Slide film...convince me!

[FujiLove]

I got back into film photography 18 months ago and have been loving shooting B&W and colour negative film, processing it at home and printing it in my little darkroom. What I haven't yet tried is slide film. Well, when I say I haven't tried it, I mean since I was about 14 years old when slide was all I shot back then.

I realise there is no practical way to print from slides in the darkroom these days, so I'm wondering whether I should give it a try. There still seems to be a lot of people shooting it, so how are you viewing your photos? Are you scanning and printing via an inkjet? Mounting and projecting? Or maybe just using a light table and a loupe?

To make things a little more complicated, I only shoot medium format 6x7, so again, I'm wondering whether that will make things impractical...or maybe 6x7 slides are just too lovely to miss out on?

My only remaining scanner is an Epson v550 flatbed and I don't have the budget to get a dedicated medium format scanner (or the patience to use one very much).

So what do you think? Is slide film worth giving a go? If it's a, "yes", which emulsion would you recommend starting with?

 

[JP Owens]

Having shot a lot of slide film back in the day, I can't understand why anyone would want to shoot it over digital. Limited dynamic range and thus little exposure latitude, hard to get good prints from, and inconvenient to share with others. Don't have much nostalgia for the stuff.

But, if you haven't shot it before, couldn't hurt to shoot a roll or two. Easy to process in your bathroom sink.

 

[RichardPhoto]

I believe that digital > film for colour. I think this is especially true for slide. I can't see any reason to shoot slide instead of having a nice raw file. No development problems, no scanning, no colour problems, no expensive drum scans.... The only reason I would use it is in my 4x5 or 8x10 because there's no digital option. But to be honest I probably wont as it now ridiculously expensive to buy and develop.

Despite all the myth and hyperbole surrounding things like Velvia and Kodachrome I feel that digital trounces it in every way.

 

[valdas]

check this out and decide:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134187&highlight=drum+scan

many will say digital is superior... but is it the question you ask - what is superior? to me the slide is still different from digital (and I am not saying better or worse - but different). especially when projected on the wall using traditional slide projector...

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Slide film is wonderful. When you hold it up to the light it is gorgeous. It looks wonderful projected, too. If you can appreciate that, then perhaps you should try some. Is it that big a decision to try a roll? I would have thought not, but...

Bear in mind that if some people "...can't understand why anyone would want to shoot it over digital." or "...can't see any reason to shoot slide..." it means precisely that: they can't see, they can't understand. This doesn't mean they speak for everyone. There are still a lot of people shooting transparency (whether it is mounted as a "slide" after development, or not, is another matter, not all transparencies are slides) because there is, quite simply, no more beautiful way of viewing a colour image, and this is the case no matter how much dynamic range or megapixels your digital camera might have.
Cheers
Brett

 

[Dralowid]

There is nothing quite like the beautiful coloured jewel that is a correctly exposed transparency. What you do with it is up to you.

Ah...Kodachrome...sigh.

 

[brbo]

I got back into film photography 18 months ago and have been loving shooting B&W and colour negative film, processing it at home and printing it in my little darkroom.

You print colour negative. At home.

And worry that slide film will be inconvenient? 😉

For me (I don't have a darkroom) slide film is the most obvious choice to shoot film. I get finished picture on film, scanning is way easier than C-41 and ordering prints from negative or slide film is the same.

 

[JP Owens]

Back in the late 1980's the newspaper I shot for started using drum scanners as the first step to turn the slide film we were shooting into separations for printing in the newspaper. Fascinating to watch the scanner in operation; but, they were finicky and required a skilled operator to get good results from. Interesting link. Thanks for posting that.

 

[FujiLove]

Regarding the digital vs film comments: that's really not the question. I don't own a digital camera and have no desire to. Been there, done that, hated every minute. I'm interested in understanding why the people who shoot slide film do it, and what their process is in terms of viewing the images.

Projection seems like a great idea, but is that even possible with 6x7 negatives? I have a look for a medium format projector, but the only one I found was 6x6 and was more expensive than a Hasselblad V system!

