Negative or slide??

[aizan]

negs all the way, unless i find a pradovit ca 2500. 😀

 

[Roger Hicks]

Too bad, Frank -- we agree on this one too. For LEARNING about photography, slide is vastly superior (you have to be able to meter competently) and I love the ability to compare the scan/on screen image/print with the slide. To be fair, with some of the results I've had in the last few years from neg I'm pretty impressed with that too.

Slides are cheaper, too: I process my own in either Tetenal or Fotospeed chemistry with a Jobo CPE-2. Under $3 a roll, so a processed roll of EBX is around $5-6 -- and of course a lot quicker than print. Though a pro lab should be 1 or at most 2 hours, unless you live somewhere seriously rural or rely on mail processing.

For mono, though, there's no contest. Wet processing including the prints. Then scan the print.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

 

[Rick Waldroup]

The only time I ever shoot color negative film is when I throw in a roll in my P&S Leica at family events, etc. For my own personal use I have always shot slides since I started in photography. I shoot much, much more B&W film than color film but when I do shot color it is always slides. I used to shoot exclusively with Kodachrome but I am now using Ektachrome Saturated. I wish Kodachrome was still easily processed because I love the longevity of the material. I have slides that I shot almost 40 years ago and they still look great. Some of the E6 stuff I shot back then has started to slightly fade even though I take great care in storing my slides. I can tell you a film that I really miss is the old 3M Scotch 1000 speed slide film. That stuff was so grainy but a really cool film to use for the right subject matter. I wish I had some of that stuff big time!

 

[Roger Hicks]

RDW

Oh, yes, the old Scotch/Ferrania/3M 1000D -- magic!

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com -- where you'll find a few 1000D pics, in Malta especially)

 

[QuillianSW]

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.

Concur heartily sir! What a love fest we're having with this one!
🙂

 

[sockeyed]

I love the depth and luminosity that you get with slides and the simple act of viewing them as-is or projected. A major shortcoming is speed, however, as there are few good 400 slide films. I've tried Provia 400F lately and it was just OK (although the grain was pretty good). I'm going to shoot some Sensia 400 to see how that turns out; I've heard good things.

I tried the Kodak E100G recently too, and was very impressed.

I'm not a Velvia kinda guy (too much saturation makes me dizzy).

 

[phototone]

It all depends on if you scan or you print. If you scan, then slides are the best choice, as almost all scanners do a better job with slide film than they do with color negative film. Also, any dust specks turn out as black dots, and are not very noticable on the final prints from the scans. With color negative film any flaw turns out white and absolutely have to be corrected in photoshop to get a good print.

Scanning picks up every little flaw in the original film. Printing directly from negatives doesn't, as most color enlargers use a diffuse light source that minimizes the appearance of flaws.

If you print (yourself) in a darkroom, then negatives are the way to go, as the materials to make prints from negatives are cheaper than the reversal print materials, and the results are better when you print from negatives, as this is what negatives were meant to do.

When considering the cost, you need to take into consideration the cost of the original color negative film, processing and a set of proof prints, or a proof CD of the roll, then compare this to the cost of a roll of slide film and processing. You can easily evaluate the images of slides directly, with a simple loupe and a light source. No need for prints or a proof CD. This should make the cost about equal. When I shoot slides, I do not even mount them, I just cut them into six image strips and sleeve them in page sleeves, and treat them as negatives, because all my printing is done through scans.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Phototone -- I'd have agreed on quality until the last year or two, but the best negs now scan VERY nicely.

I still prefer slides, though.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[rovnguy]

I shoot all three, but mostly color negative. I tend to reserve my transparency film for on location scenic work since it doesn't have the exposure latitude of negative film. I shoot B&W mostly when I shoot portraits.

 

[Ivan]

Thanks for your messages

Thanks for your messages

Dear all,

Thanks for all your tips.

I am now trying out different negatives, incl so called professional negatives. Am also trying out slides. Intend to get a loupe and some kind of viewing machine to check it out.

Keep looking!

