wilonstott
Wil O.
Nope. No projector.
Yes it looks different than C-41. Color balance is different, contrast is different, latitude is different, grain is different (often finer with the exception of Provia 400).
Do a flickr search and compare.
It's plain that good scans of E-6 trump C-41 in a number of ways.
Let's not get in a discussion about the virtues of E-6 over C-41, or vice versa.
I say, give it another try. If it's still not for you after 2 rolls, well, then, it just isn't, and that's fine.
But I bet you remember something you forgot after you see those little pieces of color on a light table.
I bet you see something new this time.
Old joy.
thegman
Veteran
This is a great cause. In the UK, I have no trouble at all getting E6 processing, but I'm aware that could change, plus I'm not planning on living the UK all that much longer.
I would love to have a slower pace of life and have the time to shoot Velvia in 4x5, but I fear it'll be gone by the time that happens. I do shoot a lot of slide film on holidays, but not much the rest of the time. I will try to remedy that.
I would love to have a slower pace of life and have the time to shoot Velvia in 4x5, but I fear it'll be gone by the time that happens. I do shoot a lot of slide film on holidays, but not much the rest of the time. I will try to remedy that.
wilonstott
Wil O.
wilonstott
Wil O.
PM PRECISION.
Ask about E-6.
Ask about E-6.
HHPhoto
Well-known
You still can get Agfa slide film:
1. Agfa Gevaert Aviphot chrome 200 from Agfa-Gevaert in Belgium (www.agfa.com), which is sold as Rollei CR 200. This is the Agfa RSX II emulsion coated on a PET base.
This film is also sold as Rollei Crossbird (even available in 127, you can make 4x4 Superslides!) and as Lomography X-Pro 200.
Maybe an alternative for those who loved Agfa CT 18 (I've never been a big fan of CT 18; CT 18 looks quite crappy compared to todays Provia 100F and AgfaPhoto CT Precisa 100).
2. AgfaPhoto CT Precisa 100. Sold by Lupus Imaging, who have licensed the name AgfaPhoto from the AgfaPhoto Holding (which has nothing to do with Agfa-Gevaert in Belgium; Agfa-Gevaert is the third biggest film manufacturer behind Kodak and Fuji).
CT 100 Precisa is now made by Fuji. This film is very similar to Provia 100F (see my test report in this forum some time ago). It is either Fuji Trebi 100C (the Japan amateur version of Provia) or Provia batches, which are not 100% in line with Fuji's strong QC parameters.
This film is sold incredibly cheap here in Germany by dm drugstore chain, only 3,23€ per film.
This film surpasses Ektar in fineness of grain, resolution and sharpness. And it is much cheaper. Best bang for the buck.
Cheers, Jan
wilonstott
Wil O.
wilonstott
Wil O.
Constantine Manos American Color (Vol. 2)
Kodachrome and Velvia
Vol. 1 was all Kodachrome.
http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=ViewBox&ALID=2K7O3RTDRZJ7&IT=ThumbImage01_VForm&CT=Album
Ninja Edit
Don't need a projector for that Stewart.
Kodachrome and Velvia
Vol. 1 was all Kodachrome.
http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=ViewBox&ALID=2K7O3RTDRZJ7&IT=ThumbImage01_VForm&CT=Album
Ninja Edit
Don't need a projector for that Stewart.
HHPhoto
Well-known
Hey man, your problem is you are listening too much to rumours and nonsense talk on internet forums.
Their factory is not so far away from me. They have divided the company: One part concentrating on digital accesoires, and the traditional part which is producing the film equipment.
And the film equipment part of Jobo is doing well. As said before, they have even restarted production of some products due to increasing demand.
There have been official statements from Ilford, Kodak, Maco/Rollei and Adox that their BW film sales have either stabilised or are even increasing.
Looks like we see a reversed trend at first in BW.
Now we have to do our part to work for such situation with slide film, too.
I think it is possible, but we all have to do our part.
Shooting much more slide film and get other photographers interested in it.
I am doing it here in my home town with success.
Once young photographers have seen my slides projected with my excellent projection lenses on my big screen they are hooked!
They have never seen such excellent quality!
It is completely impossible for digital shots and beamers to compete, because of the extremely low resolution of beamers (only in the 1-4 MP range) and their bad color reproduction.
