Any tip for slide film....?

[vegard_dino]

Hi all.

I have a old Pentax Spotmatic from -69.
It is one I have got from my father.

Now I like to use it and shoot some slides. But, I have no flash.
I am seeking a film for indoors shooting, any tip on what to go for?

Yes, I know the flash, but the original one is not working, so I hope to get away without one.

 

[thegman]

If it must be slide film,and it must be indoors, then Provia 400X is as fast as it gets. You can also push it to 1600 or even 3200.

 

[rbsinto]

For outdoor work 100 ISO is just fine.
And for shooting indoors, you can also use 100 if you are using flash. If not, as has been said, use 400, and push one or two stops as necessary. But keep in mind that pushing increases contrast.
For what it's worth if you slightly underexpose slide film by 1/3 or 1/2 stop you'll get better color saturation in your slides.

 

[MartinP]

I think the only 135, ISO400 slide-film in production is Fuji Provia 400X, so that might be 'the' choice. For 'indoors' in usual household lighting, a fast colour negative film will have lower contrast and give more pleasing results I should think. Don't forget that, in either case, you would best use a correction filter to match the daylight film to the indoor lighting, and that will take away some light from the film of course.

Outdoors for slides you could better start trying an ISO100 film and the Agfa is a good film (from Fuji) at half the price of the Fuji branded films.

 

[Brian Puccio]

You can push Provia 400x (and 100f) 2 stops each; contrast increases.

I tend to shoot 400x as slow as I can (in other words, I'll push if I have to), but outdoors, I shoot 100f at 50 almost exclusively.

Meter carefully, exposure got so much easier once I got an incident meter, it almsot feels like cheating.

 

[thegman]

If you're projecting your slides, so cannot correct in post, you may wish to use a correcting filter. I've never used one in my life, and although fluorescent light goes green and tungsten goes warm, I like the effect.

If you're scanning, then any colour balance can be corrected easily.

 

[rbsinto]

If you are shooting daylight film under incandescent light, without an 80A filter, the slides will all be very warm and have an orange cast.
Otherwise you can use Tungsten film (if you can still find it) which is made for use without CC filters under incandescent light
Similarly, if you are shooting daylight film under fluorescent lights, without an FL-B or FL-D filter (depending on whether the fluorescent tubes are Daylight, Cool white, Warm white, or Sign white, which are all slightly different white light to the naked eye, but not film,) your slides will be cool with a greenish cast.

 

[Spanik]

Another vote for Provia 400X. I would add a good lightmeter as well.

Don't forget to compensate if using filters. I don't use one for tungsten or halogen. And have no idea what to use for leds.

 

[anjoca76]

Provia 400X is a terrific film, but it's off-the-charts expensive these days. I wish it weren't because I love (and, once I run out, loved) shooting it.

 

[vegard_dino]

Thank you all for the help and tip.
Then, then I will have to order some rolls of Provia 400X.
🙂

Then try and make some nice slides.

 

[Vics]

The tips of a correction shoudn't be understated. without the proper filter, the film WILL produce orange skin tones.

 

[filmfan]

Tips for shooting slide film?

Yeah... don't shoot it unless you absolutely HAVE to.

 

[vegard_dino]

Thanks for the reply.
Regarding correction, not sure I am able to do that yet, but will give it a try.

filmfan, why you say that?

 

[varchs]

...
For what it's worth if you slightly underexpose slide film by 1/3 or 1/2 stop you'll get better color saturation in your slides...

I am used to underexpose my slides as well... as my photography mentor suggested it during my first steps in taking pictures... ;-)

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Underexposing transparencies is fine if all you want to do is project them, for example. But as an underexposed frame of Velvia, for instance, represents one of the toughest scanning jobs for some of the scanners many of us use such as the Epsons and Canons, if you intend to scan the processed film, it has in my view become more important than ever to nail the exposure you want. Underexposing some scenes will only make it that much harder for many scanners to extract usable shadow detail than it already is.

It's certainly true that transparency film has little tolerance for overexposure however in general I incident meter and try to get the exposure bang on or even up to a half a stop over. I tend to use older fully mechanical cameras most of the time that can often, at best, set half apertures and only full shutter speeds. So in practice this means that, where I take a reading that is not bang on, f/8, for example, I may tend to set the f stop or shutter speed combo that is closest to that but slightly over, not slightly under. The exposure as metered then falls somewhere between a half stop and bang on, and this usually works out OK. Of course, some subjects demand shadow, or highlight, detail, at all costs--so you take your pick and let the other fall where it will--but that is taken as read.

Personally, now that little colour output from film is done in a wet darkroom, I don't understand why more people don't use transparency. True, it is harder to expose correctly, but most of us members here at RFF would like to think we are up to the challenge of this tecnhically, yes? I certainly find it more satisfying to get right alhough I cheerfully admit others might see it as a chore. It's also easier to match colour accuracy of a scan from the transparency frame, and you can view them with a lightbox or projector with superb quality.

There are certainly some subjects such as weddings better suited to colour negative if you must shoot film but generally speaking a positive just looks so much better. And please don't talk to me about cost of reversal film or processing--come Down Under for a while and use E6 and then, perhaps, you would get a sympathetic reception from me about the expense...many of you really do not know how good you actually have it.
Regards
Brett

 

[Robert Lai]

I agree with Brett. Slide film requires exact exposure. If you underexpose, you merely get muddy shadows. The limited tolerance for high contrast scenes means that I usually keep an on-camera flash almost all the time for fill flash. I find that to be the easiest way to open up shadow detail.

Slides are a joy to view:
On the lightbox, or in projection.
Sorting and editing them are much easier than with negatives, as you can see directly what each frame is depicting. Also, the slide serves as a reference for color when scanning.

In the middle of winter, with lower lighting levels, I am using Provia 400X almost exclusively now. Fuji films to me tend to emphasize blue, and so a warming filter such as an 81A will help to make the colors more attractive.

 

[Spanik]

Personally, now that little colour output from film is done in a wet darkroom, I don't understand why more people don't use transparency. True, it is harder to expose correctly, but most of us members here at RFF would like to think we are up to the challenge of this tecnhically, yes? I certainly find it more satisfying to get right alhough I cheerfully admit others might see it as a chore. It's also easier to match colour accuracy of a scan from the transparency frame, and you can view them with a lightbox or projector with superb quality.

I'm glad there are others that think also this way. I'm not much of a photographer but getting the exposure spot on isn't that hard. A handheld meter is a bit of a necessity however. The consistency of slide film is great and it is easy to judge a photo in positive on a lighttable.

 

[vegard_dino]

Thanks for replying and giving me good tips.

 

[Vics]

Don't shoot it in the bright sunshine. Very early morning, very late afternoon, heavy overcast. Shoot in the shade. Look for midtones.

 

[nikku]

Any tip for slide film? Yeah, shoot more!