Skiff
Well-known
Besides all the advantages of reversal film which have already been explained here in this thread, there are several further ones:
Reversal films give more flexibility in usage, it fits to more applications than negative film.
Its versatility is unsurpassed.
A developed reversal film can
- be enjoyed by just holding it up to the light
- be looked at in a slide viewer
- be enjoyed on a light box, for medium magnification with excellent quality in combination with a very good slide loupe
- can be projected for outstanding, unsurpassed quality for big enlargements with tiny, negligible costs
- be enlarged optically on BW direct positive paper (and even RA-4 paper which is then reversal processed)
- be scanned
- be scanned and printed (prints from Provia and Velvia on RA-4 paper are amazing).
With negative film there are only two options of usage:
- optical enlarging
- scans (and then printing from the scans).
Reversal films give more flexibility in usage, it fits to more applications than negative film.
Its versatility is unsurpassed.
A developed reversal film can
- be enjoyed by just holding it up to the light
- be looked at in a slide viewer
- be enjoyed on a light box, for medium magnification with excellent quality in combination with a very good slide loupe
- can be projected for outstanding, unsurpassed quality for big enlargements with tiny, negligible costs
- be enlarged optically on BW direct positive paper (and even RA-4 paper which is then reversal processed)
- be scanned
- be scanned and printed (prints from Provia and Velvia on RA-4 paper are amazing).
With negative film there are only two options of usage:
- optical enlarging
- scans (and then printing from the scans).
brbo
Well-known
I shoot more slide film than C-41, BW and instant combined, but there are many advantages of negative film:
- there are altogether 3 types of slide film left
- iso 100 is the fastest slide film
- filters, it's really easy to spend hundreds, even thousands on filters
- price, Velvia is almost 3x the price of Ektar and 10x the price of Vision3 50D
- yes, I've heard the "BUUUUUUTTTT you have a finished picture" argument so many times now it's funny again - dudes, "YES WE SCAN!", get over it
- there are altogether 3 types of slide film left
- iso 100 is the fastest slide film
- filters, it's really easy to spend hundreds, even thousands on filters
- price, Velvia is almost 3x the price of Ektar and 10x the price of Vision3 50D
- yes, I've heard the "BUUUUUUTTTT you have a finished picture" argument so many times now it's funny again - dudes, "YES WE SCAN!", get over it
PKR
Veteran
Correct. For 35mm, Kodachrome was used as it reproduced better than other films. Ektachrome was used if film speed was an issue. All larger formats were Ektachrome/Fujichrome etc. 8x10 was preferred for product shots. The only time print was used was for critical correction of an area in the image. Dye Transfer prints were used for this work. Local areas in the print could be changed in daylight with an AD looking over the shoulder of the lab tech. Dyes were very expensive. The local lab got $500-800 for the first print. 15 hours of labor went into making a print from making the matrices to a finished print.
Positive materials were used because the printing industry was set up to process in the system
of.. positive image to, color separation (or b+w half tone neg) to, printing plate to, blanket to, paper.
http://www.phaidon.com/agenda/photo...ocess-photos-on-show-for-the-first-time-ever/
PKR
Veteran
Kodachrome is black and white film with filter layers. Dyes are added to the image during processing.
Ektachrome, Fujichrome films, etc. are dye coupler films. The dyes used to create the colors are within the film. This is simplified, but accurate. Kodachrome requires equipment and chemistry handling far advanced from simple E6 processing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dye_coupler
Prest_400
Multiformat
Latitude as well? At least in the form of 400H exposed at 100 and becoming airy pastel tones. Wedding <3 C41. The push in the new generation of mail/online labs are mostly on C41 and some B&W... E6 is barely advertised or seen, albeit some of them do offer the service.
Out of 1000s of posts on social media by these labs, few, if 1%, are showing/featuring E6 film.
12+8€ / 7+8€ for Provia 100F in 35mm / 120. OTOH, instant (IP) is as expensive.