Is it even possible to get decent scans of slides out of a flatbed or are they too hard to scan with those? I couldn't afford to have many slides run through a drum scanner.

 

[JP Owens]

"Bear in mind that if some people "...can't understand why anyone would want to shoot it over digital." or "...can't see any reason to shoot slide..." it means precisely that: they can't see, they can't understand. This doesn't mean they speak for everyone."

Like I said. He should shoot some. Slide film properly exposed is beautiful to look at with a loupe. But if you are going to shoot it on a sunny day, you are going to either get blown out highlights and properly exposed shadows or inky expanses of black and properly exposed highlights.

There is a certain esthetic that results. Look at any of David Allen Harvey's pre-digital stuff. He chose to keep the highlights and let the shadows go to black. That look shouts "DAH."

 

[Pherdinand]

i gave up on slide, but that's because i don't develop myself, i don't project it, and it got prohibitively expensive and cumbersome (and risky- they lose films, mess them up...) to get it done by a lab.
Scanning them is OK but doesn't have any advantage over digital shoots nowadays.
If you plan to mount and project 6x7 slides, go for it. If you plan to scan them, i would not bother.

 

[FujiLove]

You print colour negative. At home.

And worry that slide film will be inconvenient? 😉

LOL, well actually I find colour printing at home really easy. Not sure why people have a problem with it to be honest. It took me about eight or ten prints to get the colour balance sorted for a couple of emulsion/light/paper combos and off I went! I use a heated Nova slot processor which takes about 3 minutes per print.

My walls are now full of lovely 16x12" colour prints 🙂

 

[FujiLove]

"Bear in mind that if some people "...can't understand why anyone would want to shoot it over digital." or "...can't see any reason to shoot slide..." it means precisely that: they can't see, they can't understand. This doesn't mean they speak for everyone."

Like I said. He should shoot some. Slide film properly exposed is beautiful to look at with a loupe. But if you are going to shoot it on a sunny day, you are going to either get blown out highlights and properly exposed shadows or inky expanses of black and properly exposed highlights.

There is a certain esthetic that results. Look at any of David Allen Harvey's pre-digital stuff. He chose to keep the highlights and let the shadows go to black. That look shouts "DAH."

Good point about the dynamic range, and thanks for the heads-up on DAH. I haven't really looked at is work before.

 

[aad]

I loved shooting slides. But they are very hard to scan well and making prints was a lot easier with print film. Imagine that..

Still, why do you need convincing to try?

 

[mfogiel]

While slides are not very practical nowadays, they can still deliver a couple of interesting "edges" over digital:
- if you shoot big enough (LF) the resolution is simply trumping digital for the time being
- if you particularly like the colour palette of one of these films, then you save a lot of effort over trying to recreate that palette digitally
- a transparency is still a material artefact, although its life is not as long as that of silver film

 

[RichardPhoto]

Slide film is wonderful. When you hold it up to the light it is gorgeous. It looks wonderful projected, too. If you can appreciate that, then perhaps you should try some. Is it that big a decision to try a roll? I would have thought not, but...

Bear in mind that if some people "...can't understand why anyone would want to shoot it over digital." or "...can't see any reason to shoot slide..." it means precisely that: they can't see, they can't understand. This doesn't mean they speak for everyone. There are still a lot of people shooting transparency (whether it is mounted as a "slide" after development, or not, is another matter, not all transparencies are slides) because there is, quite simply, no more beautiful way of viewing a colour image, and this is the case no matter how much dynamic range or megapixels your digital camera might have.
Cheers
Brett

We call that phenomenon 'opinions' where I live.🙄

 

[philipus]

It is all very individual and I certainly encourage anyone to try.

It can cost quite a lot to process, though in some places it costs little. Like here in NL the Hema chain develops an E6 roll (135 or 120) for 3,50Eur.

The films tend to be expensive but sometimes one can find them for rather little (old stock). For fresh film Agfa Precisa is a very good film that costs much less than the Fuji stock and performs (in my humble opinion) just as well.

