Print or Slide Film--in my situation?

[DrTebi]

Hello,
I will be going to Europe for a 4 week vacation, and am wondering if I should shoot print or slide film. I will take my Hasselblad XPan camera, and maybe also my Yashica Electro 35 GSN with me. I mostly shoot landscapes, "urbanscapes", and some portraits of friends and family. I probably won't be shooting much in very low-light.

There are a few things "about me" that would influence my decision:

- I like very sharp pictures with lots of details (I know a MF camera would be best for that, but I have to stick with 35mm for now). I heard that Fuji Velvia 100 would be a great choice, this is only available as slide film though, and I wonder if there is a print film equivalent?

- I only recently converted from digital to analog, thus I usually have the film developed in a lab and scan it at home on a Canoscan FS4000US. However, if I would shoot slides, I am considering to get a slide projector so I can get the best out of high-resolution positives.

- I heard that there is more "head room" when developing negatives as opposed to slides. I don't exactly understand when this advantage comes into place--is that up to the person developing the film? Or is that up to my scanner when I scan the film? So far I never had any problems with exposures from the Yashica on print film.

- If I want to get prints done, what's the advantage/disadvantage for each of these?

So far I have only shot with print film, and my biggest fear is that switching to slide film will require my pictures to have perfect exposures, while (as far as I understand) the print film may be tweaked if the exposure wasn't perfectly right.

Sorry if this post is a bit all over the place, but I just recently got into analog photography and am still learning... any help is greatly appreciated.

Thank you,
DrTebi

 

[Renzsu]

I heard that there is more "head room" when developing negatives as opposed to slides.

....


So far I have only shot with print film, and my biggest fear is that switching to slide film will require my pictures to have perfect exposures, while (as far as I understand) the print film may be tweaked if the exposure wasn't perfectly right.

That's pretty much the headroom you were talking about. You can overexpose most C41 print film up to 2 or 3 stops, develop it at box speed and still get very usable photos out of it. (unlike classic b/w and slide film). Also print film has more lattitude, so you don't have to worry too much about blown highlights or lack of detail in shadow areas. With slide film this is very different.
Slide film though, great for watching on a projector and the colors are so nice if you get it right.
Print film, well, can take a lot of effort after scanning to get the colors right, but if you shoot slow film the scans will be very sharp. (slide film scanned usually has some kind of fuzziness to it).

 

[jbielikowski]

slides are awesome but you need projector to see it. medium prints made from scans should be fine too, as its easy to get right colours scanning.

lets say it like that, you have to expose it right, like jpg file with old dslr.

 

[DrTebi]

Thank you for the quick response.
I wonder what exactly you mean by "fuzziness" though. After I read your post I looked at a couple of old slide scans that I took in the 90s with an Olympus XA-1. Unfortunately I don't remember what film it was--however, I did notice that these images had very little noise as opposed to many of the scans I have recently done from print film with the Yashica (Fujifilm Superia 200, Fujifilm Fujicolor Pro 160S, Kodak Extar 100). I don't think I have scanned these images in a different way, except that I know I didn't use the software's automatic dust and scratch removal; could the latter be a reason for that extra noise?.
Do you mean film grain/noise when you say fuzziness?

 

[DrTebi]

...

lets say it like that, you have to expose it right, like jpg file with old dslr.

Thanks JB, that makes a lot of sense.

 

[Nick De Marco]

I am no expert, but have used quite a bit of both recently. Whilst I love Velvia 50 slide, I think I am going to concentrate on Ektar 100 ISO for when I want vivid colours and fine grain. It's a very good film, and it has become much more difficult now to make traditional colour pints with slide than before

On the other hand, for scanning, slide film is easier, and if you are going to print digitally, Velvia will be good

 

[sojournerphoto]

I'd probably shoot neg film in your position. Choose either Kodak Ektar or Portra 160NC or VC for a different look. Maybe take a couple of rolls of Portra 800 along too. It's useful in the dark.

A dslr is likely to look sharper than scans from 35mm film, though slow neg films are pretty impressive if you get a decent scan. Colour is harder on neg film, but shadows are easier..

What about black and white?

Mike

 

[DrTebi]

I'd probably shoot neg film in your position. Choose either Kodak Ektar or Portra 160NC or VC for a different look. Maybe take a couple of rolls of Portra 800 along too. It's useful in the dark.

A dslr is likely to look sharper than scans from 35mm film, though slow neg films are pretty impressive if you get a decent scan. Colour is harder on neg film, but shadows are easier..

What about black and white?

Mike

Thank you Mike.
Black and White--that's another thing I often wonder about. As long as I keep everything in the "digital domain" after scanning, I wonder what would be the advantage of shooting BW as opposed to shooting in color and converting to BW in Photoshop? It seemed to me that I have more control over the output when converting from color to BW, since I can choose which channel (RGB) will be emphasized. Is a BW film better because it captures more details when exposed?

 

[Dave Jenkins]

If you're going to scan it, use color negative film. Color negative has more density range than digital, while slide film has even less. I started with slide film when I went back to film, but realized my mistake when I saw my first rolls of processed film. The exposures were right on and the highlights were just right, but the shadows got very dark very quickly.