By the way, hope tomorrow I can send out a batch of film to be developed. 120 Provia included
PKR
Veteran
Wedding photographers deliver photographic prints as an end product. They aren't published normally (not talking about digital here). So, it makes sense to use negative material to make prints, just 2 generations. If using positive imaging, a costly internegative is necessary in making a inexpensive "C" Print. Most wedding photos are printed on automated package printers, not an option when using positive materials.
nikonhswebmaster
reluctant moderator
PKR
Veteran
Maybe black and white. C prints aren't very stable. The yellows and reds fade first. I did a test years ago with Ciba prints hung in a clients lobby. There were windows that delivered mixed sunlight on them for an hour or two each day. That light mixed with heavy fluorescent .. high in uV killed the yellows in about 6 months. It would have been much worse with C prints.
I don't know if digital images, taken by non court approved sources, are admissible as evidence. Does anyone know about this? I know that when analog prints were submitted, a negative had to be packaged with the print in federal cases.
I don't trust any photo made in the last 10-15 years for any kind of accuracy, unless I personally know the photographer. Previous years are a coin toss.
Anyone with big bucks can pay to alter a digital image at the pixel level, making photo forensics extremely costly.
A Photograph is an illusion. You take 3 dimensions, turn them into 2, take a vast space and shrink it to the size of a print or monitor, or worse yet a phone screen, and expect anyone who understands photography to believe the image? Add PhotoShop and conversion from color to black and white and you are so far from reality that it's a joke. But, most people believe what they see on social media........
https://theintercept.com/2015/07/01/how-photography-can-destroy-reality/
HHPhoto
Well-known
4, if we count AgfaPhoto CT Precisa as amateur version of Provia 100F as well. This film is available in Germany for only 5.95€, much cheaper than Ektar and Portra.
There is also still some Provia 400X in the market, even fresh film with longer guarantee date.
And Ektachrome and Film Ferrania are scheduled for this year.
And if we increase our demand for reversal film, we will probably see more re-introductions of reversal films in the future.
No, because Provia 100F delivers excellent results also at ISO 200/24° with Push 1 processing.
And even good results at ISO 400/27° with Push 2
I am shooting film for decades, and I've never met a photographers (neither enthusiast nor pro) who has spent thousands of dollars for filters.
And if filters are really necessary (seldom) then in cases when you would also use a filter with negative film for optimal results (pol and gradual filters). Therefore no big difference.
I am shooting negative and reversal film for decades, and I very seldom need filters, definitely in less than 1%.
AgfaPhoto CT Precisa is even much cheaper here than Ektar and Portra. Velvia is only 2x here.
And with reversal film no prints or scans are needed = huge overall cost reduction.
I am shooting reversal and negative film, and my overall costs with reversal film are lower.
If you want to scan, do it.
With negative film you have to do, or you must make optical prints.
With reversal film you have more freedom: You can scan, but you don't need to.
A clear advantage.
Scanning is a quality reducing process: You are significantly loosing resolution and sharpness. Even the best drumscanners cannot exploit the full potential of the film.
Looking at scans only on a computer monitor is reducing the quality even further: 2k / 4k monitors only have 2 MP / 8MP resolution.
From a quality and cost standpoint it is the worst you can do with film, and also with digital: Spending thousands of dollars on a 24, 36, 50 MP cam and then destroying all that resolution and fineness of detail by the monitor makes no sense at all.
The quality of a picture is determined by the weakest element of the whole imaging chain, and not only by the input.
In the classic, optical imaging chains projection and optical enlargements you have a much much better performance. The loss in detail is minimal, negligible.
Cheers, Jan
HHPhoto
Well-known
1. Indie Film lab, Carmencita etc. all have a strong dependance on Kodak. Remember the Indie Film lab advertizing film, it was sponsored by Kodak. And every minute they hold Kodak films into the camera.....I know that most of these labs have very close business relationships with Kodak. Therefore they mainly advertize Kodak film. And as Kodak does not offer any E6 film, almost all there is about C41 and BW.
Since 2008 Kodak has worked against reversal film with their advertizing and wanted to destroy the reversal film market. Here in Germany they even spent their whole advertizing money on ads to influence photographers to switch from reversal to negative film.
Shame on Kodak for that photography culture destroying behaviour.
Of course, if they want success with Ektachrome in the future, they must stop that nonsense.