A friend of mine is working in the photo finishing business: RA-4 sales of Fuji is increasing. Dry systems cannot compete in mass production: Neither in quality, and not at all in costs.
You can get a 9x13cm RA-4 print here from CeWe or Fuji for 1 Cent.
That is completely impossible with dry printing.
They plan for many years to come with RA-4. They are market leader.
We Europeans can only shake our head with the "fetish" North Americans have with local mini-labs.
All this "the sky is falling because my local minilab has closed".
Film became a mass medium without that minilab system.
Minlabs arrived in the 80ies, when film has been established with the masses for decades.
Minilabs played only a minor role here in Europe. By far most of all the colour film business has been handled by the mass labs and the drug store chains. And that is still the case.
And now clever professional labs with excellent mail ordering are gaining market share, too.
And self developing at home is increasing, too.
Cheers, Jan
wilonstott
Wil O.
Don't give us Americans too hard a time, Jan.
We didn't do it. It was done to us.
Different business models. Different cultural climates.
The system is what is--we have to work with that.
We're all in this together.
Positivity, man.
And good info, as always.
We didn't do it. It was done to us.
Different business models. Different cultural climates.
The system is what is--we have to work with that.
We're all in this together.
Positivity, man.
And good info, as always.
zauhar
Veteran
Wilonstott, your attitude and enthusiasm are uplifting.
Please stick with the double-spaced posts!
I am processing some E-6 tonight, and taking ten rolls with me to Europe next week - so there. ;-)
Randy
Please stick with the double-spaced posts!
I am processing some E-6 tonight, and taking ten rolls with me to Europe next week - so there. ;-)
Randy
wilonstott
Wil O.
Randy, my man!
Hell, take 20.
And go with the goal of shooting all of it.
Every. Last. Frame.
Shoot things you would never normally shoot.
Best shots work you've ever done.
Promise.
It's all about how you look at it--be open.
Now you'll be driven--now there's a purpose, a goal, a reason to blast that shutter.
You, personally, are saving one of the coolest things on Earth, one frame at a time.
Hell, take 20.
And go with the goal of shooting all of it.
Every. Last. Frame.
Shoot things you would never normally shoot.
Best shots work you've ever done.
Promise.
It's all about how you look at it--be open.
Now you'll be driven--now there's a purpose, a goal, a reason to blast that shutter.
You, personally, are saving one of the coolest things on Earth, one frame at a time.
HHPhoto
Well-known
Then it is time to change that!
Projection with a good projection lens (avoid cheap lenses: like with your camera, the lens is always the most important part for image quality)
is by far the best way to go with slide film. It is impossible to get that color brillance, sharpness and this three-dimensional effect with prints.
And projection is not only the best for quality, it is also the cheapest way: A huge 1m x 1,5m projected slide on a screen cost you less than a buck, mostly only some cents.
A print of that huge dimension cost you more than 100 bucks!
Today you can get excellent projectors, lenses and screens very cheap. Not only on the used market, but also new.
You like cinema? Slide projection at home with good lenses deliver even a much much better quality. Mostly because slide film has much much higher resolution and better sharpness than the 2-4k scanned movie print film which is projected in cinema.
Kodak E100G, Elitechrome 100, Fuji Sensia 100, Astia 100F, Provia 100F, Velvia 100F, Velvia 100 and AgfaPhoto CT Precisa 100 all have finer grain and higher resolution than Ektar, Reala, Pro 160 NS and Portra 160.
Fuji Provia 400X has finer grain, better sharpness and higher resolution than Portra 400 and Pro 400H.
I've done several intensive tests to prove that. Tested it with optical printing and drum scanning and analysing with a microscope.
Other film and optic experts like D. Ventzke, H. Serger, M. Antora, K. Henken, company Carl Zeiss did similar tests an have got the same results.
The difference is even bigger if you compare a projected slide to a print of the same size: No chance for the print from CN film.
Cheers, Jan
wilonstott
Wil O.
Well I may just have to get in the market for one, Jan.
You've just about sold me.
I'm very suseptible to strategic uses of the word "cheap."
