thorsten
rf explorer
Hi everybody,
I used to take color negative film (Kodak Portra series) because I *heard*, that color negative film is more forgiving when it comes to exposure and has a larger tonal range than slide film. Now I more and more see, that a lot of people (perhaps more) choose to go with slide film instead of negative film. Why would someone prefer slide film?
Please excuse my beginner's question, but I don't want to shoot with color negative film and "miss" something special.
Thanks and regards,
I used to take color negative film (Kodak Portra series) because I *heard*, that color negative film is more forgiving when it comes to exposure and has a larger tonal range than slide film. Now I more and more see, that a lot of people (perhaps more) choose to go with slide film instead of negative film. Why would someone prefer slide film?
Please excuse my beginner's question, but I don't want to shoot with color negative film and "miss" something special.
Thanks and regards,
Finder
Veteran
The slide gives a positive reference for color - that helps with scanning or printing. It is easier to scan. You can project it as well - you can make slides from negatives, but print film can be a pain.
As you said, negative film has a greater exposure latitude. Negative film can handle high-contrast scenes very well. If you print in your oun darkroom (the one with an enlarger), it is a very easy process and you get much nicer prints from negatives than slides.
But why don't you try a roll of slide film and see how you like it. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
BTW, I am a negative fan.
As you said, negative film has a greater exposure latitude. Negative film can handle high-contrast scenes very well. If you print in your oun darkroom (the one with an enlarger), it is a very easy process and you get much nicer prints from negatives than slides.
But why don't you try a roll of slide film and see how you like it. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
BTW, I am a negative fan.
GeneW
Veteran
I think the only thing to do is try out some slide film for yourself and compare. Start out with something like Sensia 100 or Provia 100. Both scan well. Then maybe try a supersaturated slide medium like Velvia 100. Doesn't scan as nicely but the slides are spectacular.
I like slide film but shoot almost 100% negs for col work. It's cheaper, easier to store, and easier to scan, imo. But I'd probably shoot more slide film if it wasn't 3x the price per roll for film + development.
Gene
I like slide film but shoot almost 100% negs for col work. It's cheaper, easier to store, and easier to scan, imo. But I'd probably shoot more slide film if it wasn't 3x the price per roll for film + development.
Gene
mc_vancouver
Established
Has anyone tried the AGFA ULTRA colour film? Of course Agfa is no longer, but the film is still out there. Ultra saturated, it isnt recommended for skin tones, but for scenic, architecture, abstract, it's really something. Try it around the "magic hour" just after sunset...
P
PhotoJim
Guest
I shoot primarily slide film, but here is my logic:
- slide film has much better colour rendition. A good colourful slide really pops. Getting that colour rendition onto paper is very difficult.
- slides are easier to store. They take less space since they are the final product. With prints you have to store the negatives and the resultant prints.
- I like the tonal range of slides better. It's true that the film has less latitude than negative film does, but you can't get all that range onto a print.
That having been said, although I primarily shoot landscapes (and always shoot them on slide film, if I am shooting in colour), when I do people pictures I almost always do it on negative film because it's more convenient for making prints, and one tends to want prints more often when one is doing people pictures.
As for cost, professional print film plus professional processing is about the same cost as professional slide film plus professional processing. If I shoot amateur products and use a low-priced lab, colour negative film costs me about $8 Canadian per roll of 36 (including processing) and slide film costs me about $12. There is a cost difference, but it is not ridiculous.
- slide film has much better colour rendition. A good colourful slide really pops. Getting that colour rendition onto paper is very difficult.
- slides are easier to store. They take less space since they are the final product. With prints you have to store the negatives and the resultant prints.
- I like the tonal range of slides better. It's true that the film has less latitude than negative film does, but you can't get all that range onto a print.
That having been said, although I primarily shoot landscapes (and always shoot them on slide film, if I am shooting in colour), when I do people pictures I almost always do it on negative film because it's more convenient for making prints, and one tends to want prints more often when one is doing people pictures.
As for cost, professional print film plus professional processing is about the same cost as professional slide film plus professional processing. If I shoot amateur products and use a low-priced lab, colour negative film costs me about $8 Canadian per roll of 36 (including processing) and slide film costs me about $12. There is a cost difference, but it is not ridiculous.
telenous
Well-known
I shoot 50% negative and 50% slide film. There are pros and cons in the use of each. Slide can have a much more saturated look but I find the latest Fuji film negative products (e.g. Reala 100) matching the colour saturation. (Btw Agfa Ultra, mentioned before, is a wondefully saturated film but no longer available). Negative film is indeed more forgiving and most labs give you back prints that are automatically tweeked to optimise the result.