 

[sojournerphoto]

Thank you Mike.
Black and White--that's another thing I often wonder about. As long as I keep everything in the "digital domain" after scanning, I wonder what would be the advantage of shooting BW as opposed to shooting in color and converting to BW in Photoshop? It seemed to me that I have more control over the output when converting from color to BW, since I can choose which channel (RGB) will be emphasized. Is a BW film better because it captures more details when exposed?

Yes, if you shoot colour you can convert later, and it can be succesful. It doesn't look the same as black and white film though. Dave Jenkins is right too - black and white is harder to scan well than colour neg. I've found Ektar converts nicely to black and white, and I've done others as well. You also gain the advantage (or could be disadvatnage?) of being able to choose after the shot, just like with digital.

Dave's point about colour neg having more ability to deal with high contrast than digital, which is more able than slide film is important. You can very quickly lose a lot of information into the black shadows of a slide that will never be recovered, and that would be a shame on a big trip.

Mike

 

[DrTebi]

Great advice again, thank you.
I just got out the old slides from the Olympus XA-1 to scan them again, to make sure I used the same "technique" as before. Even though it's hard to compare the Olympus to the Yashica camera, I have to say I do realize too how detail in shadows is lost quickly.

I tried a few different films since I bought the Yashica, and I agree that the Kodak Ektar is a great film. While I find that the Fujifilm Superia 100 or 200 was more vibrant, it almost felt too vibrant. When scanning the Ektar film, I also noticed a lot less noise than with the Fujifilm.

Here is one of my favorite test shots with the Yashica on Kodak Ektar 100:
http://www.drtebi.com/yashica/yashica-electro-35-gsn-classic-volvo.jpg
There are more pictures and a link to originals, if you care to explore more:
http://www.drtebi.com/yashica/

Well, overall it seems that I may be better off with negative film. I do really like the idea of getting a slide projector and seeing all the glory of the image, but I may just do that later on and for other occasions (or just shoot both?).

One last question though, is the "density range" of film comparable to the resolution of a digital image, and does negative film have a higher density range than positive film?

 

[Renzsu]

I don't think you can get the same results with shooting color print film and converting to b/w as with proper b/w film. Maybe that's just me though.
Anyways, I don't find scanning b/w film tricky, I ignore all the scanner software features and do all the adjustments myself. I just make sure I get a nice and flat basic scan to start with (8 bits per channel if I scan as b/w).

Oh and regarding the fuzziness of slide film. I just find it nearly impossible to get the same amount of edge sharpness in scans from slide film as I can get with print film (even though as you rightly mentioned the film noise is pretty much non existant in iso 100 and slower films). (look at this slide scan for example.. I couldn't get it perfectly sharp: http://www.flickr.com/photos/renzsu/4560822005/sizes/o/in/photostream/ )

 

[jbielikowski]

Then go for full Ektar mode, and maybe a few Portra 400VC just in case.

Negative IMO got bigger DR than lets say old 5D.

 

[sojournerphoto]

Then go for full Ektar mode, and maybe a few Portra 400VC just in case.

Negative IMO got bigger DR than lets say old 5D.

But 5D will usually let you recover more from shadows, whislt neg film is nicer in highlights. Different look again.

I think Ektar and some fast Portra (400VC or 800) would make a nice set of films for a colour trip.

Liked the Volve by the way.

Mike

 

[Dave Jenkins]

Negative film has a much higher density range than positive (slide) film. As for resolution, I find that my digital 5D has resolution at least equal to the Pentax 6x7 film camera I used to own. (Which made a negative four times the size of a 35mm negative!)

 

[DrTebi]

I just wanted to post an update...

I followed the advice to take mostly Kodak Ektar 100 and also a couple of Kodak Porta 400 rolls with me. They are on their way to Dwayne's Photo for developing and scanning. I shot nine rolls altogether, and didn't feel like scanning everything on my own... thus I have them scanned at processing time and may scan a few myself if I think it's worth it.

But more things happened... I "cheated" the RF forum and bought an SLR camera, a medium format Rollei 6008, and a Rollei 66P slide projector along with it... yes I know it's crazy, but prices on eBay Germany seemed much more reasonable than in the US, and I always wanted to get into medium format and projecting it. The first films from the Rollei are at the lab right now 🙂

 

[35mmdelux]

Sounds like you never shot trannys? Is a vacation the place to start?

Fuji 100F is pretty sweet. Gorgeous colors. Shoot it as rated.

 

[DrTebi]

@35mmdelux:
I am quite new to the analog world (last time shooting analog was in the 80s with an Olympus XA-1). So excuse me if I have to ask what you mean by "Trannys"? Last time I checked it meant transvestites?!?

 

[Roger Hicks]

@35mmdelux:
I am quite new to the analog world (last time shooting analog was in the 80s with an Olympus XA-1). So excuse me if I have to ask what you mean by "Trannys"? Last time I checked it meant transvestites?!?

I was astonished when I discovered that some people use 'tranny' to mean 'transvestite' instead of as an abbreviation for 'transparency' (slide), a usage which goes back decades in professional photography.

Give the relative prevalence of transvestites and slides - certainly, I know which I've encountered more often - I'd have thought that the 'transparency' meaning was considerably more useful.

Cheers,

R.

 

[kzphoto]

Can't go wrong with color-neg. C-41 films are forgiving and make really great prints.

Everyone here has offered great advice. Ektar 100 is probably the best fine-grain c-41 film available right now. It's only competition would be Fuji 160-S.