Vics
Veteran
I never had any problems scanning my slide film on my V500. That said, I only post; never print.
borge
Established
Both. I had never really used E6 before, and learned the hard way that I really like the latitude of C41. Metering needs to be spot on with E6, and that's not always easy to achieve with E6 and a very contrasty scene (that there was many of during the trip).
Maybe it is my scanner, but for some reason C41 is a lot easier to achieve good results with than E6. I've only tried my Plustek 120 though, and not a flat bed. But from what I've read, dedicated film scanners should do better with E6 than flatbeds in general.
Penceler
Established
Clearly we have very different ideas of what constitutes aggression. Interesting that someone so sensitive has no issue with a bit of blatant passive-aggression though!
My apologies for bringing my opinions and humour to this thread. I didn't realise that you were literally only wanting to hear things you agree with.
I hope you get the permission to shoot a roll of film you are seeking. Let us know if you want approval to change your car or switch to a new blend of coffee!
Personally I liked the poll choices...
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
What I can't cope with is the thought of people buying slide film to scan and print...
Slide film is for slides; put them in a projector and show them on the big screen. Nothing like it and even brilliant in B&W; although I do miss Agfa's Dia Direct.
Look for a Leica projector and lens and a glass bead screen and projector stand. That will cost a fraction of the cost of a decent scanner.
Regards, David
What I can't cope with is the thought of people buying slide film to scan and print...
Slide film is for slides; put them in a projector and show them on the big screen. Nothing like it and even brilliant in B&W; although I do miss Agfa's Dia Direct.
Look for a Leica projector and lens and a glass bead screen and projector stand. That will cost a fraction of the cost of a decent scanner.
Regards, David
Ronald M
Veteran
Slide film is disappearing choices. K25 was my fav. The surviving choices are all high contrast, high color saturation catering to those who like that sort of thing.
When Kodachrome went away, I used Ektachrome 100 pro which was a film made for professional color accuracy reproduction.
My last was a Fuji 100 low color contrast pro film.
What is left is amateur garbage.
I can make a digital file do anything I need and change it after the fact. No need to run from store to store trying to find some arcane product. Don`t need to scan or develop.
If you want to project, spend the money on a GOOD projector. Or put the files on a thumb drive and and play on your television. They are beautiful. I have seen P&S jpegs on TV and they are wonderful. A good camera will be even better.
When Kodachrome went away, I used Ektachrome 100 pro which was a film made for professional color accuracy reproduction.
My last was a Fuji 100 low color contrast pro film.
What is left is amateur garbage.
I can make a digital file do anything I need and change it after the fact. No need to run from store to store trying to find some arcane product. Don`t need to scan or develop.
If you want to project, spend the money on a GOOD projector. Or put the files on a thumb drive and and play on your television. They are beautiful. I have seen P&S jpegs on TV and they are wonderful. A good camera will be even better.
rjstep3
Established
Did someone mention DR?
Did someone mention DR?
I think someone was mentioning DR - this is about photos, not about arguing the toss over different formats, in my view at least.
Took this over my Xmas holiday in Sri Lanka:
It was in the Botanical Gardens in Kandy. Now, I know it has been scanned, which seems to get the ire of some, but:
- I could see this as B&W, and some clever work in the darkroom would do wonders with the background
- digital for this would be, somehow, clinical I think, I just don't like the pixel-perfect look
- a neg film would turn the background into a murky mess
So I like slide film - it has its quirks, but I like it. And I scan it, never project these days. Each to his own I suppose.
(This was Velvia 100 with a Contax G2 + 45mm lens).
For the OP: you ought to try, you don't know what you are missing. It's all in my sig below.
rjstep3
Did someone mention DR?
I think someone was mentioning DR - this is about photos, not about arguing the toss over different formats, in my view at least.
Took this over my Xmas holiday in Sri Lanka:
It was in the Botanical Gardens in Kandy. Now, I know it has been scanned, which seems to get the ire of some, but:
- I could see this as B&W, and some clever work in the darkroom would do wonders with the background
- digital for this would be, somehow, clinical I think, I just don't like the pixel-perfect look
- a neg film would turn the background into a murky mess
So I like slide film - it has its quirks, but I like it. And I scan it, never project these days. Each to his own I suppose.
