Canonet GIII QL17 & 2 other slide films

[schrackman]

Hi again folks,

My tests with different slide films on the Canonet has thus far landed me a favorite: Kodak Elite Chrome 100. I like warm tones and this film seems to give me that. I also tried Fuji Provia 400 which was also very nice but a bit on the cool/blue side for my taste on certain photos. Of course, I still have other slide films to try out so keep your eyes peeled for more posts by me.

I have noticed that there is a dramatic difference between using slide film and regular negative film on the Canonet. With regular film only about 1/4 of all my shots were actually useable, whereas with slide film pretty much every frame was exposed nearly perfectly. Not sure why that is. Perhaps there is more latitude with slide film. Still got lots to learn about film, hehe.

As for these photos, the first two on the left are Fuji Provia 400 and are my favorite from the roll, and the three on the right are Kodak Elite Chrome 100. Scanned using an Epson 3170, not the best for slides but it works for now. I lost my circular polarizer so I wasn't able to use it on any of these shots. However, after returning home from the mountains I was able to find another one at the camera store and so my next roll should turn out much nicer than these.

 

[dmr]

Perhaps there is more latitude with slide film.

Consensus seems to be that slide film, in general, has less latitude and is less forgiving than negative film. I've found this to be true. However, when I shoot slide film I'm always more careful about exposure and I think about the details more.

I do admit that the exposure system in the GIII is quite close when exposing slide film.

 

[CJP6008]

Print film is very much more forgiving than slide film, it has much more latitude. This is a function of the way they are made and the technology it is possible to use in them. Slide film has a distinct S shaped HD curve, resulting in punchy mid tones and a limited capturable brightness range 5-6 stops typically. Colour print films have an integral orange contrast reducing mask built in giving a long straight section in their HD curves. often they can hold 9 or more stops.

From your experience shooting the slides, there seems little wrong with the camera - any inadequacies there would be ruthlessly exposed by the unforginving slide film. When you say the shots were unusable, do you mean the prints were bad. Close inspection of the negs would be a good idea. Also maybe switch labs!

 

[Silva Lining]

Some lovely shots there, Schrackman, especially no.s 2 & 3. I agree with the other posters about the unforgivingness of slide film. I've always followed the rule that, when using slide film, expose for highlights and when using print film expose for shadows.

 

[schrackman]

Interesting responses! Thank you.

CJP...by "unusable" I mean that it appears the exposure on the negative is so off that it is unsuitable for scanning or printing.

I suppose the lab could indeed be the culprit. Or maybe even the film itself. I've bought and processed all my negative film at Walgreens, so that might be a clue right there. My positives, however, I buy from a camera store and are sent out to a dedicated lab. After having 4 different rolls of different slide films developed, I would probably say 97% of my photos are useable for scanning or printing, which makes me very happy. 🙂