Colour Slide Films---Projection Viewing vs. Scanning

[Tin]

I have not been using slide films for quite a few years. Recently, I wanted to get back into using slides. So I went to a reputable local photo store to update my knowledge of the current film stocks. The very knowledgeable staff person suggested that there were slide films that were more suitable for viewing by projection, whereas others were more suitable for scanning (the less contrasty ones). He suggested Kodak Elite Chrome 100 and Kodak Ektachrome G 100 that represented these two types. As I had never used either of these, I bought some of each.

Although I do not have any experience with scanning slide films, as I do not have a film scanner, I plan to try scanner in the future. So I wanted to try both films.

Now I have all the slides back, but have only had the chance to examine them on the light table. The Elite slides do appear to be more brilliant under such viewing condition. Of course I couldn't make comparison with scanning yet. (That is also why I couldn't share any of my pictures with all of you at this time, and I am afraid that it will be a while before I will get a film scanner.)

(1) My first question is : does any of you have experience with these two films (or any other slide films) and see differences between the projected image and the scanned image in terms of contrast, brilliance, etc.?

(2) And for my future reference, my related second question is : are there slide films that are more difficult to scan than others?

 

[T_om]

In my opinion, given the ISO range you are looking at, there is no finer chrome film in the world at present than Fuji Provia 100. None. Nada. Zilch.

The fact that it scans beautifully is just icing on the cake.

Tom

 

[laptoprob]

I always used Sensia 100 because of proce and being available almost everywhere. Alsi I liked the colour character. Not too heavy. I also compared to Velvia 100 but Velvia is too saturated in colour for me. I have not tried Provia yet.
Scanning slides is a sensitive thing in the darker parts. Shadows tend to black out somewhat when scanned; when projected this does not happen.

Rob

 

[Roger Hicks]

A lot depends on your scanner but a good dedicated 35mm scanner such as the Konica Minolta Dimage 5400-II should be able to handle any normal density. Otherwise high-saturation, high-density films like Elite 100 EBX may lose some detail in the shadows.

Don't under-expose these high-saqturation films unless you want SERIOUSLY vivid colours, and be aware that faces on under-exposed EBX, Velvia, etc., can look lke alabs of liver: low-saturation films are better for this. I've rtecently taken to using Sensia (low-sat) alongside EBX (high-sat): the Sensia is sometimes a better choice on sunny days.

Tpm's view is just that: Tom's view. Others will be equally emphatic about other films. My own personal favourite was the long-discontinued Fuji RF/RFP. All I'd say is that consistency is more important than which film you use: get to learn what it will do, how it perfoems with your equipment and metering technique, etc. Now I have to go and process 42 rolls of EBX and Sensia, shot over the last month in Eastern Europe, almost all in a Leica MP.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com -- where you will find more about film choice).

 

[Goodyear]

Now I have to go and process 42 rolls of EBX and Sensia, shot over the last month in Eastern Europe, almost all in a Leica MP.

How many ways can you make me jealous in one sentence? 🙂

 

[Pherdinand]

Roger, where were you in eastern europe?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Czech Republic (the last only briefly). It's a 2-day drive home from Prague.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Pherdinand]

Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Czech Republic (the last only briefly). It's a 2-day drive home from Prague.

Cheers,

Roger

Cool. I'm looking forward to see some shots. I'm transylvanian and i'm curious to see the places and moments with the "eyes" of somebody from the west.
See a map where I am from 🙂

 

[jaapv]

Tin: Another aspect: Which film is best adjusted to the lens you're using. I always found (nothing scientific or tested) that Agfa RSXII was best for newer European (Leica,Zeiss...) lenses. How it will be with Agfa in it's dying stage, I don't know.If you are really interested "Natur Photo"runs film tests very often. If you would be interested in some copies of some specific tests, please mail me.

