Slide Film more accurate?

[Kamph]

Honestly I think being able to project slide film is a moot point these days. People tend to show their pictures online or on a monitor. I hardly know anyone who projects their slides anymore.
On most scanners slide film suffers compared to negatives due to the low Dmax of most consumer (and indeed even professional) scanners.

You act like slide film is superior to negative film, however, I just don't see that being the case. You simply don't have the versatility you do with negatives. Try over- or underexpose slides and get a useable result. I own a drum scanner and no you can't pull the same detail out of an underexposed slide as you can on an overexposed negative. With Portra 400 I can simply expose for the shadows with my spotmeter and know that the exposure will be totally fine with plenty detail in both shadows and highlights - and that without filters. I think many think less of negatives mainly because they don't have a good color inversion proces.

 

[HHPhoto]

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.

.....

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.

Dave, you have enjoyed reversal film so much and say you've been a better photographer back then.
Why not again use 10-20 (or more, if you like) reversal films a year for your own pleasure (as an photo enthusiast, not as an professional).

It has been a joy for you in the past. It can be the same for you today!

Cheers, Jan

 

[HHPhoto]

How can we increase demand for Provia 400X. By pushing Provia 100F?!

Yes, exactly. Provia 100F is excellent at ISO 200/24°, and still good at 400/27°.
So we can at least compensate Provia 400X demand a bit.
That in a first step leads to an increasing demand for Provia 100F.
And when the market further stabilises and increases again, that could be the signal for Fuji to re-intruduce Provia 400X.

That is the way E6 started: First with ISO 50, 64, 100 films. Then the demand increased and later higher speed films were introduced, too.

And it is the same with Ektachrome: If the demand for 135 is increasing, they will also offer 120 later.

Result: The more Provia 100F and Velvias we are shooting, the higher the likeliness that more options like Provia 400X, Astia 100F, Ektachrome options will come back to the market.
The demand is the essential factor.

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.

That is right. PR and marketing for their conventional films is indeed their weakness. But it looks things are slightly improving there. They just recently started activities on Instagram.

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?

Provia and Velvia are outstanding films, unsurpassed in its classes. Shooting both is the best we can do.
I am shooting Provia 100F as my allround material, and Velvia 50 in the situations I need / want higher saturation. I take Velvia 100 when I need more speed than Velvia 50.
But as Velvia 50 and Velvia 100 are indeed different in colours and contrast, I generally prefer Velvia 50 and I am shooting it more compared to Velvia 100.

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).

I agree. That you always can change the "sensor" with film immediately is a really big advantage with film. Not only in the past, but also today.

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.

I show my slides to family and friends on a light box and / or in projection.
So they get by far the best quality, and they enjoy it.
And I can avoid the time consuming (and quality decreasing) scanning process.

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?

The reasons are the following:
1. Reversal film has had a huge demand basis in professional photography. The professional photo market is 98-99% digital now.
2. Enthusiasts: Reversal film is a high(est) quality medium.
But the enthusiast market today is mainly a low to medium quality market, both in digital and film.
Because most users just view their results only on quality reducing 2k / 4k monitors.
The high resolution of 24, 36, 50 MP cameras is destroyed by the lowest quality element in the imaging chain, the computer monitor with its extrenmely low resolution of 2 - 8 MP, and its inability to show real half tones because of the discrete LCD structure.
The same is valid for the scanned films viewed only on monitors.

The whole marketing is focussed on that lowest quality viewing medium. Also again both digital and film.
All the film bloggers (= influencers, lots of them are sponsored), youtubers, Lomography, Kodak, the Kodak dependant marketing labs like Indie etc. also all promote this lowest quality imaging chain with film.
Countless articles on these blogs about cheap film scanners (flatbed) and scanning film for only monitor use.
Just one example for that nonsense:
First they get crazy about "the medium format quality", then they recommend buying a cheap flatbed scanner to scan medium format and view it on a monitor.
With the flatbed scanner you destroy the medium format quality completely (resolution loss of up to 80%, severe dynamic range and colour range loss), the monitor adds further limitations.
A 35mm negative / slide printed optically siginificantly surpass a MF flatbed scan in quality.
Same is valid for a 35mm slide on a light box with loupe, and of course in projection, too.

