reason to shoot slide film?

D

dfoo

Well-known
Local time
10:29 AM
Joined
Nov 24, 2007
Messages
1,908
Is there really a reason to shoot slide film if you don't actually project it? It has very limited dynamic range, and expensive to buy and to process. So what do you get, assuming that your scanning it, over negative film?
 
Really saturated color, the finest grain and sharpness, and the limited dynamic range does give it a certain look, kind of baroque, with deep shadows.
 
it scans MUCH easier than color neg films. My scanner has a hell of a time deciphering the screwy red base of color negs. Transparency is much easier to scan.

shegan.jpg

35mm slide scanned on my Nikon LS-8000ED
 
For me it gave me the picture the way I want to shoot it, rather than how someone else printed it (1 hour photo). I have not had a dark room in many years and I never was any good at color, so I prefer to shoot slide. It is harder to get the exposure right, but once you get over the curve it the results are wonderful.

I much prefer color slide to print when shooting at the extremes (very dark or light). Most 1 hour places try to print for the middle, average everything out. Slide are, IMHO, a purer medium, when you want most of the frame to be black, it's black and it's OK. Prints come back gray and mushy.

Not sure how it scans, but dam to me it looks great.

B2 (;->
 
It is beautiful, and with slides you can see the gleam in someone's eyes, which you can't with negs. I just got several rolls of Scala film back, and man do I love that stuff. Slides are awesome.
 
> Is there really a reason to shoot slide film if you don't actually project it?

It scans great, and the colours are much nicer than scanned negs.
 
All of the above. I'll just add that when viewing on a light table or projecting you get a unique three-dimensional look that you just don't get from prints or projected digital files.
 
photogdave said:
All of the above. I'll just add that when viewing on a light table or projecting you get a unique three-dimensional look that you just don't get from prints or projected digital files.
Click to expand...

I find that 3D effect is strongest with Kodachrome.
 
Not to sound aloof or anything, but if you have to ask, you probably have not shot Kodachrome. It is a one of a kind! Shoot some. :)
 
I shoot negs when I want funky colours, slides are more likely to be accurate and even when my scanner went bogus it's easier to correct.
 
I'm surprised that some people say that slides are easier to scan.

I find the higher max density to make it a lot harder to get all the details out of a slide compared to negative film and its lower dmax.

Of course it's easier to see if you got the color right... so maybe that is what you were referring to?
 
Yes slide film often feels easier to scan, except of course the shadow detail. But overall...

Also, the colours and contrast are very different.
...and why wouldn't one project it? Slides can be also nice for archiving, because you can see them as positive. They also last longer than color negs according to some research.

I wouldn't say the dynamic range is that limited. It is really not that hard to expose correct enough.
 
philipp.leser said:
I'm surprised that some people say that slides are easier to scan.

I find the higher max density to make it a lot harder to get all the details out of a slide compared to negative film and its lower dmax.

Of course it's easier to see if you got the color right... so maybe that is what you were referring to?
Click to expand...

I have to agree with Philipp. Often slides are to dense to be scanned easily, especially Kodachrome.
 
Slides are a lot easier to file and find, as Svitantti says. I have several drawers of hanging files. Just pull 'em out and look: beats negs and digi hollow.

A good scanner can usually dig out all the detail you need: I use a Konica Minolta 5400ii.

I don't agree about Kodachrome, though. I've not used any for years -- and I used to shoot a LOT of it. My favourite slife film ever was Fuji RF/RFP ISO 50.

Even so, since getting the M8/M8.2 I shoot very little slide any more.

Cheers,

Roger
 
I don't know... I have been wondering the same myself.
I was in Brasil shooting my family and beaches for 6 weeks- 2 rolls of velvia; 2 of portra and loads of canon 300D.
Just got the velvia back, so many of the shots are compromised by less than perfect exposure and I am talking half a stop here!
When the exposure is even it totally outshines digital but it is a pain to scan and costs me a lot to develop. Of all the shots I took I think only the sunsets look outstanding compared with the "old" canon 300D.
It is so unforgiving!
Will I shoot it again? Yes, but only when travelling an mostly for evenly exposed landscapes.
 
As Roger points out, digital quickly replaces slides. If you aren't going to project them on a screen, I can't think of anything about them that would make me shoot them again. And I've shot many thousands of slides.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
it scans MUCH easier than color neg films. My scanner has a hell of a time deciphering the screwy red base of color negs. Transparency is much easier to scan.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm ... This is just the opposite of what many people here (and elsewhere) say. I've heard countless tales of having difficulty scanning slides while getting good results with negatives. My own experience, since climbing the learning curve of the scanner, is that they seem to be about equally as (easy or difficult, pick one) to get good results as long as you pay attention to detail.

The main reason I shot slides back in my late teens and 20s was the cost of prints. I've always only wanted prints of a fraction of what I've shot. With color negatives, you really needed a print back in those days to get an idea of how things came out. This was long before scanners and CDs and such.

With slides, I could tell easily by looking whether I had a keeper or a trasher. Then I would order prints of the slides I wanted prints of.
 
I've only ever shot a few rolls of slides because they're so expensive. However, I have to disagree that they're easy to scan. I've never managed a scan of a slide that came close to the beauty of the slide itself. This is using an Epson flatbed.

However, if you're interested in shooting slides, find yourself a projector at a thrift store and run a slideshow. It's really an experience unmatched by looking at a computer screen or prints.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom