dfoo
Well-known
With my coolscan 5000 slides scan well. However, so does negative film. I scanned a couple of rolls of Reala 100 last night and was amazed at how much better the scans are than the crappy automatic prints from Costco.
reason to shoot slide film?
- Thread starter dfoo
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 57
- Views 5K
Svitantti
Well-known
Digital does not replace slide film just as it doesnt replace any other film. It is just different and one more choice.
photogdave
Shops local
Practice makes perfect!
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
You hear that a lot online because a lot of people use flatbed scanners that simply don't have the ability to capture the tonal range of a slide. These same people claim that scanned film doesn't have as good of color as prints from the negs made in the darkroom. That's because color negs don't scan well with any scanner. With work and practice you can get good scans from negs, like this one:
I think transparencies are MUCH easier to work with, if you have a good film scanner
dfoo
Well-known
I think this one looks good. Its Reala 100, scanned with Nikon LS-5000. All I did after the scan was import into Lightroom, and fix the color balance.
The image was taken with a Nikon FE2 and 50mm 1.4 lens.
On the other hand, I do agree that slides are easier to scan since the color balance issues are much less. I use the same color balance workflow as I do with digital. Look for something grey in the scene, and balance off that, or use a gray card in some shot. What is annoying is that you cannot select a kelvin value and get a correct color balance.
The image was taken with a Nikon FE2 and 50mm 1.4 lens.
On the other hand, I do agree that slides are easier to scan since the color balance issues are much less. I use the same color balance workflow as I do with digital. Look for something grey in the scene, and balance off that, or use a gray card in some shot. What is annoying is that you cannot select a kelvin value and get a correct color balance.
Last edited:
kkdanamatt
Well-known
Slide Film+Perfect Exposure=Pure Bliss
Slide Film+Perfect Exposure=Pure Bliss
My two cents:
There is nothing I have ever seen in the world of imaging that equals the color saturation, sharpness, depth, detail, reality and jaw-dropping impact of a perfect slide, perfectly projected.
In July 1969 I studied at the Leica School in Wetzlar and they projected 35mm Koadachromes and Agfachromes in the Leica Theatre onto a 20 foot wide screen using the giant Leitz Prado 500 projector with the big Hektor lens.
Now, it's almost 40 years later and I still get goosebumps remembering those images.
Slide Film+Perfect Exposure=Pure Bliss
My two cents:
There is nothing I have ever seen in the world of imaging that equals the color saturation, sharpness, depth, detail, reality and jaw-dropping impact of a perfect slide, perfectly projected.
In July 1969 I studied at the Leica School in Wetzlar and they projected 35mm Koadachromes and Agfachromes in the Leica Theatre onto a 20 foot wide screen using the giant Leitz Prado 500 projector with the big Hektor lens.
Now, it's almost 40 years later and I still get goosebumps remembering those images.
Allan Reade
Established
I recently bought an old Mamiya C3 TLR after using Reala 100 with 35mm. I started with colour print film with the Mamiya, thinking I could then compare the results with what I was used to with 35mm but found the lab I use, supposedly professional quality, not only cropped the 120 frame slightly but also failed to get them in focus. No excuse for the cropping, but maybe they used a glass-less negative carrier and the bigger negatives popped in and out of focus with the heat of the lamp. So now I use colour slide film and I know that any problems are my fault. Luckily I have a big drum scanner at work so the slides can be scanned well, although I find I've been underexposing them. The results are mostly disappointing, but that's my fault, at least I feel I'm in control of the process and can work on improving composition and exposure.
Allan
Allan
gdi
Veteran
Roger Hicks
Veteran
A lot depends on why you are shooting, too. For many professional shots -- dull, boring, everyday stuff like pack shots -- you don't really give a stuff about the unique look of film, or the quality -- and once it's in repro, a good digital image (plenty aren't good) is usually indistinguishable from slide. I used to shoot insane amounts of slide film in the 70s, in all formats up to 4x5 inch, and I am deeply grateful that for many routine applications, we have digital instead.
But if you're taking pictures as pictures, rather than as illustrations, film still has a great deal to commend it.
As for the medium format argument; well, 30+ megapixels on a decent-sized sensor deliver fairly amazing results...
Cheers,
Roger
But if you're taking pictures as pictures, rather than as illustrations, film still has a great deal to commend it.
As for the medium format argument; well, 30+ megapixels on a decent-sized sensor deliver fairly amazing results...
Cheers,
Roger
Last edited:
gdi
Veteran
Of course I should qualify my statement to refer to 35mm digital, since I have no experience with MFD. In fact, even with the 35mm constraint , I may need to rethink considering my position absolute in light of the 20+mp DSLRs.