Most of the current film bloggers, youtubers are (very) young people with very little photographic knowledge. And lots of them are socialised by Lomography.
So the stupid Lomo marketing brainwash is still quite prominent in their minds.
How much of these young bloggers, youtubers have ever seen a slide on a light box with one of the outstanding Schneider or Rodenstock loupes?
None.
How much of these young bloggers, youtubers have ever seen a slide projection with one of the outstanding Leica or Rollei slide projectors with the unsurpassed Leica Super-Colorplan or Rollei AV-Apogon or Schneider AV-Xenotar lenses?
None.
How much of these young bloggers, youtubers have ever made an optical print by enlarging with an APO-Rodagon or APO- Componon lens?
None.

So these guys want to tell you something about quality, but they have never seen and never used by themselves the best quality tools and imaging chains.
Therefore they don't know what they are talking about.

And lots of these bloggers, youtubers have either never used reversal film at all, or only 1-2 films.
Instead they are telling their audience stupid comments and prejudices about slide film.
There has been a lot of reversal film bashing by these sources.
Unfortunately thousands of young film beginners follow these "hip" bloggers and just avoid to try reversal film by themselves.

I don't believe in preaching "just buy slide film" to the people that are already buying slide film.

The user base must get wider. More young film photographers should try reversal film.
Therefore this counterproductive slide film bashing of the last years must stop.
Film choice is not a "either - or".
Variety is great.
Shooting negative and reversal film is about getting the optimum joy from film!

Cheers, Jan

 

[HHPhoto]

Honestly I think being able to project slide film is a moot point these days. People tend to show their pictures online or on a monitor. I hardly know anyone who projects their slides anymore.

It is not a moot point at all.
Here in Germany e.g. slide projection is very popular: Because it offers the by far best picture quality at big enlargements, a wonderful "cinema feeling", and all that at negligible costs.
Highest quality at lowest costs.
No other medium can offer that!

On most scanners slide film suffers compared to negatives due to the low Dmax of most consumer (and indeed even professional) scanners.

The latest Reflecta scanners (10T , RPS 10 M) are much improved in this regard.
And as all scanners (with the exception of drum scanners) are increasing grain by scanner noise, you get better results with reversal film because of its finer grain.
And with a slide you always have the original as reference. You know how the scan has to look. That is impossible with colour negative film.

You simply don't have the versatility you do with negatives.

Wrong, look at the post above from member Skiff. You have more versatility and flexibility in usage with reversal film compared to negative film.

Try over- or underexpose slides and get a useable result.

Well, lots of photographers even prefer 1/3 to 1/2 stop underexposed slides to correct exposed slides for the special look they have.
1/3 to 1/2 stop overexposure of Provia: No problem at all.

But generally: Why should I under- or overexpose my shots, no matter whether negative, reversal film or digital.
Correct exposures gives me generally the optimal quality concerning all quality parameters.
And correct exposure is very easy.

Today in forums some people behave as if correct exposure would need an IQ of 140 and a PhD........😕

Cheers, Jan

 

[Prest_400]

Jan, this post has some excellent points. I don't completely agree in some particularities but you do say quite a few good insights. And what a broadside!

Because most users just view their results only on quality reducing 2k / 4k monitors.
The high resolution of 24, 36, 50 MP cameras is destroyed by the lowest quality element in the imaging chain, the computer monitor with its extrenmely low resolution of 2 - 8 MP, and its inability to show real half tones because of the discrete LCD structure.

Yes... A print shows a lot more, and a slide has a certain fractal and infinite depth to it. I just sent out a batch of film including a bit of Provia, which in 6x9 is just brutal.

The whole marketing is focussed on that lowest quality viewing medium. Also again both digital and film.
All the film bloggers (= influencers, lots of them are sponsored), youtubers, Lomography, Kodak, the Kodak dependant marketing labs like Indie etc. also all promote this lowest quality imaging chain with film.
Countless articles on these blogs about cheap film scanners (flatbed) and scanning film for only monitor use.

Just one example for that nonsense:
First they get crazy about "the medium format quality", then they recommend buying a cheap flatbed scanner to scan medium format and view it on a monitor.

This does frustrate me. I have a V550. It is too little too late (low res and slow) for 35mm and 6x9 does give good results... But, but it does throw details off. Real resolution around the 15MP mark. OK, does give a file to be used, and it can be printed to 30x45 with fair detail.

Not even some dedicated scanners are free of artifacts. I was surprised by the grain aliasing of a Noritsu HS1800 on the large JPEGs of a 6x9 Portra 400 frame. Then consumer oriented scanners (Plustek 120) aren't cheap.

For my uses, yes a 2400x3600 px file may be fine... But it is rather frustrating knowing how much more is in the neg/slide that was not taken in the digitalisation process.

This is why I am looking forward to quejai's scanner project, although I may not be an early adopter.