But that's where the slide may have the edge over negative: what the lab gives you back is by and large what you have captured. With slide you only are one step away from what you have actually captured (with the developing being the intervening step); with negative film you are at least two steps away (developing, enlarging for the prints) as I understand it. So, some people seem to prefer slide because it allows less fiddling of the final product from the lab.
But that's where the slide may have the edge over negative: what the lab gives you back is by and large what you have captured. With slide you only are one step away from what you have actually captured (with the developing being the intervening step); with negative film you are at least two steps away (developing, enlarging for the prints) as I understand it. So, some people seem to prefer slide because it allows less fiddling of the final product from the lab.
thorsten
rf explorer
Thanks for your answers. First of all I am surprised, that here are as much votes for negative film as for slide film which is something I didn't expect. I will definitely give slide film a try. Perhaps I should also shoot some rolls of Velvia and some of Kodachrome just to get a survey. But regarding what you said, I suppose, that I am more of a negative guy, 'cause heavily saturated results are rarely the results I am looking for. I normally shoot b+w, but if I shoot color, I try to get pastel-like, low saturated colors... for this purpose, the Kodak Protra series has been pretty nice so far.
dmr
Registered Abuser
I recently did a test roll (Fuji 200 negative) which really illustrated the fact that color negative film has much more latitude than slide film. I recalibrated the QL17 GIII so it would handle ISO 1600 and I needed a sanity check to be sure it was still more or less in the ballpark for normal range film and brightness.
I took some low and high contrast outdoor scenes, one frame as the meter said to do, and then 4 more frames, 1 and 2 stops over and 1 and 2 stops under.
On the low-contrast scenes, it was really not that obvious which was the metered exposure and which were 1 stop over and under.
Compare that to slide film. I'm having a final fling with Kodachrome (obtw, it is not saturated and punchy) and for those shots I really want I'll bracket 1 over and 1 under. YES, there **IS** a very obvious difference in appearance when varying the exposure one stop with Kodachrome.
I wouldn't want to use a slide film for something like a high-contrast sunlit scene. It also takes more effort to get a good exposure with slide film than with negative film. Slide film can't take a joke, so to speak. If you miss by one stop, you either get total mud in the shadows or blown-out clear highlights.
Today's color negative films do often give very vivid and punchy colors. I'm partial to Fuji, but I like the saturation of Kodak Gold 200 (very "smooth"), and Kodak UC 400 as well.
I've also shot quite a bit of the Walgreens/Agfa 200. I don't like it as well as Fuji, but when it gets down to $1 a roll it can't be beat. It's not saturated, very natural colors with rich warm tones. I do not like the way the W/A 400 performs and I had abysmal luck trying their 800, but those films are out of production and the remaining 200 is being closed out now.
I took some low and high contrast outdoor scenes, one frame as the meter said to do, and then 4 more frames, 1 and 2 stops over and 1 and 2 stops under.
On the low-contrast scenes, it was really not that obvious which was the metered exposure and which were 1 stop over and under.
Compare that to slide film. I'm having a final fling with Kodachrome (obtw, it is not saturated and punchy) and for those shots I really want I'll bracket 1 over and 1 under. YES, there **IS** a very obvious difference in appearance when varying the exposure one stop with Kodachrome.
I wouldn't want to use a slide film for something like a high-contrast sunlit scene. It also takes more effort to get a good exposure with slide film than with negative film. Slide film can't take a joke, so to speak. If you miss by one stop, you either get total mud in the shadows or blown-out clear highlights.
Today's color negative films do often give very vivid and punchy colors. I'm partial to Fuji, but I like the saturation of Kodak Gold 200 (very "smooth"), and Kodak UC 400 as well.
I've also shot quite a bit of the Walgreens/Agfa 200. I don't like it as well as Fuji, but when it gets down to $1 a roll it can't be beat. It's not saturated, very natural colors with rich warm tones. I do not like the way the W/A 400 performs and I had abysmal luck trying their 800, but those films are out of production and the remaining 200 is being closed out now.
sf
Veteran
Slide films have different properties than C41. They have narrower dynamic ranges, richer colors per ISO, generally less visible grain, and are projectable.
Velvia is very saturated, beautiful for sunsets and sunrises, things with strong colors, etc. This is Velvia 50 (original). Velvia 100 is more natural looking.
Astia is a gorgeous portrait slide film - I use it occasionally - it has the most delicate and accurate skin tones I've seen from any film.