2. Indie, Carmencita etc. make most of their money with their expensive scans. As they don't offer optical prints, negative film users must order scans by them.
In contrast, E6 customers don't need scans, for them it is only an additional option.
Good for the E6 customers, not so good for the lab.
Therefore these labs only promote negative film, because they are making much more profit with it.
If I look at Indies and Carmencitas prices, it is insane. I pay only 1/3 here in Germany, for excellent quality. And the German labs are also much much faster with their service.
Cheers, Jan
HHPhoto
Well-known
Dave Jenkins
Loose Canon
Interesting discussion.
In the course of a long career as a documentary and commercial photographer, slide film was always my preferred medium and was also usually required by my clients. I have shot many thousands of rolls.
Medium format work was always E6, of course. In 35mm, I shot Ektachrome up until about 1980, then switched to Kodachrome 64. I loved the K64 colors, but around 1986 was seduced by Fujichrome Professional 100D, which remains my all-time favorite film. After its demise I preferred the colors of Astia/Sensia to Provia.
In addition to shooting lots of E6, I have also processed thousands of rolls, many of them in a Unicolor Film Drum with a motor base and a home-made water bath with a fish-tank heater to keep the chemicals up to temp. (Although only the first developer was temperature-critical.) Later, we had a King Concepts processor in the studio.
Almost every situation was evaluated with a Minolta incident meter, and almost every exposure was bracketed over a one and a half stop range in half-stops. Most of the time the half-stop under exposure was the selected one. I also used filters extensively, especially warming ones, to get exactly the feel of each scene on film -- something that could not be done with color negative film.
I was a very precise and careful photographer in those days, even in situations where I had to work quickly, and a much better photographer than I am now. Digital has made me sloppy. Photography was much more satisfying and fun when I shot film.
In the course of a long career as a documentary and commercial photographer, slide film was always my preferred medium and was also usually required by my clients. I have shot many thousands of rolls.
Medium format work was always E6, of course. In 35mm, I shot Ektachrome up until about 1980, then switched to Kodachrome 64. I loved the K64 colors, but around 1986 was seduced by Fujichrome Professional 100D, which remains my all-time favorite film. After its demise I preferred the colors of Astia/Sensia to Provia.
In addition to shooting lots of E6, I have also processed thousands of rolls, many of them in a Unicolor Film Drum with a motor base and a home-made water bath with a fish-tank heater to keep the chemicals up to temp. (Although only the first developer was temperature-critical.) Later, we had a King Concepts processor in the studio.
Almost every situation was evaluated with a Minolta incident meter, and almost every exposure was bracketed over a one and a half stop range in half-stops. Most of the time the half-stop under exposure was the selected one. I also used filters extensively, especially warming ones, to get exactly the feel of each scene on film -- something that could not be done with color negative film.
I was a very precise and careful photographer in those days, even in situations where I had to work quickly, and a much better photographer than I am now. Digital has made me sloppy. Photography was much more satisfying and fun when I shot film.
gnuyork
Well-known
I'll agree to this. Though I enjoying working in LightRoom very much if the files are RAW, but it's still not the same satisfaction of film work, both shooting and enlarging prints. Just when i think my Epson and Canon printers amaze me, I'll dig out some old CibaChromes (well IlfoChromes) and it just doesn't compare.
brbo
Well-known
I was talking about diversity. Precisa is the same as Provia 100F.
Not in 135. Seems there is more demand for high(er) speed films in 135 than in bigger formats (makes sense). Fuji's slide film is actually competitively priced in big(er) formats. Any idea what makes slide film cheaper in 4x5 and twice as expensive in 135 compared to negative film?
How can we increase demand for Provia 400X. By pushing Provia 100F?!
I was (and still am) ecstatic about Ektachrome. Less with the follow up interviews with Kodak people. It basically seems like all is still just in their heads with no real work done towards actually making the film yet. They said that they don't even know what basic components are still available to them and so can't really speculate on how the film will look. Perhaps a bit too much honesty from them that I can handle
On the other hand I wish we could get some feedback from Fuji. Apart from "totally committed to film" (which film? Instax?). If you look for information you can find more or less regular and more or less official statements from virtually every other film manufacturer. Except from Fuji.