(This was Velvia 100 with a Contax G2 + 45mm lens).
For the OP: you ought to try, you don't know what you are missing. It's all in my sig below.
rjstep3
Huss
Veteran
About 1/3 of my freezer is full of Provia
How big is your freezer?
rolfe
Well-known
I'm not going to try to convince you because modern C41 films have more dynamic range and are basically better in every respect than the remaining E6 stuff. That wasn't true even 20 years ago.
Rolfe
Rolfe
Project your C-41 shots much, do you? How's that working out for you?
teddy
Jose Morales
For me E6 or colour slide film provides a true colour of "the scene". And if colour corrected properly I think is gives me the result I like in Australian light. In Down Under the light is bright, in sunny days it can be harsh (particularly in summer) and I think slide film like Velvia does a super job at depicting the light. I don't have an expensive scanner but I'm happy with the colour representation, particularly the high contrast of Velvia and Provia. To me, digital doesn't have the realism of colour - but is far more practical.
I shoot digital colour, and for the stuff I really care about - I shoot E6.
Leica R5, Leitz Elmarit 60/2.8, Velvia 50, Warming Polarizer
Leica R5, Leitz Summicron 50/2 II, Velvia 50, Warming Polarizer
Rolleiflex Xenotar 75/3.5, Velvia 100
I shoot digital colour, and for the stuff I really care about - I shoot E6.
Leica R5, Leitz Elmarit 60/2.8, Velvia 50, Warming Polarizer
Leica R5, Leitz Summicron 50/2 II, Velvia 50, Warming Polarizer
Rolleiflex Xenotar 75/3.5, Velvia 100
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
Well, Okay then. Now I know what I am. I thought so, but I wasn't sure. Thanks.
rolfe
Well-known
I actually don't know of anyone shooting E6 for projection. Most of those still shooting it just like the color rendition better, or feel that it scans better. It used to be shot commercially because it was better than the available color negative emulsions at the time and because of the way publications made color separations. Now, every publication is produced digitally, so whether you're shooting negative or reversal or digital, it all winds up as a digital file. Kodak's continued development is focused on motion picture film, and that development filters down to its remaining color negative products for still photography, namely Portra and Ektar. These use the latest technology and, I submit, are better than any remaining reversal emulsion in every category.
Rolfe
Hatchetman
Well-known
How many people just in this thread made reference to projecting images?
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
How do these threads so frequently descend into animus?
Vics
Veteran
I always liked the prints I had made from my slides better than projected from my Carousel projector, but what I love now is how my scans look on flickr. Pentax just announced the K1 full-frame DSLR at a nice price, but I can shoot my Pentax-M lenses in my 37-year-old K1000 full frame on Velvia, and I'm quite happy with the results.
CMur12
Veteran
People treat this as though it's a pragmatic discussion, which, of course, it's not. I've been shooting color slides/transparencies/positives for almost 45 years. I know how the medium behaves and I know what I'll get. I like the fact that I control the finished product in-camera. I like the tactility of film, and with color positive film you have the finished product without the extra step of producing a print (or equivalent). All you have to do is hold it up to the light.
A medium format transparency is much more striking on a lightbox than a 35mm transparency, due to scale. Even so, I have always stored my slides, both 35mm and 6x6cm, in clear archival plastic pages that fit into a three-ring binder (though I actually store them in an archival box). There is a certain impact from viewing a page of images on a lightbox and there is a whole aesthetic to how the images are arranged in each page.
If you plan to project medium format slides, you should probably mount them in anti-Newton ring (ANR) glass, to prevent popping and focus shifting during projection.
To the original poster, you've shot slides before, so you have some idea what it's about. Of course, the approach to exposure is a little different from that for color or B&W negatives. I expose for the highlights, often then underexposing 1/3 to 1/2 stop for a little more saturation/density. Overexposing color negative film up to a stop often works to your advantage. Overexposing color slide film will blow out the highlights and wash out the overall image. With color slide film, smaller changes in exposure make a big difference in the rendered image.