I have no experience with those new cameras, though I am generally skeptical of the "better than MF" claims for DSLRs after satisfying myself that the 5D was clearly no match for 6x7 - contrary to the conventional wisdom at the time.
(Let's not get into claims that the M8 matched 4x5! 😀)
So, yes, slide film may be history for me when I finally buy into a MFDB system!
Lilserenity
Well-known
Shooting MF slide is a great thing for me as I'm about £8000 shy of the £8000 needed for a 16MP MF digital system. And let's not even mention 21, 30, 39... 60MP backs!
But I shan't turn this into a cost thread.
I'm not sure why but I enjoy shooting slide, C41 negative for landscapes (except Pro 160C, Reala 100 and now Ektar 100) has always disappointed me a little, particularly in 35mm. In E6 however I just love the stuff, Velvia, EBX, Provia -- it really is just super punchy quality colour. The down side is that prints can be a bit more expensive.
Often shooting very 'normal' scenes with say Provia 400X when scanned with no Photoshop adjustment at all has resulted in a much more vibrant drenched in light look than the result straight out of digital and C41. Oddly the limited latitude has never been a big issue for me. I guess it's a case of being used to it, you know its weakenesses, what will and won't work and then just maximise on the strengths.
The other reason I shoot slide is that I love giving little slideshows of my trips and exploits. It's a good hearty social gathering thing particularly at Christmas (the only time all of my immediate family is guaranteed to be together every year) and it's a nice way to spend an evening looking at some of the year's captures.
That and my 6x6 enlargements of Velvia 100 and Astia scenes have dropped jaws.
Digital is convenient, slide is fiddly, unforgiving but when you've got the knack of exposure, the results are just *thumbs up*
Ektar 100 leads to an interesting state of affairs and Portra 160/400NC are nice films, but for some reason for colour, I've fallen for slide and I love running EBX through my M2, just bloody good fun 🙂
But I shan't turn this into a cost thread.
I'm not sure why but I enjoy shooting slide, C41 negative for landscapes (except Pro 160C, Reala 100 and now Ektar 100) has always disappointed me a little, particularly in 35mm. In E6 however I just love the stuff, Velvia, EBX, Provia -- it really is just super punchy quality colour. The down side is that prints can be a bit more expensive.
Often shooting very 'normal' scenes with say Provia 400X when scanned with no Photoshop adjustment at all has resulted in a much more vibrant drenched in light look than the result straight out of digital and C41. Oddly the limited latitude has never been a big issue for me. I guess it's a case of being used to it, you know its weakenesses, what will and won't work and then just maximise on the strengths.
The other reason I shoot slide is that I love giving little slideshows of my trips and exploits. It's a good hearty social gathering thing particularly at Christmas (the only time all of my immediate family is guaranteed to be together every year) and it's a nice way to spend an evening looking at some of the year's captures.
That and my 6x6 enlargements of Velvia 100 and Astia scenes have dropped jaws.
Digital is convenient, slide is fiddly, unforgiving but when you've got the knack of exposure, the results are just *thumbs up*
Ektar 100 leads to an interesting state of affairs and Portra 160/400NC are nice films, but for some reason for colour, I've fallen for slide and I love running EBX through my M2, just bloody good fun 🙂
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
I don't think superiority in absolute resolution is relevant. It's more how much resolution is good enough for the intended purpose. Most wedding photographers, for example, decided long ago that DSLR was good enough for what they do that they abandoned MF in droves. The slide, film, digital debate is mainly just noise (pun intended) now.
mich8261
Well-known
Sooner, can you share your tips on scanning Scala?
mackigator
Well-known
Hmm, how about because the results are beautiful.
And, if scan times were only a few seconds, it would have the best workflow in all of camera land. Even with 30 - 60 sec scan times, the ability hold the image in your hand (long lasting physical archive), to sort and grade on a light box, then go digital - it's pretty darn fun.
And, if scan times were only a few seconds, it would have the best workflow in all of camera land. Even with 30 - 60 sec scan times, the ability hold the image in your hand (long lasting physical archive), to sort and grade on a light box, then go digital - it's pretty darn fun.
luketrash
Trying to find my range
Admittedly, I don't shoot hardly any E6 because as of now, nobody will process it for me locally. I'm a B&W film shooter by budget.
Anyway, that being said, the Provia 100 I shot last spring woke me up. Even with the shadows and highlights murdered in the noon day sun, I just can't get this sort of 3d or saturation out of negative film or digital film. Looking at the slides under a light table is a form of satisfying therapy in its own sense.
Anyway, that being said, the Provia 100 I shot last spring woke me up. Even with the shadows and highlights murdered in the noon day sun, I just can't get this sort of 3d or saturation out of negative film or digital film. Looking at the slides under a light table is a form of satisfying therapy in its own sense.
photophorous
Registered User
I'm not sure I have anything new to offer, but here are the reason I shoot slides:
Less grain and thus higher resolution than negative film when scanned with my Coolscan V, which makes a significant difference in large landscape prints from 35mm film...my primary usage for slide film.