Sparrow
Veteran
Sorry I'm not convinced, I have lots of photos taken in condition that are outside the gamut of slide film, and I can't think of any circumstances where slides are an advantage ... if one is scanning, as I am, it really doesn't make any difference anyway it's just data, and there is invariably more data to be had from negative film
To surgest a flickr search and compare for any film really doesn't go anywhere near supporting your case ... show me a photo I couldn't have taken with Superia 400 and I may start to take this seriously
HHPhoto
Well-known
Don't worry, I am very positive. I stick with Martin Luther: "Und selbst wenn ich wüsste, dass morgen die Welt unterginge, ich würde noch heute ein Apfelbäumchen pflanzen".
I've increased my slide film shooting over the last four years continuously. This year I will break my last years slide film shooting record
.Digital is the past, slide film and projection is the future for me (and some of my local photo friends here).
It is simply the best quality you can get in color photography (and some times even in BW with BW slides, which have a unique character, too).
Cheers, Jan
dallard
Well-known
You could try Rollei CR200. It's a grainy but nice film that is essentially an Agfa coating.
But I see now someone's already mentioned that...
wilonstott
Wil O.
Sorry I'm not convinced, I have lots of photos taken in condition that are outside the gamut of slide film, and I can't think of any circumstances where slides are an advantage ... if one is scanning, as I am, it really doesn't make any difference anyway it's just data, and there is invariably more data to be had from negative film
To surgest a flickr search and compare for any film really doesn't go anywhere near supporting your case ... show me a photo I couldn't have taken with Superia 400 and I may start to take this seriously
Well, Stewart, I'm not going to split hairs with you.
If I say e-6 is different, and you say it isn't, then who am I to argue with you.
If you've found something that works for you, then I'm glad you have, and I hope it continues to do so.
Perhaps, for me, it's more than just data.
It's about the tangible object.
It's about making a conscious effort to save something that I believe is worth saving.
I think we all thought Kodachrome was something that was surely worth saving, but now it's gone, and most likely, will never return.
Well, I say, not this time.
Not if I can do something about it.
But I'll say it again, give it two rolls.
Convince yourself.
If you can't, then you haven't really lost anything except a few afternoons when you could have been shooting c-41.
Sparrow
Veteran
... and I say show me the photo that proves your assertions, talk's cheap lets see the product, "show me a photo I couldn't have taken with Superia 400"
wilonstott
Wil O.
I'm not going to do this Stewart.
That's not what this thread is about.
Come on, man.
That's not what this thread is about.
Come on, man.
HHPhoto
Well-known
Well, concerning slide projector: Before you start looking for one please feel free to contact me. I can give you advice which are the best projectors and projection lenses.
I am doing slide projection for a very very long time, and with different systems.
Concerning cheap: The reason why I started with slide film as a young guy of 14 years was just simple: Shooting slide film was much cheaper than shooting negative film and having prints.
Nothing has changed since then:
Also today shooting slide film is cheaper for me than shooting CN film, because CN film only makes sense with prints. And quality prints of 13x18cm cost me 35-45 cents depending on the lab (I don't like inferior quality therefore the cheap prints are no option).
With my very good slide loupe on my lighttable I have with slide film the alternative of similar picture size to 10x15cm or 13x18cm quality prints.
But the slides on my lighttable viewed with my excellent Schneider and Rodenstock slide loupes deliver much better color brillance and better sharpness than the prints. And an almost three-dimensional effect.
Well, and as written above when projected the slide is more than hundred times cheaper than a print of the same size.
Scanning is not an option for me: The loss in quality is too big.
You always loose resolution, even with the best drum scanners.
We've compared with some photographers the resolution power of the best projection lenses with the Imacon X5 drum scanner:
The best projection lenses have won by a big margin, no chance for the scanner.
And with scanners you have always enhanced grain by scanner noise.
That problem does not exist at all in projection.
And what would you do with your scan? Prints? See above, more expansive than viewing the slides with my excellent loupe.
Looking at the computer monitor?
I think that is absolutely stupid:
Using a high resolution medium like slide film, and then looking at the pictures on a computer monitor with 1024x768 resolution, less than 1 Megapixel? And the bad tonality of the monitor?
Computer monitors are the viewing medium with by far the worst quality of all viewing mediums.
Scanning high resolution film and than viewing on a monitor is as senseless as buying a 24 or 35 Megapixel camera and looking at these pictures only at your monitor with it's extremely low resolution.
It is a complete waste of money.
Cheers, Jan