Your post are the closest to any insight into Fuji's film business. It's been like "film business is profitable, demand is increasing" for years now. And when another film gets discontinued it's like "demand for this film has been too low for years". Which one is it? Technically, it can be both. Maybe if we knew which film has the most solid future we could do something about it? Lets say I can buy 100 rolls of slide film per year. Maybe 50 rolls of Velvia and 50 rolls of Provia is too low for both, Velvia and Provia, but 100 rolls of Velvia could keep at least Velvia line rolling for another year?
I'm past thinking that the greatest thing about film is diversity and that you get totally different "sensor" with every type of film (this got me into film). Now it's more about just feeding something to the cameras I have.
The fastest slide film is ISO 100. I've done many push2 rolls of Provia 100F. It is not an ISO 400 film. Period.
I recently brought two cameras with me to my friends party. It just happend that one had Precisa CT rated at 400 and the other Vision3 500T in it. I LOVE slide film, but I must admit 500T did better. Since this thread is about films being "accurate" it might be of interest:
(negative scanned and processed to match "my memory of the scene")
(IT8 calibrated scan of slide film, then (heavily) adjusted WB to make it somewhat believable - I wouldn't ask no friend to sit through a projected slide show of those slides)
Viewed at 100%, negative has less grain and better resolution. Other properties you can judge from posted downsized samples. Scanner wasn't the limiting factor with slide film.
Ok, thousands is an exaggeration. Warming, cooling, color temp., gradual filters are virtually unnecessary with negative film. True, you can mostly skip color filters even with slide film. If you scan.
Absolutely incredible.
True. But not everybody can get Precisa CT for 6 EUR (or even much lower as I can here) and I would say there are not many that can shoot it in 120.
My friends/family get much better quality when I scan the film. The difference is MASSIVE. Sometimes they can see absolutely NOTHING if I don't scan.
Let's all hope that the ban on Fuji's marketing on film (other than Instax, of course) that was imposed on them by governments and photo industry is lifted and they can also... market the film (other that Instax, of course) before it's too late.
Since I started taking pictures only recently, I wonder where have all the folks as Dave, nikonhswebmaster and Jan gone? Or how many of them were there at all back in the day? Because, obviously, digital didn't bring anything (good) to them and the negative film isn't an option. Why is slide film doing so poorly? Who is still abandoning it and why?
I don't believe in preaching "just buy slide film" to the people that are already buying slide film. I tried buying more slide film than I can shoot, it didn't work for me. Ended selling 50 rolls of Precisa CT which probably did more harm than good to me as well as Fuji.
Maybe there is a smarter and more effective way?
Dave Jenkins
Loose Canon
I don't know where nikonhswebmaster and Jan have gone, but, although I don't prefer it, I have gone digital. It's a matter of time and money.
For my most recent book, which will be released in June, I traveled more than 10,000 miles around Georgia over the course of a year and made more than 4,200 digital exposures, which equates to about 118 rolls of film.
Since the cost of my cameras and lenses was long ago amortized, those 4,200 exposures essentially cost me nothing. If I had been using film (Provia, from B&H) at $10 per roll, those exposures would have cost me $1,180. The only home processing chemistry I can find comes in one-quart kits from Arista, costs, $34.49, and is said to be good for eight rolls. That's almost $520 for processing. Not cheap, but cheaper than a lab.
So if I had processed the film myself, which I could easily have done, total cost for film and processing would have been about $1700. Probably more than that, actually, because if I had been shooting film I would have bracketed, which is not usually necessary when shooting in RAW mode.
I received a reasonably generous advance from the publisher, but that also had to cover gas, lodging, and food. Adding in film and processing costs would have stretched it a little too far.
And of course, there's also the time cost. Processing all that film takes time. Fortunately, I can edit slides on the light box, which is certainly as fast as editing on computer, but then there's also scanning time. Lots of scanning time. About 215 photos will be used in the book,and I would need to submit more than that to give the editor some choices. It all adds up.
But do I think the book would have been better if I had shot it on film? Yeah, I really do. With film, I could have used filters to render the ambiance, the feel of the light in a scene much more effectively than I have been able to do with digital photography. Maybe there's a way to do it, but I haven't figured it out yet.