Since I use it for landscapes, contrast issues can be tamed with split ND filters. But even so, not all slide films are the same in this regard.
The colors are amazing.
My local lab processing costs are the same as negative film with out prints...$4/roll.
As with all things in photography, you have to choose the right tools for the job you're doing and the look you want. It's all really a matter of personal preference. Personally, I would never shoot people on the beach in midday sun with a super high contrast slide film, just like I would never make a 16 x 24 landscape image of a colorful mountain scene with Delta 3200 developed in rodinal.
Paul
Less grain and thus higher resolution than negative film when scanned with my Coolscan V, which makes a significant difference in large landscape prints from 35mm film...my primary usage for slide film.
Since I use it for landscapes, contrast issues can be tamed with split ND filters. But even so, not all slide films are the same in this regard.
The colors are amazing.
My local lab processing costs are the same as negative film with out prints...$4/roll.
As with all things in photography, you have to choose the right tools for the job you're doing and the look you want. It's all really a matter of personal preference. Personally, I would never shoot people on the beach in midday sun with a super high contrast slide film, just like I would never make a 16 x 24 landscape image of a colorful mountain scene with Delta 3200 developed in rodinal.
Paul
dexdog
Veteran
like many other responders, I think that slide film is all about the colors, the gorgeous, rich, saturated colors
TEZillman
Well-known
One reason to shoot chromes, that hasn't been mentioned, is the workflow. Once you press the shutter, you're basically done. All you need to do is to have the film developed and mounted and then project them or look at them through a viewer. You can even have them scanned for you. There's no need for a darkroom, wet or dry.
While you can have someone else develop and print negatives or print your digital photos, you do lose control. With negative film or digital capture, you need to process yourself to maintain control of the outcome. With slides, all decisions about how the finished product will come out can be made in the camera and it doesn't matter if you have the processing done (as long as you have a competent developer) or do it yourself .
I'm one who thinks that we are all very fortunate to live in a time where there are so many options. I enjoy using my digital equipment as well as my film equipment. Workflow is one area where I really appreciate slide film. I'm not a very technical guy and spending hours in front of a computer is not what I consider fun. I was reading an article on Tom Hogan's website where he was suggesting buying several RAW converters, so you can run your images through each to see which one you like the best. One would really need to like working on a computer a lot to go that route.
The cost is a relative thing. A roll of Provia 100 and a Fuji slide mailer costs $11.24 plus shipping from Adorama as of today. Add 82 cents postage to send in the mailer and you're up to around $12.25 per roll if you buy several rolls and mailers at the same time. If you averaged a roll of film per week, your cost per year would be $637. Other forms of photography have costs as well and I wouldn't say that slide photography is the cheapest, but it wouldn't be difficult to spend a similar amount regardless of the type of photography you use.
While you can have someone else develop and print negatives or print your digital photos, you do lose control. With negative film or digital capture, you need to process yourself to maintain control of the outcome. With slides, all decisions about how the finished product will come out can be made in the camera and it doesn't matter if you have the processing done (as long as you have a competent developer) or do it yourself .
I'm one who thinks that we are all very fortunate to live in a time where there are so many options. I enjoy using my digital equipment as well as my film equipment. Workflow is one area where I really appreciate slide film. I'm not a very technical guy and spending hours in front of a computer is not what I consider fun. I was reading an article on Tom Hogan's website where he was suggesting buying several RAW converters, so you can run your images through each to see which one you like the best. One would really need to like working on a computer a lot to go that route.
The cost is a relative thing. A roll of Provia 100 and a Fuji slide mailer costs $11.24 plus shipping from Adorama as of today. Add 82 cents postage to send in the mailer and you're up to around $12.25 per roll if you buy several rolls and mailers at the same time. If you averaged a roll of film per week, your cost per year would be $637. Other forms of photography have costs as well and I wouldn't say that slide photography is the cheapest, but it wouldn't be difficult to spend a similar amount regardless of the type of photography you use.
uhligfd
Well-known
Ok, just highjacking the thread, am I?
My question: Same position, same scene, same light; but put on slide and put on neg film: which print will look better? Any method: optical print, scanned print, whatever.
I am interested in the print in hand, on the wall here.
Which medium wins? Slide or neg film? Say Kodachrome versus Kodak 400 UC or such.
My question: Same position, same scene, same light; but put on slide and put on neg film: which print will look better? Any method: optical print, scanned print, whatever.
I am interested in the print in hand, on the wall here.
Which medium wins? Slide or neg film? Say Kodachrome versus Kodak 400 UC or such.