The Kodak E6 is really really nice, but very expensive compared to its Fuji counterparts. For this reason, I never shoot with it, but can say that the one roll of E200 I did shoot was very beautiful. Kodak E6 is warmer than the Fuji.
Velvia is very saturated, beautiful for sunsets and sunrises, things with strong colors, etc. This is Velvia 50 (original). Velvia 100 is more natural looking.
Astia is a gorgeous portrait slide film - I use it occasionally - it has the most delicate and accurate skin tones I've seen from any film.
The Kodak E6 is really really nice, but very expensive compared to its Fuji counterparts. For this reason, I never shoot with it, but can say that the one roll of E200 I did shoot was very beautiful. Kodak E6 is warmer than the Fuji.
Toby
On the alert
shutterflower said:
I'm afraid that last sentence is just plain wrong. There are so many myriad flavours of Kodak E6 that it is impossible to generalise. As a rule I found standard ektachomes cooler than fuji and the warmer versions of the same emulsions well, warmer. For starters though I'd recommend provia 100f as the best all-round transparency film
N
Nick R.
Guest
DMR, when I measured the shutter speeds of all the fixed-lens RF's I could get my hands on, none of them measured up to the stated values, esp. on the high end. There was usually only one speed that came close to the rated value; typically it was at 1/30th sec. For that reason, I would never shoot slide film in these cameras.
Thorsten, the first time you examine a slide through a loop on a light table you will know what all the fuss is about. There's nothing like it.
Thorsten, the first time you examine a slide through a loop on a light table you will know what all the fuss is about. There's nothing like it.
DougK
This space left blank
I shoot slide film for several reasons:
- I love the look of slides in comparison to prints; slides seem somehow more real and immediate to me.
- I like the narrow exposure latutude, which really forces me to concentrate on my exposure settings and also to remember to bracket.
- I like the fact that what I shoot is what I get, for good or ill. It's much easier, for me anyway, to see my mistakes on slides.
- I find I have a much easier time scanning slide film than negative film and get more consistent results
sf
Veteran
Toby said:
well, OK then.
Finder
Veteran
Nick R. said:
I never had a problem with slide film in my Hexar Silver. Even the automatic exposure system did a great job.
BTW, did these cameras have leaf shutters and could the inaccuracy of the shutter speed compensate for the shutter inefficency? Just a thought.
Finder
Veteran
PhotoJim said:
Why not? I run a color darkroom at home and I have never had a problem getting the tonal range out of a negative. Usually with just simple burning and dodging techniques. I can use contrast masking as well, but I have never had a negative in need of it.
V
varjag
Guest
I concur that nothing can match the look of good transparency, especially in bigger formats. And another vote for Astia as a portrait film, it's plain magic look on people.
kully
Happy Snapper
Slide film needs practice. I shot one roll of Velvia 100F and one roll of Provia 100F at the begining of spring and was smitten - grain free skies and gorgeous 'sharp' colours.
I was so smitten that I bought five rolls each of Provia 100F and Provia 400F (plus processing) for a two week holiday in July.
Unfortunately, I'd completely underestimated how unforgiving the bloody stuff was and of the boxes of slides I got back about 75% were crap.
But, the ones that did come out good look amazing on a lightbox - the closest thing I've ever seen to looking at a scene through my own eyes again.
I was so smitten that I bought five rolls each of Provia 100F and Provia 400F (plus processing) for a two week holiday in July.
Unfortunately, I'd completely underestimated how unforgiving the bloody stuff was and of the boxes of slides I got back about 75% were crap.
But, the ones that did come out good look amazing on a lightbox - the closest thing I've ever seen to looking at a scene through my own eyes again.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Hmm.
Might be the development, but I just used some rolls of Astia (in 6x6) and i'm not satisfied with the colours. It's too blue/cold overall. Combined wityh the contrast and clearness of a slide, it looks a bit unnatural for people; probably for landscapes or such it is better suited.
Skin also looks more pale/blueish than it should be.
I guess it's bad to compare it but the kodak E100 SW ("saturated warm")looked nicer to me.
The colour palette of prints off fuji NPH400 (also in 6x6) is also much more to my liking.
But i repeat, might be the Kodak lab sabotageing thedevelopment of Fuji slides
Have to admit however, that it indeed looks sharp and clear in the details, more than a colour negative.
Might be the development, but I just used some rolls of Astia (in 6x6) and i'm not satisfied with the colours. It's too blue/cold overall. Combined wityh the contrast and clearness of a slide, it looks a bit unnatural for people; probably for landscapes or such it is better suited.
Skin also looks more pale/blueish than it should be.