On the other hand, some of the film goodness (tonality, colour) is seen and characteristic even on diminutive instagram posts. It is great at hiding grain however! 😀 I did have a surprise about grain after a hiatus off 35mm.

Most of the current film bloggers, youtubers are (very) young people with very little photographic knowledge. And lots of them are socialised by Lomography.
So the stupid Lomo marketing brainwash is still quite prominent in their minds.
How much of these young bloggers, youtubers have ever seen a slide on a light box with one of the outstanding Schneider or Rodenstock loupes?
None.
How much of these young bloggers, youtubers have ever seen a slide projection with one of the outstanding Leica or Rollei slide projectors with the unsurpassed Leica Super-Colorplan or Rollei AV-Apogon or Schneider AV-Xenotar lenses?
None.
How much of these young bloggers, youtubers have ever made an optical print by enlarging with an APO-Rodagon or APO- Componon lens?
None.

Broadside!

I do see the bloggers (we may not think of the same ones) as genuinely interested, but it is hard to pass up accurate information,and it can get drenched by other factors. I don't think they have that much into Lomo nowadays, which is more of a LoFi-free-crazy shoot movement. Rather, there is a good basis for the film qualities although not the best promotion. Just realised, I wrote as you meant.

So these guys want to tell you something about quality, but they have never seen and never used by themselves the best quality tools and imaging chains.
Therefore they don't know what they are talking about.

And lots of these bloggers, youtubers have either never used reversal film at all, or only 1-2 films.
Instead they are telling their audience stupid comments and prejudices about slide film.
(...)
Film choice is not a "either - or".
Variety is great.

Shooting negative and reversal film is about getting the optimum joy from film!

I am not a mainly Chrome photographer but I did grow on it. Learned on the last year of Kodachrome so it was tackle or leave it, good experience to learn.

Sometimes I do have "latitude induced terror", and veer towards using Portra instead because of its ability to take contrasty scenes and tonality. Just got me a small incident meter to use it properly and that makes shooting chrome easier.
It is not hard to shoot good Slide film... More demanding, and requires care for optimally superb results. But there is a lot of terror around the idea of them.

There was a post by a lab made on Velvia and I commented elated about that. Finally there is some E6 shown! Amidst the Pastel portra shots, some Slide results are nice to see.

Of course if the trend is to expose 400 C41 at 100 and just let things fall around... (guilty as pleaded to self too)

Some cameras/systems are so cheap one can keep them loaded with each type of film. Or instead of some GAS, as cheap as it may be, use the money for film instead.
(No, not convicing myself to get another Nikon body, I am spending that on development)

 

[brbo]

Repeating same thing year after year...


Definition of stupidity, doing the thing the same way and expecting different results.

- sell a roll of film with Instax
- bundle Instax packs together with disposable cameras
- load disposables with slide film if you want to put your money where your "latitude and metering is not a problem" mouth is
- work with scanner manufacturers and print calibration info into the rebate, help create a "raw" standard for scanned film, help create inversion routines and finishing touches so the scans from Plusteks, Reflectas and Epsons (or even scans from digitals) look as f*cking fabulous as Pakons/Frontiers/Noritsus (Fuji and Kodak know how to do this)
- market the "intangibles" and "feel" of the film, if film emulation software companies can ride on this, so can film manufacturers
- showcase whan mind blowing detail you can get even from 120 film, digital scanning and stitching
- etc.


Cause, sorry, nobody in their right mind will buy a 120 projector, quality screen and build a theatre room when they realize that their new Sony RX100 Mk69 doesn't shoot prettier pictures than Mk56.

 

[nikonhswebmaster]

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.

I left film, when I no longer had representation, and left analog, for online digital, professionally. I took a vacation from still photography from about 95 to 2005. I have never shown any digital work, other than on the web. I have owned a dozen Japanese digital cameras, about 1/2 gifts from clients, never liked any of them much, they seem ridiculously complicated, harder to program than a VCR.

I really like my iPhone. 🙂

 

[Kamph]

The latest Reflecta scanners (10T , RPS 10 M) are much improved in this regard.

Improved yes, but still not great.

And as all scanners (with the exception of drum scanners) are increasing grain by scanner noise, you get better results with reversal film because of its finer grain.

Grain aliasing is indeed a problem when scanning negatives on most CCD scanners, however, so is "pepper grain" when scanning slides.

And with a slide you always have the original as reference. You know how the scan has to look. That is impossible with colour negative film.

Yes, consistency is definitely easier with slide film if you have a good scanner and good profiles for it as well.