 

[QuillianSW]

hi Tin - I've never been impressed with the Elite Chromes, though the Kodak E1000 series (G, GX, VS) work very well - the "G" being less contrasty scans well, though the GX seems a little 'muddy' to be (GX is "warmer" - eg, for portraiture, etc.) I've also had fairly decent results with Fuji Provia, though I've had problems scanning Velvia and particularly Sensia well. Could just be me or my scanner (Minolta DiMage 5400) but I've had overall best results with the Agfa RSX II series. Lots of folks don't like Agfa as they'll claim the Kodak and Fuji emulsions have better specs (RMS granularity is better, etc.) but I prefer it as Agfa gives a very true rendition - the blue sky is blue, trees are green, etc., there's not a lot of color shifting like the Fuji in particular. The nice thing about slides is I'm seeing precisely what I took, there's no post processing color/exposure corrections - so if I made bad choices when I took the shot, I get to learn from my mistakes. Slides also scan a lot better than negatives. The attatched shot was done on Agfa RSX II iso 50. Battleships make a good grey card.

 

[MrBuhl]

(1) My first question is : does any of you have experience with these two films (or any other slide films) and see differences between the projected image and the scanned image in terms of contrast, brilliance, etc.?

(2) And for my future reference, my related second question is : are there slide films that are more difficult to scan than others?

I am not an expert by any means - but I have been scanning slides now for about five years - here are some thoughts related to your questions from my experiences...

1.) I have used both of the Chromes you are speaking of - for my two cents, they are indeed less contrasty and do scan much better than something like Velvia. I have to admit that during a slide presentation (projected slides) last year, John Shaw did a side by side of E100VS and Velvia 50 slides - and the Velvia slides were much more striking on the screen when projected. That being said - I find that the density and saturation of the Velvia makes it very difficult to get a perfect exposure and scan - even using my Nikon F5. I much prefer the E100VS (Consumer version is the EliteChrome 100 you speak of - available in varying saturations)

2.) Having scanned various kinds of slide film (E100VS, Velvia 50, Velvia 100, Sensia 100, Provia 100, Provia 400, Kodachromes) in a dedicated but low price level scanner, (Nikon Coolscan IV), I have not found that there is a great difference in the scanning, just in the chrome itself - you might need a better scanner than mine (about $500 when new) to get the best out of Velvia or the more saturated and dense films.

I hope that helps - whatever you do - get a good scanner - the speed and shadow density will be worth the extra!

 

[jaapv]

I agree Quillian , Agfa RSXII 100 does not have to be grainy when scanned.. and I like the colour balance as well.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Pherdinand,

Couldn't tell much from the map. we spend some time in Maramures (including a few hours at a market/fair with gypsy horse traders) and visited another Transylvanian friend in Satu Mare. We hope to be back there next year. Meanwhile, here's a digi-snap of a Maramures road...

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Iskra 2]

Kodachrome and Astia work for me. Remember, everything scanned ends up on a computer screen or a piece of paper.

I have several slides in my gallery. No comparison to the projected image. But that's the way things are going these days. If you've never seen projected slides the alternatives look ok I guess.

 

[Pherdinand]

Roger: I'm glad to see you had the suitable car 🙂 Thet's 400+ km NW from my home but the 'country roads' are about the same quality everywhere, biggest problem for tourism.

Sorry Tin for the off-topic discussion! 🙂

 

[TEZillman]

I think you'll find all kinds of opinions on this topic. I recently took a nature photography course and the instructor was absolutely sold on Velvia 50 (which is about as saturated as films come) for everything he did. Obviously in this day in age the slides for his gallary prints and books are all scaned on a drum scanner, which is a whole different ball game from consumer grade scanners. Of course Fuji has discontinued Velvia 50, so he's kind of stuck. The shadows are pretty muddy on all of the scans I make on my cheap epson scanner regardless of the film used.

I'd echo Iskra2's comment on projection. If you don't have a projector and screen and are taking slides, buy one. There's probably a couple hundred slide projectors on ebay for under $20. There's nothing like seeing a good shot blown up on a screen.

Tom

 

[Tin]

Thanks all of you folks for your comments and advice. It'll take me a while to digest.

I had been using Fuji Sensia 50 and 100 for many years before I stop using slide film. But that was before digital photography and scanners came along.

Prior to Fuji, I used Agfachrome 50 (I think it was designated CT, that was the version that did not use E-6 processing). I was very satisfied with both of those for projection viewing. But now with computer monitors and scanners, it's a whole new ball game for me. Since I will eventually get a scanner, I need to learn all these again.

Tin

 

[Tin]

Tom,

I do have a good projector. It's just that I had to bring it out of storage and clean it up before I can view my new slides with it. Of course I paid a lot more than the $20 that you quoted when I bought mine many years ago.

Tin