I guess it's bad to compare it but the kodak E100 SW ("saturated warm")looked nicer to me.
The colour palette of prints off fuji NPH400 (also in 6x6) is also much more to my liking.
But i repeat, might be the Kodak lab sabotageing thedevelopment of Fuji slides
Have to admit however, that it indeed looks sharp and clear in the details, more than a colour negative.
CJP6008
Established
Slides vs colour neg - not better, just different. The marked S shape of the HD curve of a typical slide film gives it plenty of mid range punch - the "pop" previous correspondents refer to. As there is no such thing as a free lunch, this comes at a price - the limited subject brightness range it can hold.
Slides do look great - they are often a less accurate rendering of the scene shot that would have been the case had colour neg been used. Whether you like that is a personal thing. Contrast tends to be higher and many slide films (particularly some of the modern highly saturated films) do not render subtle tones/colours very accurately, tending towards the primaries - think of how reds, greens and blues go on Velvia. A noteable exception would be Kodak EPN.
The nature of the slide means that certain "tricks" used by those who design films cannot be used - the orange contrast reducing mask so familiar from colour neg being one. Dye couplers are a farily recent introduction to slide films (I know they are in some Fuji films) although not ubiquitous as they are in quality colour neg films. Colour neg films are designed to have a long straight section in their HD curve (at not too great an angle) - giving the ability to hold the long tonal ranges associated with them.
As regards scanning - from what I have heard, although slides are less grainy to the human eye, there can be problems getting a good scan from them - see BJP of 17/07/07. Again, I understand that the film manufacturers have tweaked their colour neg films so that they produce a good scan, and therefore a good print, in digital mini labs (Fuji Frontiers etc). It may be that the tricks used to achieve this would be visible on a slide and therfore unacceptable. One issue that has always been an issue is the very high DMax of some slide films (over 4), Velvia being the obvious example. Scanners just cannot penetrate it. This was similarly an issue for those printing from slides in the darkroom - often a contrast reducing mask needed to be made if the full range of the slide was to be captured on the paper.
A very interesting resource on this area is a gentleman who goes by the name of Ctein. His book "Post Exposure" is an interesting read.
Slides do look great - they are often a less accurate rendering of the scene shot that would have been the case had colour neg been used. Whether you like that is a personal thing. Contrast tends to be higher and many slide films (particularly some of the modern highly saturated films) do not render subtle tones/colours very accurately, tending towards the primaries - think of how reds, greens and blues go on Velvia. A noteable exception would be Kodak EPN.
The nature of the slide means that certain "tricks" used by those who design films cannot be used - the orange contrast reducing mask so familiar from colour neg being one. Dye couplers are a farily recent introduction to slide films (I know they are in some Fuji films) although not ubiquitous as they are in quality colour neg films. Colour neg films are designed to have a long straight section in their HD curve (at not too great an angle) - giving the ability to hold the long tonal ranges associated with them.
As regards scanning - from what I have heard, although slides are less grainy to the human eye, there can be problems getting a good scan from them - see BJP of 17/07/07. Again, I understand that the film manufacturers have tweaked their colour neg films so that they produce a good scan, and therefore a good print, in digital mini labs (Fuji Frontiers etc). It may be that the tricks used to achieve this would be visible on a slide and therfore unacceptable. One issue that has always been an issue is the very high DMax of some slide films (over 4), Velvia being the obvious example. Scanners just cannot penetrate it. This was similarly an issue for those printing from slides in the darkroom - often a contrast reducing mask needed to be made if the full range of the slide was to be captured on the paper.
A very interesting resource on this area is a gentleman who goes by the name of Ctein. His book "Post Exposure" is an interesting read.
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
I became a slide film devotee because of its ease to store. Later I learned that at times slides are preferable to print film because the process previous to printing may change the colors of the scene just because (as it may occur with the nice pink tones from a sunset, which may be altered in print film).
BTW, print film is very forgiving, but slide film has some tolerance. It's less than the C-41 stuff, but it's there (like half-stop either way). You should use it, Thorsten... because, in Europe, you may not be able to shoot Kodachrome: it's not easy to find and only developed in Switzerland. Try using Kodak and Fuji films, though... and, given your preferences, I know you'll pick Ektachromes.
BTW, print film is very forgiving, but slide film has some tolerance. It's less than the C-41 stuff, but it's there (like half-stop either way). You should use it, Thorsten... because, in Europe, you may not be able to shoot Kodachrome: it's not easy to find and only developed in Switzerland. Try using Kodak and Fuji films, though... and, given your preferences, I know you'll pick Ektachromes.