So, could the book have been better? I think so, but I might be the only one to notice.
For my most recent book, which will be released in June, I traveled more than 10,000 miles around Georgia over the course of a year and made more than 4,200 digital exposures, which equates to about 118 rolls of film.
Since the cost of my cameras and lenses was long ago amortized, those 4,200 exposures essentially cost me nothing. If I had been using film (Provia, from B&H) at $10 per roll, those exposures would have cost me $1,180. The only home processing chemistry I can find comes in one-quart kits from Arista, costs, $34.49, and is said to be good for eight rolls. That's almost $520 for processing. Not cheap, but cheaper than a lab.
So if I had processed the film myself, which I could easily have done, total cost for film and processing would have been about $1700. Probably more than that, actually, because if I had been shooting film I would have bracketed, which is not usually necessary when shooting in RAW mode.
I received a reasonably generous advance from the publisher, but that also had to cover gas, lodging, and food. Adding in film and processing costs would have stretched it a little too far.
And of course, there's also the time cost. Processing all that film takes time. Fortunately, I can edit slides on the light box, which is certainly as fast as editing on computer, but then there's also scanning time. Lots of scanning time. About 215 photos will be used in the book,and I would need to submit more than that to give the editor some choices. It all adds up.
But do I think the book would have been better if I had shot it on film? Yeah, I really do. With film, I could have used filters to render the ambiance, the feel of the light in a scene much more effectively than I have been able to do with digital photography. Maybe there's a way to do it, but I haven't figured it out yet.
So, could the book have been better? I think so, but I might be the only one to notice.
Moto-Uno
Moto-Uno
I'm thoroughly enjoying this discussion . I'm a fan of E-6 with medium format and 4x5 . The light box is a joy to use , however when I get prints from E-6 , it's an occasion to celebrate if they're correct the first time . And the lab in Vancouver has been doing them for decades . Is this just my luck or have others found the same results from where they have prints done (from E-6) ? Peter
Prest_400
Multiformat
It is interesting, 120 film Fujichrome is well priced. Above CN films for a bit more but not the double. I was surprised after a couple of years when I saw the huge bump on 135 prices.Not in 135. Seems there is more demand for high(er) speed films in 135 than in bigger formats (makes sense). Fuji's slide film is actually competitively priced in big(er) formats. Any idea what makes slide film cheaper in 4x5 and twice as expensive in 135 compared to negative film?
(...)
I was (and still am) ecstatic about Ektachrome. Less with the follow up interviews with Kodak people. It basically seems like all is still just in their heads with no real work done towards actually making the film yet. They said that they don't even know what basic components are still available to them and so can't really speculate on how the film will look. Perhaps a bit too much honesty from them that I can handle
(...)
True. But not everybody can get Precisa CT for 6 EUR (or even much lower as I can here) and I would say there are not many that can shoot it in 120.
Even CT precisa I've seen around 8€.
Fuji has a patchier portfolio distribution. 160NS is not available in North America IIRC but ironically made in 220 until last year in Japan!
Acros was 4€ 2-3 years ago... Now it's in line with Kodak Ektar on pricing in some retailers. Well, there was someone from Austria (other forum I think) who could get it for 4€ a roll now, bypassing the German Distributor.
I did an archive search a while ago on B&H and a UK seller. 2009 had halved prices, 220 at current 120 prices, and interesting films gone (EPP). Well, could be worse!
There was an interview with Jeff Clarke and he said they were happy with some work that was done, implying (or so I understood) that they did some trials for E100.
And I think labs do more (effective) marketing than the film manufacturers themselves.
I am an idiot, forgot to take a 120 Provia roll and had to load Ektar instead this afternoon. :bang: E6 is beautiful on large formats though.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
I had a few rolls of 120 Kodachrome 64 in my freezer until a few years ago. That was AMAZING film. There are rumors that Kodak might be bringing back Kodachrome. Doubt 120 is in the works though.
Mackinaw
Think Different
Not really. Kodak did say they were looking at bringing back Kodachrome, but quickly back-tracked and said there were too many technical hurdles to overcome, so it won't be coming back.
Jim B.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Oh well, that's to bad.