Wrong, look at the post above from member Skiff. You have more versatility and flexibility in usage with reversal film compared to negative film.

I'm not wrong. The points made by Skiff have nothing to do with the shooting process itself but what you can do with the medium after the shooting process - totally different.

Well, lots of photographers even prefer 1/3 to 1/2 stop underexposed slides to correct exposed slides for the special look they have.
1/3 to 1/2 stop overexposure of Provia: No problem at all.

But a 1/3 - 1/2 stop margin is nothing in comparison to negative film.

But generally: Why should I under- or overexpose my shots, no matter whether negative, reversal film or digital.

You shouldn't, however, in hectic shooting situations you don't always have the time to dial in exposure compensation. Besides noone is perfect, sometimes you forget to take the reflectivity of a certain object into acount leading to over- or underexposure - we are simply human after all. Negatives leaves a much larger margin for error.

 

[HHPhoto]

Improved yes, but still not great.

The improvements are really significant. Reflecta 10 T and RPS 10 M are now even a bit better compared to the former Nikon Coolscan V.
I expect the next generation to be further improved.
But I would really appreciate that Nikon wakes up and makes a new scanner generation. I am convinced Nikon can do even much better than Pacific Image / Reflecta.

Grain aliasing is indeed a problem when scanning negatives on most CCD scanners, however, so is "pepper grain" when scanning slides.

I've never had "pepper grain" with my Fuji films and any of the scanners I've used.

But a 1/3 - 1/2 stop margin is nothing in comparison to negative film.

That is not the relevant point: The margin is more than sufficient to get perfectly exposed results. More is simply not needed. For decades now we have excellent, sophisticated internal light meter options: Spot metering, center-weigthed and matrix metering. In most cameras you even have all three metering methods! That is more than enough to get the correct exposure.
Excellent cameras with all these three metering options are available on the used market for ridiculously low prices: Nikon F80, F90X, Canon EOS 33V just to name three of lots of others can be bought for less than 40 bucks. That is next to nothing!

And if you are using a camera without internal light meter like a Hasselblad 500 series, than you are working with a hand-held light meter. And getting correct exposure this way is very easy, too.

You shouldn't, however, in hectic shooting situations you don't always have the time to dial in exposure compensation. Besides noone is perfect, sometimes you forget to take the reflectivity of a certain object into acount leading to over- or underexposure - we are simply human after all. Negatives leaves a much larger margin for error.

I hectic shooting situations I just use the matrix metering in my cameras: It is perfect in 99% of all shooting situations. And in the remaining 1% it is only off by max. 1/2 to 2/3 stop from perfect exposure. Which gives me still good to usable results with my preferred reversal films.

Cheers, Jan

 

[Dave Jenkins]

Dave, you have enjoyed reversal film so much and say you've been a better photographer back then.
Why not again use 10-20 (or more, if you like) reversal films a year for your own pleasure (as an photo enthusiast, not as an professional).

It has been a joy for you in the past. It can be the same for you today!

Cheers, Jan

Thanks, Jan. You're right, of course. I need to send my Autocord for a CLA to cure its sticky shutter.

Getting back to the accuracy of transparency film: I loved it because I knew I could get exactly what I wanted on the film. Here's an example I wanted to post a few days ago but had to wait until I had time to do some scanning.

The scene attached was a barn in Kentucky that I photographed for my book Rock City Barns: A Passing Era. The first photo is an accurate rendition of the scene, however a #85 warming filter was needed to convey the feel of early morning light in the second photo.

I suppose this could be done in Photoshop, however none of my attempts so far have been satisfactory. I like slide film because I can get the look I want on the film, at the scene. (Of course, I do a fair amount of bracketing!)

 

[Contarama]

Today in forums some people behave as if correct exposure would need an IQ of 140 and a PhD........😕

That is one of the coolest statements I've read on a forum in a long time...so very true...I would say many rather than some however. Perhaps even a majority. Makes one wonder if they really know anything at all period.

 

[HHPhoto]

I like slide film because I can get the look I want on the film, at the scene.

Dave, I can absolutely understand that.
It is also one of the numerous reasons why I like reversal film.

Cheers, Jan

 

[HHPhoto]

That is one of the coolest statements I've read on a forum in a long time...so very true...I would say many rather than some however.

🙂

Thanks, but I have to admit it is originally not from me, but from an excellent German photography expert, author and workshop instructor.
I first heard it from him in one of his workshops, and later in a discussion in a German forum. I had to laugh the first time I heard it, and think it is exactly spot on.

Cheers, Jan