Roger might in that I tend to really like slightly to moderately saturated colors.

 

[JohnTF]

I have to say the only positive color I have shot recently was more to test a camera's meter. I still have the film, but it is sitting in storage, along with the Kodak mailers which may or may not expire.

Scans from negative film have been "good enough", but always glad to see someone wringing out the subtle differences in materials.

The local Stereo club of course uses a bit more. ;-)

Good link, good information, thanks, John

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

When you underexpose Ektar 100, do the colours also come out differently as with slide film?

Yes, but the other way... To get saturated colors with Ektar (and C41 in general) you can give it twice the light... On camera, ISO 50. I meter it incident at ISO 25 shooting with a warming filter.

Cheers,

Juan

 

[Herjulfr]

I'm almost exclusively shooting slides, Velvia 50. I just like the color shift, how over saturated it is, and the fact that I don't have to adjust the colors to achieve this result, unlike my digital color shots. But i never do portraits, so getting realistic skin color is not important for me.

 

[umcelinho]

I adore velvia 50, but after I shot a couple photos of my parents and they came out as if they had just spent 72 hours under direct sunlight, I realised portraits aren't its strength

 

[hans voralberg]

You need Astia for that my friend 😉

 

[dmr]

This may kind of be far out, but back years ago, I started shooting slides because I wanted to shoot color and I did not want to pay to have a whole roll printed, but I wanted to easily see what they looked like and which ones I did want prints of. For a HS student back around 1970, the cost of printing a whole roll of 20 color shots was more than I could afford.

 

[thegman]

I agree that skin tones on Velvia rarely look great, but for everything else it just sort of comes out the way you imagine it should look. Ektar is a great film though, and sometimes I can't tell if a shot is Ektar or Velvia.

 

[not_in_good_order]

I think that slides, when exposed well, are often much easier to scan than color negatives, at least with my scanning hardware and software (Coolscan 5000 w/ Nikon Scan). I also really like the "look" of slide film for many subjects. I really like the color clarity, fine grain, sharpness, and degree of contrast that slide films produce. Since I get results that I like when I shoot slide film, I will continue to shoot it. I like the results that I've gotten from Ektar 100, but it doesn't replace slide film for me.

 

[dmr]

Some swear that slides are more difficult to scan than negatives, and others say that negatives are more difficult.

Just look on here and on the other photo boards for somebody who is having difficulty climbing the scanning learning curve and someone else will chime in and say that one of them is impossible to scan but the other will give perfect scans. Yeah, I know we've all heard that.

I've now had the scanner almost 5 years, and my experience is that a well exposed slide or negative will, 9 times out of 8, give a good scan and a stunning print. A poorly-exposed negative or slide, either one, will give you a poor scan and a poor print.

I think that the quality of the original is far more important than whether it's a negative or a slide. I really think the secret to good scans is attention to detail and practice! 🙂

 

[charjohncarter]

I like Elitechrome, Astia, and Velvia 100 because I DON'T have to tweak anything. I just digitalize and save.

 

[LKSC]

It cannot be done with every colour slide, but for that suitable image, a direct print to cibachrome has a unique property/ quality that cannot be had any other way, even through the drum scan-to-Lightjet-Fujiflex route.

 

[Spyro]

You shoot slides for the same reason you shoot film: because you like how it looks.
Its a bit hard to explain that look with words, you have to be a bit of a poet 🙂
Either you see the difference or you dont, have a look at this guy's photos:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/papasnap/3780017688/in/set-72157622989032080/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/papasnap/4353286904/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/papasnap/4410760389/in/set-72157622989032080/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/papasnap/4410760371/in/set-72157622989032080/

You can try all you like but your colour is never going to look like that with digital or c41.

I dont shoot slides because I shoot a lot with a very low keeper ratio and slides are generally more expensive than c41 and fussier to develop at home (chems are hard to find and expire quickly). Otherwise I love them and I reckon I'd eventually find a way to scan them well.

 

[BillBingham2]

When I was shooting just for me it was always slide. Wife, kids, friends print.

I loved shooting slide because to me it was a purer picture. While I did my own printing in B&W, never got color printing. Additive, subtractive, it was not me. When ever I sent prints out to print they came back the way the printer, or more often than not the machine saw the picture. If I was shooting existing darkness many came back mud because they though I missed something in the darkness. I didn't miss anything, print it they way I shot it and please don't correct it thank you very much was my feeling often on what might be viewed as tricky rolls.

With slides I never had that, blacks came out black, whites white. When I shot rock bands I got the exposures I expected, not blown highlights so they could print the patterns in the speakers or the curtains.

Yes, slides are more demanding with respect to getting the exposure right, but to me that's part of the fun. Oddly, I like digital for the same thing. I'm not into post processing at all. Someday I get around to converting all my RAW shots to TIFF with some good software, but for now I'm fine.

Purity of the moment, that's why I shot slides.

B2 (;->

 

[capitalK]

I don't shoot slides very often but one of my favorite photographic experiences is looking at slides on a light table. Especially medium format. Never had the opportunity to look at large format slides that way but I'm sure it's just as awesome.

 

[gb hill]

You shoot slides for the same reason you shoot film: because you like how it looks.
Its a bit hard to explain that look with words, you have to be a bit of a poet 🙂
Either you see the difference or you dont, have a look at this guy's photos:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/papasnap/3780017688/in/set-72157622989032080/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/papasnap/4353286904/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/papasnap/4410760389/in/set-72157622989032080/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/papasnap/4410760371/in/set-72157622989032080/

You can try all you like but your colour is never going to look like that with digital or c41.

I dont shoot slides because I shoot a lot with a very low keeper ratio and slides are generally more expensive than c41 and fussier to develop at home (chems are hard to find and expire quickly). Otherwise I love them and I reckon I'd eventually find a way to scan them well.

Amazing colour! I didn't think slide film had so much latitude!...amazing! & your right digital can't touch this!

 

[charjohncarter]

You shoot slides for the same reason you shoot film: because you like how it looks.
Its a bit hard to explain that look with words, you have to be a bit of a poet 🙂
Either you see the difference or you dont, have a look at this guy's photos:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/papasnap/3780017688/in/set-72157622989032080/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/papasnap/4353286904/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/papasnap/4410760389/in/set-72157622989032080/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/papasnap/4410760371/in/set-72157622989032080/

You can try all you like but your colour is never going to look like that with digital or c41.

I dont shoot slides because I shoot a lot with a very low keeper ratio and slides are generally more expensive than c41 and fussier to develop at home (chems are hard to find and expire quickly). Otherwise I love them and I reckon I'd eventually find a way to scan them well.

Again I agree, Why shoot anything else. This is the lowly Elitechrome last January:

I have tried them all and I have to agree with Spyro, you just don't get it with negatives or digital.

 

[Nikkor AIS]

Nikkor 135 2.0 on F2AS on KR 25

I still say that kodachrome 25 is the gold standard. IMO there was/ is nothing better. Now a days Im not so picky and will shoot anything that will load in to my leica M3/M6/M6 or Nikon F2/F3/F4s . I still think there is something special about chrome. Iv got a hard drive full of my best slides scanned and if done right the files are huge and with some decent post processing off my Nikon 5000 ED they look alright to me. I still prefer making a 4X5 interneg from slides and wet printing. If you ask me mixing the analog and digital is always a compromise.

Gregory