resurgence of slide film... viewing?

d.dulin

d.dulin

Established
Local time
4:49 AM
Joined
Aug 4, 2018
Messages
118
OK, maybe calling one film stock's return a "resurgence" is a stretch, but, slide film (specifically ektachrome) seems to be having its time in the light (no pun intended). But what about viewing slides? It seems -honestly- silly to shoot slide film just to have it scanned, and never view it via projector or in one of those Pana-vue viewers. Would it not seem appropriate for Kodak (or someone) to release a new slide projector/ viewing system? Is it already in the works and I just don't know about it? Is the fate of all (color?) film to be scanned to digital and forgotten in a box? Opinions? Jokes? Snide remarks?

ps. I hope this thread is in the appropriate location.
 
Huss said:
Slide film looks very different than colour neg film even when printed.
So I print.
Click to expand...

From a digital file I take it? I know next to nothing about color processing past the negative portion, methods of printing are far beyond me.
 
Yep, I scan the film with my digicam then print. It actually works really well as the film is back lit so in essence projected into the camera, thereby retaining it's tone/feel.
 
slides are expensive, hard to store safely, hard to shoot correctly. Negatives are humble. Negatives have greater latitude, greater resistance to fading and fungus. Slides atract dirt. Not to mention you could not produce decent copies untill the advent of scans.
Did i mention them being expensive?
 
d.dulin said:
Would it not seem appropriate for Kodak (or someone) to release a new slide projector/ viewing system? Is it already in the works and I just don't know about it? Is the fate of all (color?) film to be scanned to digital and forgotten in a box? .
Click to expand...

There are so many old slide projectors out there, which work perfectly fine and available for almost nothing, along with the requisite trays, that I can’t imagine there would be a legitimate market for new projection systems.
The supply of already existent projectors is never going to be exhausted, and again, they work fine.
Screens, on the other hand, you’ll be needing a newly manufactured screen to do the slides justice, as the reflective elements generally degrade over time. Older ones are usable, and much better than a white wall, but a good screen matters.

But yes, even though slides can be enjoyed on a light box, or scanned with a scanner, or “scanned” with a digital camera, or used to create an internegative to print “the old way”, they are meant to be projected, color balances of the dyes are selected in order to be used in conjunction with a projector bulb of a compatible color temperature so that the colors in the projected image are “right”. Not that anyone cares that much these days.
Digitize them then move sliders around on the computer to get some kind of colors and let the program algorithm do what it thinks should be done to the color balance and you get some kind of an image you can post on the web, giving someone else an opportunity to opine that emulsion “x” is too green, or too red, or some such.

Transparencies an odd niche these days. I will scan mine and project the good ones as well. But, honestly, people who shoot transparency film and never project it, that seems like an expensive way to miss the boat. If you want or need color, and you are never going to set up a projector and a decent screen, just shoot C41 or digital. Seems to me. But, if someone enjoys shooting it and scanning it, it keeps it viable a while longer for everyone else, so that’s great.
 
colker said:
slides are expensive, hard to store safely, hard to shoot correctly. Negatives are humble. Negatives have greater latitude, greater resistance to fading and fungus. Slides atract dirt. Not to mention you could not produce decent copies untill the advent of scans.
Did i mention them being expensive?
Click to expand...

Yeah but no negative film looks like slide film, even though some try (and fail, IMO - looking at you, Ektar).

Just this week I shot some 8x10 Fuji RTP and projected HUGE images from an old overhead projector, the ones they have in schools. Looked awesome.

With a tiny bit of legwork one can find a projector of appropriate size/type for the film, or MacGyver something. If you've got a shoebox and a lens you could likely make a simple projection system and put whatever images through it you wanted to view.

Scanning and printing digitally is a perfectly valid way to get to a finished products, and probably 95% of color materials, slide or negative, are being finished this way. Unfortunately color printing is getting harder as older color heads fail (I've had my share of these issues, as I continue to try to find a good color head for my darkroom, as I want to print wet).

There's just no comparing Provia and Portra, or Velvia and, well, anything.
 
Larry Cloetta said:
they are meant to be projected, color balances of the dyes are selected in order to be used in conjunction with a projector bulb of a compatible color temperature so that the colors in the projected image are “right”.
Click to expand...

I have never heard such a thing. I would think the color is balanced for daylight, otherwise slides would look strange in daylight, and I don't think that's the case. At least, none of mine ever have. They look just like "real life." That was the whole point?

Larry Cloetta said:
But, honestly, people who shoot transparency film and never project it, that seems like an expensive way to miss the boat. If you want or need color, and you are never going to set up a projector and a decent screen, just shoot C41 or digital. Seems to me. But, if someone enjoys shooting it and scanning it, it keeps it viable a while longer for everyone else, so that’s great.
Click to expand...

I think the obvious use is printing from scans. Slide film just doesn't look like C-41 or (bleck) digital.

When I had a large show a few years ago, about 90% of the color images were scans of 4x5 chromes.
 
Interesting question. I've still got my old projector/screen hanging around so this isn't really something that I've contemplated. Working used projectors can still be easily found for little money. I'd guess that the toughest part to find might well be the right kind of bulb for each individual projector. My guess is that the world would see a new film camera hit the market before a new slide projector.
 
I don't think we're seeing a "resurgence" yet.

When I shot slides, I mostly viewed them with one of those small handheld viewers. Or I viewed them on a light box with a loupe. The handheld viewer allowed me to share my photos with friends and family without the dreaded slideshow many of us were subjected to following someone's family vacation. The light box and loupe were great for editing out the rejects. Properly setting up a slide projector and screen and then tearing it down repetitively is incredibly inconvenient. Few people have the space for a permanent viewing room. But, as others have pointed out, many slide projectors were sold over the years and those that haven't been left on the curb should be available cheap...if you want to give one a try.
 
Corran said:
I have never heard such a thing. I would think the color is balanced for daylight, otherwise slides would look strange in daylight, and I don't think that's the case. At least, none of mine ever have. They look just like "real life." That was the whole point?
Click to expand...

I am unable to find the original reference offhand, so please just consider the assumption that reversal film was made first and foremost to be projected, and thus optimized for that use. The most reasonable assumption, even without backing documentation (sorry).
Light source/bulbs for projection were “daylight”- ish but the Kelvin color temperature wasn’t what we are accustomed now to hearing is “daylight” which most assume is 5600 K. Projector bulbs were/are in the 3300-3400 K range. Even readily available Osram replacement bulbs for slide projectors, now as LED variants, are made at around 3350 K. I am assuming there is an accuracy reason for that.
When emulsions were formulated Kodak, etc would evaluate how the resulting images looked when projected, not how they looked when you walked outside with a slide in your hand and held it up to the sun and looked at it. Besides, the 5600K number for “daylight” is arbitrary, though necessary for standardization today. Outdoor light, actual daylight, can vary by thousands of degrees Kelvin through the day and location.

But, a nice slide can still look nice regardless of what the transmitted light source, it just won’t look “the same.”
My original point, to the extent there was one, was that projection was the purest way to experience transparency film in the way that the designers of the emulsion intended, though it’s not the only way. Scanning software, digital sensors, Photoshop and other processing software, all have one thing in common, they all have algorithms which interpret color data, and interpret it differently. Nikon color is different from Canon color is different from Fuji color is different from Leica color. Capture One color is different from Lightroom color. And, how’s that monitor configured?
A projected slide is the only way to experience the slide uninterpreted, as engineered. The original SOOC.

That doesn’t mean a good slide can’t be enjoyed other ways.
 
I actually prefer the handheld viewers to projections

Projectors are dirt cheap tho, unless you're getting a fancy hasselblad or leica
 
I much prefer the colors of various slide films over any color negative film. I scan now, but I used to make Ilfochromes. Now that's a special look.
 
I stopped shooting slides after the demise of Cibachrome. The last time I purchased slide film was Velvia 100 a few years ago. Ouch! As Colker said the film is very expensive. It is still in the fridge.

I have scanned some slides from the past and had them printed. Again its an expensive process as I don't have a printer at home. Perhaps if Santa brings me a printer (hope my wife reads this) I'll revisit printing slides.
 
Dogman said:
Properly setting up a slide projector and screen and then tearing it down repetitively is incredibly inconvenient. .
Click to expand...

It is?

I guess one of the few advantages of being old is that things everybody knows are inconvenient don’t seem inconvenient to me. It’s easier and quicker than getting into a car and driving to a movie, the only difference being that driving to a movie is what people are used to.
Similarly, when I hear people say that loading a Barnack is difficult, I cannot begin to imagine what they are going on about.

But, I would have to agree with you about being invited over to someone’s house to see their vacation slides, being dreadful. Even that experience taught a valuable photographic lesson though, one that applies to all photography. Any time you can imagine yourself saying to a potential audience, “here’s another one of”, that’s the time to throw the “other one of” in the trash, literal or digital, and not inflict it on others.
 
Larry, I'm actually older than you. I define something as inconvenient when it takes up any of the valuable time I have left for other things I would rather be doing.;):D
 
I wonder why there has been a resurgence in slide film with the reintroduction of Ektachrome. If people wanted to shoot slide film, Velvia and Provia have been continuously available to them. I have a feeling people are going to shoot a few rolls of Ektachome just for the heck of it, and then revert back to what they were doing before.
 
Larry Cloetta said:
But, I would have to agree with you about being invited over to someone’s house to see their vacation slides, being dreadful. Even that experience taught a valuable photographic lesson though, one that applies to all photography. Any time you can imagine yourself saying to a potential audience, “here’s another one of”, that’s the time to throw the “other one of” in the trash, literal or digital, and not inflict it on others.
Click to expand...
Everyone fluffs on an on about how sublime projected slides are, but at the same time remembers how dreadful slide shows were. Ironic. Is Flickr the new slide show?
 
The color temperature of the bulb is relevant.

Based on replacement bulb specs Kodak projectors use 3350K, Argus 3300K, Agfa 3200K.

330 K is at the cool end of the warm (yellow) Kelvin scale.

The photochemical response for the film dye granules (one formulation for daylight and another for tungsten) are not necessarily the same as the transmission properties of the developed media.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom