resurgence of slide film... viewing?

[Larry Cloetta]

Everyone fluffs on an on about how sublime projected slides are, but at the same time remembers how dreadful slide shows were. Ironic.

The first thing is about color. The second thing is about the frequent poor content, which the most sublime color in the world can’t compensate for.
But poor content isn’t an inherent quality of transparencies.

 

[ptpdprinter]

But poor content isn’t an inherent quality of transparencies.

Point taken, but from attending my share of slide shows, it just seems that way. Also seems from the posts here the experience is almost universal. And I shot slides!

 

[d.dulin]

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.

This was largely my point, someone else sparked the thought when they mentioned (on the new ektachrome thread) that the images being posted here are scans and therefor are not true to the actual film stock considering they have likely been tweaked to match preferences. Something completely magical happens when you look through a slide or see it projected.

side note; my love for that feeling was sparked when I found a beautiful single slide of a woman on the ground somewhere in Paris.

 

[Corran]

Larry, if slides were meant to show pure "white" when projected by a warm incandescent, the base material would have to be bluish. So I don't agree with your premise on color balance of the slide. But if someone has a source for that, sure I would love to read it. But my slides are perfectly balanced to daylight as far as I can see.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

Larry, if slides were meant to show pure "white" when projected by a warm incandescent, the base material would have to be bluish. So I don't agree with your premise on color balance of the slide. But if someone has a source for that, sure I would love to read it. But my slides are perfectly balanced to daylight as far as I can see.

I’ll see what I can do as far as more authoritative sources are concerned. Put it on my list, as my wife says. I don’t doubt that your slides are beautiful to look at, and I tip my hat to anyone who is shooting 8x10 transparencies, and not about to argue with you in any meaningful way as to how to be a better photographer. But, let me ask you this..if you project slides, given the color temp of the light source, do they appear wrong to you? Because they would have apppeared wrong/too yellow to everyone everywhere who ever projected slides.
Different, yes, and I’m not saying it’s a huge difference, but the idea that color reversal emulsions were formulated specifically to not look correct when projected, that seems odd to me on its face.

Interesting topic.

 

[hendriphile]

A blast from the past (FWIW):

“ When you shoot color, your final goal is usually a sparkling, detail-rich image on a projection screen. No current color printing process can match the crisp brilliance of a projected image.”

- - Leica equipment catalog, c. 1962

 

[jawarden]

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?

I don't think any company could make a credible business case for producing a new slide projector in 2019 based on predicted consumer trends. But having said that, you don't have to project slides to enjoy them. They look pretty terrific on a light table.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

Re: the color temperature of light sources vis a vis color accuracy of viewed color reversal films.....
I have not found my original source from Kodak, but this link does explore the subject a bit. Perhaps too much in the weeds and this one pertains mostly to Kodachrome, but might be helpful...

https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=50508.0

Need to get back to other chores, but it is an interesting topic.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

But back to the original question as to whether Kodak or some other manufacturer might be thinking of producing new slide projectors.
Checking eBay, there was a Leitz 153 ir projector in like new condition with a Leitz Colorplan 90/2.5 lens, three Leitz slide trays, remote and a manual for slightly less than $100, shipped.
That’s not unheard of in terms of availability.
Doubtful any manufacturer is going to look at that, realize what their competion is, and decide to spend millions, possibly, to tool up for all that and then face their shareholders.

 

[jsrockit]

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.

Especially those super glossy ones. I hated the high gloss ones when I made them in the early 90s, but now I think I could use that super glossy Cibachrome look to my advantage. 🙂

 

[colker]

I believe ektachrome and slides were meant for .. printing in industrial scale.

Sure.. you could project slides at home but all color advertizing, fashion, magazines etcetera were done with slides. It was corrected for taht kind of use.
Also it meant once the photographer delivers his originals to the art department, bye bye.. You won´t have it for your book project or anything else. It´s gone. Good luck calling whatever company bought the job and asking for the original so you could archive. That´s i believe another important reason which kept color as just a comercial value media while black and white was an artistic medium.
I could not be more happy when i got rid of slides. If at least i had access to kodachrome... but in my country we had ektachromes and fujis on E6 only.. 35mm E6 slides were not good enough for the advertizing business nor magazine covers. We had to shoot 120... not because we liked but because we had to. Yeah... a 120 precisely exposed velvia slide is a thing of beauty bUt it´s a 100 asa film that needs lots of color corrected light. 400 asa on 35mm ektachrome was cool.. and pushed to 800 even better. It was grainy, tinted heavily towards yellow and red and very expressive.. but slides have so many dowwnsides that when i first shot digital color i was almost shouting Hallellujah!!
No.. don´t bring slides back. Those things are horrible.

 

[Guth]

But back to the original question as to whether Kodak or some other manufacturer might be thinking of producing new slide projectors.
Checking eBay, there was a Leitz 153 ir projector in like new condition with a Leitz Colorplan 90/2.5 lens, three Leitz slide trays, remote and a manual for slightly less than $100, shipped.
That’s not unheard of in terms of availability.
Doubtful any manufacturer is going to look at that, realize what their competion is, and decide to spend millions, possibly, to tool up for all that and then face their shareholders.

Thank you for trying to bring things back full circle. We've learned that some people just can't be bothered with projecting images from slides and that others hate slide film all together — no surprises there. (Those who don't like reversal film just shouldn't shoot it. Problem solved, lol.)

But as far as the OP's original question goes yours is the most logical response of all. Used projector availability certainly extends past Ebay. Just look through craigslist. Even the place where I'm currently having film developed has boxes of used projectors and other associated equipment sitting around for purchase on the cheap.

 

[Corran]

But, let me ask you this..if you project slides, given the color temp of the light source, do they appear wrong to you? Because they would have apppeared wrong/too yellow to everyone everywhere who ever projected slides.

Back when incandescent bulbs were everywhere, and not supplanted by CFL / LED, the standard in-home color temperature of light was around 2700-3000K. I am sure there are some interesting color science and perceptual studies on this, but as digital camera users know, if you shoot something inside set on "daylight" WB, everything is horrendously yellow. And yet we perceive the incandescent light as relatively "white." Most LED bulbs sold now still balance to around there. I personally have replaced all bulbs in my house with LEDs with 3000K light, which I find pleasing and not fatiguing to live with.

I would assume the same thing happens with projected slides. That said, I believe one article I saw said slide film projector bulbs were actually balanced slightly bluer, to be closer to daylight, but not all the way to ~5500K. I think it said 4000K. Which would probably perceptually look right, especially in a space with incandescent lighting still in use.

I only have an overhead projector, but I could photograph a slide on the projector as well as on my window to get "daylight" balanced backlighting, with the camera set to daylight as a "norm" and post the difference. You are correct about color temp varying during the day but for most of the normal daylight hours it's about 5000-5500K.

Regarding Kodachrome: I have never seen a Kodachrome slide myself. However, I have noticed the persistence of Kodachrome scans to be very bluish. Perhaps there was some truth in what you say, but at a certain time in history?

I figure that no bulb is perfect (discussions of CRI and the like abound when discussing LED) but our eyes correct for a lot of it. Or our brain, I guess. So "seeing" is not necessarily "believing."

Interesting discussion. I have to pull out some of the 35mm slides I have from the estate of a deceased professional photographer...

 

[dave lackey]

Funny thing that no one mentions the physical connection to the actual image itself. Long lasting, archival final images that can be seen as originally seen many decades ago with or without a machine. Special look, special experience.

Today, as I look into any one of the many boxes of slides, negatives, prints, cd's, and backup drives, I am drawn to and feel an emotional tie to holding a slide that I loaded and unloaded myself, looked at countless times, and see the fingerprints from all of that image handling. When I pick up an old CD I realize that my MacBook Pro does not have a CD drive, so I skip going back to look at the digital files... too much trouble.

No, slides are not any real trouble to view with a light table, loupe or even a carousel. Decades from now they will be in the same condition as now but I don't think I will find a CD drive to view my digital files.

While most of my work is MF digital, I don't feel any particular connection to the drive it is on. But I really do feel more connected with my slides, and negatives.

I hope in the distant future my grandkids will realize they can touch the same camera and the same film I touched, and my parents touched when making those images many decades before.

I have no idea where the digital images will be by then or if they will even be viewed.

 

[dave lackey]

I view my slides with a Kodak Carousel, I know not the best projector but it still works and all my slides are in tray. I also have a really nice screen. You have to love Kodachrome (c1971):

1971-1972 by John Carter, on Flickr

Beautiful image, John!🙂

 

[charjohncarter]

The two 'Ina' in the foreground were my neighbors in South America. The blondie is my daughter in Ina's backyard. Thanks and thanks to Kodachrome.

 

[ChrisPlatt]

35mm slides can be sorted on a light table but it's not satisfying for viewing.
Most small handheld viewers are inconvenient and can distort.

IMO some sort of projector is required.
Kodak Carousels are convenient, affordable, reliable and won't chew up your slides.
My current projector is an Elmo Carousel-style model.

Chris

 

[d.dulin]

Funny thing that no one mentions the physical connection to the actual image itself. Long lasting, archival final images that can be seen as originally seen many decades ago with or without a machine. Special look, special experience.

Today, as I look into any one of the many boxes of slides, negatives, prints, cd's, and backup drives, I am drawn to and feel an emotional tie to holding a slide that I loaded and unloaded myself, looked at countless times, and see the fingerprints from all of that image handling. When I pick up an old CD I realize that my MacBook Pro does not have a CD drive, so I skip going back to look at the digital files... too much trouble.

No, slides are not any real trouble to view with a light table, loupe or even a carousel. Decades from now they will be in the same condition as now but I don't think I will find a CD drive to view my digital files.

While most of my work is MF digital, I don't feel any particular connection to the drive it is on. But I really do feel more connected with my slides, and negatives.

I hope in the distant future my grandkids will realize they can touch the same camera and the same film I touched, and my parents touched when making those images many decades before.

I have no idea where the digital images will be by then or if they will even be viewed.

This is why we shoot film!

 

[ptpdprinter]

I have no idea where the digital images will be by then or if they will even be viewed.

Have you considered printing them so that they too are reduced to something physical?

 

[dave lackey]

The Kodak slide projectors I have had and used over the years, including the one I have now work well enough if a bit noisy,🙂, but I have used them for many classroom lectures as an adjunct and found them not only convenient but enjoyable.

The heat always bugged me, so I always had duplicate slides made for projecting. The originals were never subjected to fading (or melting if something went wrong 😀)....

I find that slides are wonderful little framed images that I simply enjoy with a loupe. Scanning appears to be an issue with the new Ektachrome, but then, I have never had great results from scanning slides or even color negative film.

Perhaps if I had been able to afford a high-end scanner, I would have enjoyed that part more. But then, when one can have professional prints made directly from slide film, I am not sure why I would bother to scan while looking for an exact match with the slide. So I don't. I treat each scanned image as a different file and apply what processing works best for my eye.

I have been very happy with the results of that approach.🙂

As for new scanners? I never say never (in absolute terms). But it does seem unlikely.