Poll: Do you use slide film?

Poll: Do you use slide film?

  • Never

    Votes: 135 19.0%

  • Occasionally

    Votes: 261 36.7%

  • Frequently

    Votes: 254 35.7%

  • Other: e.g. I shoot slides but in my SLR instead

    Votes: 61 8.6%
  • Total voters
    711
I've used Provia 100 and later 100F since 1997, after previously dabbling in it a little for a couple years. Used Kodachrome 25 and 64 before that, going back to 1978.

I don't think I've shot more than about 10-12 rolls of prints in my life; lately the only times I ever use print film is if I'm shooting something for my employer (it paid off though - they used my pics to illustrate their latest sales brochure).
 
E100VS / Velvia 50 / Provia 100F / Provia 400F / Sensia 400 / Kodachrome 64.

I do want to try some Velvia 100.

cheers

MArk
Quito, Ec
 
I have two cartons (36 ex. 20 rolls) of the original Velvia 50 in the fridge...
I love slide film...I need to get some outta there and shoot it...
 
Bryce said:
I've tried scanners ranging from a Scan Dual III to an Imacon; the Imacon and high end Nikon scanners get close, but still can't deal with the high density portions of a slide, and all suffer from noise.
Click to expand...

I'll share with you (and anybody else who wants to listen it) what I do, but I'm not sure this is what you want to hear. :) Now before you go dismissing this, please take a good look at some good sample prints made on the latest higher-end printers that use the new pigment inks.

Before you stop reading, please hear me out for one more brief paragraph. Up until about a year ago I too was of the belief that only an optical lab print was what I wanted for my best photos, and even though I had learned to make my then printer the best it could be, the prints were "OK" at best, and that no {gasp - dare I use this word} inkjet could rate the Charles Atlas Seal of Approval. This was until I started looking closely at some of the sample prints which they assured me were not tweaked and were actually printed on those models. The model that caught my eye was the HP 9180, which I eventually purchased. You can stop reading now if you want. :)

As for scanning and noise and mud in the shadows, for slides I do almost all Kodachrome 64 (and yes, the 9180 prints do have that "Kodachrome look from scanned Kodachrome slides) and I've found the trick to getting a good scan with minimal noise is to scan at 16 bits, absolute maximum res, and overscan to the max, like 8 or 16 times. The overscanning (multi sample) is what seems to do the trick for shadow noise on slides. This is with a K-M SD IV, which is admittedly an entry-level now-orphan scanner which has a fairly steep learning curve at the onset. This will take several minutes per slide, and give you a monstrodious file of about 75-80 megabytes, but the results are worth it.

One other thing I do on some slides is to do a couple quickie test scans to check the focus. Slides can curve and the autofocus doesn't always grab the best point on the slide to focus onto. I'll sometimes have to re-set the autofocus point if the edges or the center starts to get fuzzy.

Another thing, do no tweaking of the image on the scanner software other than some slight levels. Yeah, some slides don't want to correct very well, and for those, it seems you can never ever get a nice print from the, digital or optical. Just get the maximum information off the slide and into your computer. Then use Photoshop or whatever to do the tweaks and make a "press ready" .psd or .tif which your printer doesn't have to futz with to print at the size you want. I size it to 300DPI at EXACTLY the size of image I want.

Still reading? :)

The ones I've seen that looked really nice to my eye said Fuji Crystal Archive on the back. Anyone know if this material is still available, whether anyone still offers prints made on it, or whether using it in a home darkroom is feasible?
Click to expand...

Crystal Archive is a very good paper. Pro labs and minilabs use this quite a bit.

I'm very sure Fuji does not make a type R Crystal Archive paper. If you got a Fuji Crystal Archive print from a slide, it was either with an internegative (lose one turn) or more likely in the last several years it was scanned, inverted in software, and then optically printed on the paper.

For paper, I have been getting some stunning prints from the 9180 using the Ilford Galerie series, such as the Smooth Pearl. The various house brand Office Depot papers work very well with this printer too.

Sorry this is so long, I just kept adding and adding. :) Hope you find it of at least some interest. :)
 
I go through phases. When I do b+w it's usually PlusX in D76. It scans well and I like the tonality. For color, I usually use Kodak E100G. I've tried most of the others, but I like the saturation and color balance of the E100G. I find it easy to scan and get the prints to look the way I want them.

BH
 
I mostly use black and white film, however, I completed one project, all night images, which was all photographed on Fuji Provia 400 pushed to 800 and 1000 ASA, and Kodachrome 200 with on camera flash.

I plan on traveling a bit this summer, and plan to photograph using all kodachrome. I have recently been inspired by Alex Webb's work, and want to experiment a little, but most of my work will be b&w.
 
DMR-
Thank you for your reply, and especially for the time taken for detail! I read it fully, and twice, by the way.
I believe that I read somewhere that the only direct positive paper still available for optical enlargement is Ciba- or Ilfo- chrome, whichever it is called at this point. From what I've read about it, it sounds like more trouble (masks and chemical disposal worries) and expense than I'm willing to endure. Plus, it might just disappear right when I get a handle on it.
I have seen some really good inkjet prints in the last couple of years, so since I gave up on color. I know they exist, and only sorting through what works and what doesn't stops me, though cash is rather tight lately too. Some are good enough to give analog B+W's a run for their money.
The biggest problem I've had is with digitizing the slide's contents, i.e. scanning.
I've suspected that my scanner, a Scan Dual III, might have a weak light source, since anything resembling a shadow in the slide is rendered pitch black on screen. To counter this, I have to up the exposure at the scan, usually 2 stops. Even so, the scan doesn't register anything like the darker areas in the slide.
And those chalk white whites that Astia gives come out looking green or pink or something on screen, though P-shop makes quick work of that.
I always used the very buggy software provided with it.
I did notice that the manual focus option was far more reliable than the automatic one, and scanned 16 bits with multiple passes. As I remember, 4x sampling was the most the software would allow you to select. Do more than that help noticeably with noise?
Anyhow, I later took some classes at the local university, which is where I gained access (temporarily) to Nikon 4000's and an Imacon. While I found myself without nearly enough time to get truly familiar with either of them, they both turned out considerably better files than the little Minolta. Maybe even marginally better than with a 6mp digital camera...
About the same time, I was beginning to play with what has become my native format- medium, that is. Well, that left scanning right out of my league. A Nikon 8000 or 9000 has always been about $2000 to buy, though from a 6 by whatever slide the results would be perfectly acceptable.
After all that, and also near instant gratification from medium format negs in the darkroom providing stunning, pin sharp B+W prints I just decided color either wasn't my bag or that digital would someday fix things.
It wasn't until later that I saw prints that had been made optically from slides. Now I can't help feeling I missed something with the passing of these materials.
Laying around my house are a few thousand slides, some of which are really nice. A month or so I finally got around to 'scanning' a 645 slide of a friend with a dslr, bellows arrangement, and enlarging lens. I took 3 frames, one exposed for midtones, one for highlights, and one for shadows, then melded them in a piece of free HDR software.
All I can say bad about the result is, too bad the camera's native resolution is so low. Otherwise the image is great. There are no noise problems, no density problems, no color problems. A web sized version of the image is in the 'She/ He's a beauty' thread.
So there's hope. Sooner or later I'll probably brave the word of color imaging, and maybe even by way of slides. There is still a ton of my personal favorite film, Astia, in the freezer.
Thanks again for your response!
 
I'm trying some Kodachrome 64 for the first time in 20 years or so. I have a roll in my Leica IIIc and a roll in a Nikon F3 a friend is loaning me. I recently scanned some Kodachrome my grandfather took in 1949 in the Leica IIIc I now have. Pretty amazing.
 
Last edited:
Bryce said:
Adietrich-
Those are pertty!
Click to expand...


Thanks, Bryce. You should seem them projected, its almost unbelievable.

On slide scanning: I get "kinda OK" results when I scan 35mm slides with my Epson3200. But life is getting much easier with the 120's. I can scan with a more moderate resolution and the prints turn out just great.

-a
 
I have gone back and forth between slide film and color negative film in my rf cameras. I am now on a big slide film kick. I love its look and the fact that what you expose is what you get. Fewer variables affect the final outcome.

/T
 
Bryce said:
Thank you for your reply, and especially for the time taken for detail! I read it fully, and twice, by the way.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I'm glad you took it in the spirit intended.

There's really a lot of bias among film users toward optical prints, and it seems like many don't even want to consider anything other than wet prints. I think this comes from the "almost photo quality" printers of 5-10 years ago.

I believe that I read somewhere that the only direct positive paper still available for optical enlargement is Ciba- or Ilfo- chrome, whichever it is called at this point.
Click to expand...

I don't do any wet printing (yes, I have done it at college and using friends' darkrooms, plus I've done my share of hand-dipped Kodalith) but from what I've picked up, Ilford does still make type R paper. It's not direct positive. It has to be exposed, developed, re-exposed, bleached, etc to do a reversal.[/quote]

Years ago I used to get type R prints done which were sent to the Kodak lab over at Fair Lawn, NJ. They always came out very nice.

I've suspected that my scanner, a Scan Dual III, might have a weak light source, since anything resembling a shadow in the slide is rendered pitch black on screen. To counter this, I have to up the exposure at the scan, usually 2 stops. Even so, the scan doesn't register anything like the darker areas in the slide.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm ... it's too bad those are orphan and can't be sent in for a calibration or repair. I have the 4, which always seems to give good details in the shadows if there are indeed details there.

I always used the very buggy software provided with it.
Click to expand...

Although I've been very outspoken about these as being unnecessary, you might try the demo of Vuescan or Silverfast. The software I have with the IV is not that bad. I do think they try to put too many features in this type of thing, but it still seems to do the basic job well, to get the image off the slide (or neg) and into the computer.

I did notice that the manual focus option was far more reliable than the automatic one, and scanned 16 bits with multiple passes.
Click to expand...

I've never had to use the full manual. I've always been able to get by setting the focus point for the auto focus.

As I remember, 4x sampling was the most the software would allow you to select. Do more than that help noticeably with noise?
Click to expand...

I think the most difference is between 1x and 2x, but more can't hurt. Mine (the IV) lets you do up to 16.
 
I use it in all my bodies

I use it in all my bodies

I shoot slide film all the time. Finished a roll yesterday. Doesn't everybody?
 
Velvia

Velvia

I shot a couple dozen rolls of Velvia in the past year. Kodachrome it ain't but is still quite good.
 
I shoot mostly B/W in my 35mm RFs, color print in my SLR and Hexar AF, and almost exclusively color transparency in my MF cameras.

I have been reasonably satisfied with Provia 100 and am happy that Velvia 50 is available again - though I still have a couple rolls of Provia in the fridge to work through before I need to order.
 
I do use slide film for more than 30 years! I use M Leica and Leica reflex cameras.

I use mostly Ektachrome 100; Elitechrome 100 and the Fuji Velvia 100F


The color and the sharpness are still the best!
The results are always outstanding!
Digital pictures of the top digital cameras of Nikon of Canon are not better, I saw this week!

Slide presentation on screen (3 meter) proves the enormous quality of the slide film (and the Leica lenses)!
 
Last edited:
Velvia 100; Provia 100F; Provia 400. I'm experimenting with Astia. The first roll was too thin and washed out looking. I shot the second roll at 125 for a substantial improvement. Looks to me like this film is rated too low. I experiment with Ektachrome from time to time. Used to use EPP 100 for blue springs and streams with green foliage, but at $15.00 a roll . . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom