Negative or slide??

[Ivan]

Dear all

I'm sure you all must have wrestled with this question before. I am an amateur photographer and take photos for my own pleasure. I would appreciate some of your thoughts on what factors I should consider in deciding which medium - negative or slide - that would be most appropriate to use as a hobby.

I prefer the slide because of its ability to capture more contrasty scenes and the colour saturation. However, its the cost of developing, mounting and the hassle of viewing puts me off. I do not have a projector and don't think that the various costs would justify the results for me. With negative, it is so convenient and affordable. However, sometimes, the contrast and colour saturation is not satisfactory. Furthermore, there is a secondary step - the lab - that interferes with one's photos.

Perhaps I should just get a better negative film! Any thoughts from you would be appreciated.

 

[Socke]

Hm, I'm scanning, not projecting.

So I use:
- Fuji Sensia 100, 5 rolls incl. development for 18 Euros, in good light
- Fuji Superia 400 and 800, they have a X-Tra pack with two 400 and one 800 for 8 Euro in normal to bad light
- Tri-X and HP5 for nearly everything else

I used Sensia last year in Cuba and the pictures blew me away when I saw them scanned on my computer screen, much better than what I got out of my DSLR. I reprocessed all my RAW files after I'd seen the slides 🙂. (Hm, about time to put them in my gallery)
I have some very nice results from noname ISO200 print film sold cheap at the local drugstore.

I tried Kodak professional films as well as Fuji Press but the prints I get from the usual labs aren't any better than what I get from the consumer films.

With B/W I used XP2 a lot and changed to traditional B/W films when I got to many prints with green shadows and purple highlights.
I changed to homeprocessing after I got two rolls HP5+ back which was processed in a color bath :-(

 

[julianphotoart]

Slide film please. Slide is positive-positive so the colours you see are the colours you get. No negative-positive colour, tint, etc. interpretation by a lab. Slides can be either traditionally printed without an internegative by using Cibachrome/Ilfochrome, or printed at a commercial lab also without an internegative. This is about the only positive thing I can say about digital: Since professional labs scan slides and then print using ultra high quality digital printers, they also make prints from slides without an internegative. This contrasts with the old days when the lab would photograph the slide with negative film, then print from the negative. Also, these days it's so easy to ask the lab to give you either a high res or low res CD of the slide images. You can then do what you want such as for example inputting the images into a digital slide projector or whatever they call them (ELMO or something???).

 

[Rob]

I have always like slides better. Cost wise it is about the same as negative processing.
Colors are so much better. Now with better printing from slides things are even better.

 

[Doug]

No accounting for personal taste! 🙂 I wouldn't use slide film under any circumstances. You can have slides made from the negs if you need to project them, and then your original materials aren't subjected to the stresses of that projection and handling. Negative materials record a longer tonal scale, allowing for interpretation at the time of printing. Much more flexible. And less picky about exact exposure and color balance.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I prefer the slide because of its ability to capture more contrasty scenes and the colour saturation..

I don't understand how you arrive to that conclusion, but I think it illustrates what everybody else is saying: it's a matter of preference. I like shooting chromes (aka slides) because, as you say, there is no need to tweak, no need to color-balance, etc. The exposure latitude is much more narrow than with conventional negative film.

I think it depends on the kind of scene/lighting you're shooting. For daylight shooting, in reasonably well-lit non-high-key scenes, slide film is a very good option. Scanning it is also easier, imo.

Perhaps my perspective is different, because I no longer let my color negative film be printed at the lab, only processed. I scan all my film, be it slides or negatives. Scanning slides is so much easier and requires less work. Scanning color negatives are sometimes the most painful. B&W negatives are a breeze (for me).

Also, your choice of negative film may have to do with unsatisfactory results; if shooting under mixed lighting conditions, some films perform better than others, some worse than most. In my experience, the Fuji Superia films have great color balance latitude; in general, the consumer Kodak films are to be avoided unless that's the only thing that's available to you for miles. Agfa's color films are also good, but some labs just slaughter its colors with sloppy development and half-baked printing. Fuji seems to resist even the most dense of lab printers.

My twopence.

 

[jaapv]

As you say, Gabrielma, it is a matter of preference. I find the wider latitude of print film easier to handle on scanning than slides. I find myself reducing contrast in scans from slides. Maybe it depends on the scanner used.Having said that, I use both, mainly because I still have a large stock of Agfa RSXII in the freezer; both can yield excellent results.
I do think that the Agfa films seem to be better balanced to the rendering of European lenses.

 

[Rob]

I forgot to add that I use a Portatrace light box with a 50mm lens reversed as my loupe for viewing slides. KEH has these lightboxes for around $30. Slides are stored according to subject and I can view a whole page at time. So a projector is not needed. You can get projectors cheaply now anyway. Shooting slide film will make you much better at getting your exposures right..Negative film is much more forgiving.

 

[jtzordon]

I shoot mostly negs because it's cheaper here. When I shoot slides, I don't have them mounted, just get the whole strip, cut it myself with an ordinary pair of sharp scissors over my lightbox. I also use the portatrace and a 50mm lens (came with the camera I wanted). Costs about $7.50 for slide processing at my local lab (mail out would be cheaper, but whose that patient?).

Negs I just get developed, $2.50 for color, $3.50 for bw, and scan at home on my crummy epson 3170 flatbed (~$150). Can make decent 5x7s with the scans. In the long run, negs are cheaper for me.