The more limited dynamic range is often mentioned as a drawback but I personally don't find it is. It's all a question of perspective and desired look. Slide film is what I've shot the most over the years and I'm used to the look, and in fact particularly like it for sunny days.

As I've become better at scanning and post-processing I've also learnt how to deal with very dense shadows and burnt-out highlights. In terms of post-processing slide scans, I've found that probably the best way is to use Adobe Camera Raw. I used ColorPerfect for a long time but just didn't like how it handled the highlights; the conversion from a very dark linear scan into a positive image just never looks close enough to the slide itself. Anyway, there are ways to edit an image and one has to figure out what works bearing in mind one's preferences (as with so many things).

A slide held up against the light, projected or viewed on a light table is really wonderful. I like the really vivid impression it gives of the scene, it feels "rich" somehow.

br
Philip

 

[RichardPhoto]

Fujilove,

Just buy a roll of slide and be done with it. Shoot it, dev it, scan it, look at it, decide. I really can't see the need for seeking external validation or confirmation about what medium to shoot. Slide film is slide film - it is what it is. The pros/cons are well known as it's been around decades. And surely you know yourself what you want to do with your own pictures - print, project, web, etc.

Asking 'convince me' and 'is slide worth it' on a film subforum is going to get the same results as starting the poll: "Is slide literally the best thing ever?" a)yes b)yes c)yes d)No - because I'm mentally deficient and I don't understand how slide is literally the best thing ever!

 

[FujiLove]

It is all very individual and I certainly encourage anyone to try.

It can cost quite a lot to process, though in some places it costs little. Like here in NL the Hema chain develops an E6 roll (135 or 120) for 3,50Eur.

The films tend to be expensive but sometimes one can find them for rather little (old stock). For fresh film Agfa Precisa is a very good film that costs much less than the Fuji stock and performs (in my humble opinion) just as well.

The more limited dynamic range is often mentioned as a drawback but I personally don't find it is. It's all a question of perspective and desired look. Slide film is what I've shot the most over the years and I'm used to the look, and in fact particularly like it for sunny days.

As I've become better at scanning and post-processing I've also learnt how to deal with very dense shadows and burnt-out highlights. In terms of post-processing slide scans, I've found that probably the best way is to use Adobe Camera Raw. I used ColorPerfect for a long time but just didn't like how it handled the highlights; the conversion from a very dark linear scan into a positive image just never looks close enough to the slide itself. Anyway, there are ways to edit an image and one has to figure out what works bearing in mind one's preferences (as with so many things).

A slide held up against the light, projected or viewed on a light table is really wonderful. I like the really vivid impression it gives of the scene, it feels "rich" somehow.

br
Philip

Thanks Philip - I've heard it's a tough beast to scan without a high-end scanner (drum scanner maybe). Are you using a flatbed or a dedicated film scanner?

 

[FujiLove]

Fujilove,

Just buy a roll of slide and be done with it. Shoot it, dev it, scan it, look at it, decide. I really can't see the need for seeking external validation or confirmation about what medium to shoot. Slide film is slide film - it is what it is. The pros/cons are well known as it's been around decades. And surely you know yourself what you want to do with your own pictures - print, project, web, etc.

Asking 'convince me' and 'is slide worth it' on a film subforum is going to get the same results as starting the poll: "Is slide literally the best thing ever?" a)yes b)yes c)yes d)No - because I'm mentally deficient and I don't understand how slide is literally the best thing ever!

Sure, I can go out and buy some slide film and send it off for processing and I'll probably be down about £18. But I don't shoot a lot of images, and what I do shoot tends to be quite valuable to me. So if I'm left with something I can't scan, can't mount and project etc. then I'm not going to be happy. In other words, the raw materials for that roll of film will cost me very little, but the other costs (travel, hotels etc.) will add up to a lot.

I'm looking for the opinions of the people who do still shoot slide film, and I'm interested in why they still do it and how they go about viewing and/or printing the images. If you don't like this or other discussions, then perhaps you shouldn't take part in them, or in discussion forums in general?