Ivan

 

[phototone]

Phototone -- I'd have agreed on quality until the last year or two, but the best negs now scan VERY nicely.

I still prefer slides, though.

Cheers,

Roger

You may have something there, because all of my scanning experience is with older color negatives from my archives, as I haven't shot any NEW color negatives in quite a while. I have most recently scanned some 4x5 color negatives of studio shots taken within the last 5 years and they looked quite good, but that was 4x5 negs.

Many of my color negs from professional work that were taken 20 years ago now show signs of colof shifts (crossover) that are not easily correctable. My Ektachromes from even older than that are just fine. Both have been stored in glassine or clear sleeves in envelopes in filing cabinets in my heated and cooled studio.

It is not that 35mm color negatives don't contain enough data, it is just that the variations in the dye mask and composition of the various films makes it difficult to achieve a truly neutral scan without a lot of tweaking of levels, on a variety of emulsions..

 

[MJFerron]

I love saturated slide film on the lightbox. Problem is Velvia has a high contrast and doesn't always scan as well as color negs. I still shoot some slide film but will shoot Reala or Kodak UC for ISO 100 or Kodak 400UC which is an excellent all around film giving bold color, tight grain, beautiful skin tones and decent shutter speeds. My K/M Scan Dual 4 does a great job on negative film and I do little post processing in PS.

Mike

 

[NoTx]

Lemme see... both.

People:

100F (Astia, Provia) Slide
400 NPH Neg
800 NPZ Neg

Landscape:

100F (Astia) Slide
Ulra 100 Agfa Neg

 

[Tom Diaz]

Dear all,

Thanks for all your tips.

I am now trying out different negatives, incl so called professional negatives. Am also trying out slides. Intend to get a loupe and some kind of viewing machine to check it out.

Keep looking!

Ivan

I agree with many of the remarks made, including that choosing different films from time to time, for a different look, is one of the pleasures of old-fashioned film photography.

You have already said you have a preference for the way slides look, and I think you will find that this look is hard to emulate with negative film. On the occasions I use slide film I am very impressed with Kodak E100G or its warmer sister, E100GX. They seem to have ultra fine grain, are very sharp, and have natural colors, especially E100G.

I prefer negative films, myself, because I find their contrast characteristics much more manageable. (This is the flipside of the point others have made--which is that slide films will force you to think harder about exposure, and thus to learn more about photography.) I scan negatives with a Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400, and that works beautifully and as easily as scanning slides.

One point not emphasized too much in other replies: If you are into available light, I think most people would agree that high speed negative films are better than high speed slide films. Also, low-light scenes tend to be very contrasty, and a high-speed film with moderate contrast is better to record them. Most slide films, especially fast ones, are inherently more contrasty than negative films, and I don't think they do as good a job in available light unless you like extremely high contrast renditions.

If you are trying out negative films I suggest you try Kodak Portra 160NC, or its higher speed sister, 400NC. 400NC is, for me, a nearly universally useful film, used for most of the pictures in my gallery. I like the color palette of these films more than any others I have tried. When skies are grey, the film makes them grey. When colors are bright, they look bright and right. The film is excellent with artificial light and with sunsets, too. Actually in sunsets I think the film deviates from its usually very natural colors, but I like what it does, so.... (Fuji NPS and NPH are my second favorites.)

 

[Stephanie Brim]

I use whatever I need to use to achieve the result I want.

For instance, I bought some really nice, slow Pan-F and Velvia films to take with me to Adventureland (a themepark in Iowa) when my boyfriend and I go next month. I wanted something that I could use in the bright August sunlight that would give me low grain. Considering that I will be using the Canonet or my Nikon for most of the photos, this film should do exactly what I want it to do: the Velvia should produce excellent color saturation and contrast and the Pan-F should give me very low grain and awesome long exposure night shots.

I am also a fan of Fuji print film, namely Superia 100 and 400, and also Walgreens film, which is rebranded Agfa. I don't shoot much Kodak film because I don't like the colors it gives me, but I do have a few rolls of Ektachrome sitting around here that need processing ASAP.