I used to shoot some velvia for landscapes, but since I don't have a good scanner, I always just had the local lab print them. Quality was sorry! Could have had them do a high quality scan and print the digital file, but that's a pain (again notice the laziness and aversion to hassles). They print negs really well, so for now I stick with negs. I never make prints from my scans, because I don't like how they turn out; slides are better for this. Also, slides are best for learning and seeing exactly what you did (and figuring out what you should have done).

So, it really depends on your how patient, cheap, tolerant you are; and what you like, too.

 

[Nikon Bob]

If you prefer slides then slides it is. For me , I use neg film for it's forgiving exposure latitude (not overly good at metering) so as not to loose too many photos while travelling because you can't go back and reshoot. I like prints made and do not project. Getting slide film processed here is a real hassle and expensive but there are plenty of one hour labs to process neg film cheaply (no prints). Over all I find neg film is cheaper to buy per roll and process (develope only) than slide film. Also I like the Fuji line of films for scanning. In the end use what you gives you the results that you want.

Bob

 

[FrankS]

Hi Ivan,

If you are just starting out, you will more about photography if you either a) use B+W neg film and do your own developing and printing, or b) use slide film. If someone else is doing your printing, you won't see a direct cause and effect relationship between what you do with the camera settings and the final outcome.

 

[pvdhaar]

I've basically abandoned slides altogether, because the Mrs. wants to have prints of anything that has the kids in them.. Besides, now that I've found a lab that does a decent job, I can get predictable and consistent results from negative film.

 

[JimDE]

Peter, Finding a good lab is the hard part.......

 

[TEZillman]

One of the beautiful aspects of film photography is that this decision only needs to be made on a roll to roll basis. There are dozens of types of film available. Why not try a number of them? Second hand projectors are available very inexpensively. I keep finding them at second hand shops for $10-20. (That’s why I have 5 back up projectors. Can GAS apply to projectors?) Anyway, the point is to have fun.

 

[sooner]

Like many of you, I switch between slides and negative print film, depending on mood and subject and camera. Some of my older rangefinders have less reliable metering, so I use print film and don't fear overexposure that would be fatal to slides. Here in Oklahoma City, I get 36 slides developed and mounted for $5.50, and they come in a little plastic box. Just got slides taken with a SL35M SLR--bought from a fellow RRFer--and the colors were beautiful. Also, slides are luminous in a way prints are not, and sometimes you get that almost three-dimensional quality. So slides offer something very special that prints do not, albeit at the cost of less latitude and convenience. And I know that literally decades from now, my kids can look back on the slides I shoot today and see bright, sharp versions of themselves staring back as if from a time warp, the ornery gleam still visible in their eyes.

--John

 

[kiev4a]

I haven't shot slides in 20 years. Prior to that time, slides were the only thing I shot color-wise.

I find tday's color negative has a lot to offer. I like Fuji 100 for serious stuff but shoot a lot of 400, too. If I want "natural color" I usually shoot Kodak Gold 200.
I have virtually all my film processed and sleeved -- no prints. I scan them at home. The newer color scanners are much better at hitting the color than the older one's were.

Color neg has more latitude than slides and I agree with the person who said scanning negs is easier than slides. The higher contrast of a slide makes it tougher.

Color neg film is "immediate"--I can have film to scan in an hour. Slides are a week minimum.

I also suspect the time is coming when it will be even harder to find slide film and reliable processing.

 

[bean_counter]

As said above, projectors are going cheap at the thrift stores - I picked up a nice pro model for $15 a couple of months back. I wouldn't wait around to snag one, though - just 4 years ago I was still finding excellent LP's at the thrifts, and now they're nearly gone (anything worth dragging home, anyway). Folks seem to be rapidly churning 'old tech' out of their basements and closets now.

I shoot mostly Tri-X (it's cheap, I home process and scan, and I can justify burning more film); but nearly everything I shoot in color is on chromes. I really only shoot color print if the Mrs. demands it so that she can get multiple sets hassle free. And if I need speed, I usually just give up on color and shoot TMZ.

 

[bean_counter]

Oh, one thing I forgot to mention - I use a hand-held meter (cheapo Sekonic L-208), as the only camera I have with a meter is my SRT-102, which I really only use for telephoto work. The Sekonic gives me pretty good exposure control for chromes. And I bracket, tho not as much as I used to.

 

[Little Prince]

If it's 35mm you are talking about, I have to second slides. When you get a good shot, looking at a projected image rewards everything. Though getting output from negs is easier (prints), even at its bestt, it is still blah compared to a projected slide. For me this would apply mostly to landscape shots. I wouldn't use anything else (so long as we are talking color, B&W is another matter). For other applications (portrait, street) I doubt I'd use slides.

I said 35mm because projectors are cheaply available and the lab mounts. If you can get by without prints (but with great, huge, bright images from projection) then you save on the associated lab costs too. Also like others have mentioned, slides always let you know when you screwed up.

 

[MrBuhl]

My division is easy - Slides for Color, Negative for B&W. I haven't shot color print film for quite a while, and I scan my slides and I develop my own black and white.

I use Fuji Labs for Mail-in development which, while painfully slow, is inexpensive and has not yet messed up a single roll, (they even took the time to mail back a B&W Print roll I sent them by mistake WITH a replacement mailer). Can't say the same for Kodalux in Fairlawn - 10 rolls, two ruined, I don't use them anymore.