- Murray
A medium format transparency is much more striking on a lightbox than a 35mm transparency, due to scale. Even so, I have always stored my slides, both 35mm and 6x6cm, in clear archival plastic pages that fit into a three-ring binder (though I actually store them in an archival box). There is a certain impact from viewing a page of images on a lightbox and there is a whole aesthetic to how the images are arranged in each page.
If you plan to project medium format slides, you should probably mount them in anti-Newton ring (ANR) glass, to prevent popping and focus shifting during projection.
To the original poster, you've shot slides before, so you have some idea what it's about. Of course, the approach to exposure is a little different from that for color or B&W negatives. I expose for the highlights, often then underexposing 1/3 to 1/2 stop for a little more saturation/density. Overexposing color negative film up to a stop often works to your advantage. Overexposing color slide film will blow out the highlights and wash out the overall image. With color slide film, smaller changes in exposure make a big difference in the rendered image.
- Murray
There have been a number of posts just in this thread by members who project their mounted transparencies. Just because you don't know anybody who does this, doesn't mean it no longer happens. No C-41 film looks good projected or viewed on a light box. You can dodge this point if you wish (highlighted, above, you've ignored it completely). Unless you're actually saying a colour neg is a more enjoyable viewing experience on a projection screen?
brbo
Well-known
I shoot slide film in the morning, high noon, evening and night. I've come back from trips where I only shot slide film and never felt I was missing anything. Never knew that slide film is virtually unusable today.
C-41 is awesome, too. Still, slide film has less "grain", excellent pushing ability (compared to C-41) and you don't have to guess what the original scene looked like.
I guess slide film is like shooting digital into .jpg (no raw). But instead of the utterly crappy jpg engines that go into today's digitals you get an AMAZING post-processing.
But today not many people value the benefits (it's bazillion ISO and 37EV dynamic range world out there), so slide film is going away.
C-41 is awesome, too. Still, slide film has less "grain", excellent pushing ability (compared to C-41) and you don't have to guess what the original scene looked like.
I guess slide film is like shooting digital into .jpg (no raw). But instead of the utterly crappy jpg engines that go into today's digitals you get an AMAZING post-processing.
But today not many people value the benefits (it's bazillion ISO and 37EV dynamic range world out there), so slide film is going away.
k__43
Registered Film User
I love slide - I shoot more C41 for latitude tho. But when you pick up a roll of MF slide film from the lab .. oh man, that feeling is special!
One thing that slide can actually do better than C41 & digital is red tone rendition in my opinion. I always have the feeling that strong red subjects seem isolated on C41 or weirdly saturated on digital.
One thing that slide can actually do better than C41 & digital is red tone rendition in my opinion. I always have the feeling that strong red subjects seem isolated on C41 or weirdly saturated on digital.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Exactly, I've been using slide film for about 55 to 60 years and use it to project my photo's on to a screen. If I want prints I buy negative film; strangely enough I buy B&W negative film for B&W prints and colour negative film for colour prints.
And before the thread is started elsewhere I'll add that I don't use colour negative film and a scanner to make B&W prints.
As for saturation, control it via the exposure same as we always have and should still be doing with digital.
It seems so straight forward and logical to me that I get baffled by these threads.
I don't see anything wrong in pointing out that there are simple easy ways of doing things that won't cost the earth and give the results needed. As I see it I'm being helpful...
Regards, David
PS And to help more, if you like the idea of making B&W slides look on Ilford's website and Leitz make excellent projectors with excellent lenses including flat and curved field ones...
And before the thread is started elsewhere I'll add that I don't use colour negative film and a scanner to make B&W prints.
As for saturation, control it via the exposure same as we always have and should still be doing with digital.
It seems so straight forward and logical to me that I get baffled by these threads.
I don't see anything wrong in pointing out that there are simple easy ways of doing things that won't cost the earth and give the results needed. As I see it I'm being helpful...
Regards, David
PS And to help more, if you like the idea of making B&W slides look on Ilford's website and Leitz make excellent projectors with excellent lenses including flat and curved field ones...