Slightly OT: What do you do w your 6x6 slides?

[Pherdinand]

I just have shot a roll of slide film out in the downtown (Fiesta del Sol!) thanks to some trade with RFF members🙂 Never considered shooting slides seriously, but now i thought i can try. And i did it in 120-format! And, if i didn't goof up something, i expect 1-2 reasonable shots.

But, i have no idea what I am supposed to do with them.
Do you mount them?
Do you mount them in gmounts with glass windows?
How do you view them, all of you slide shooters have a projector?
Or just scan them?
If i don't mount them, will they soon become dirty, scratched and unusable?

Oh boy what did I get into?🙄 😀

 

[Iskra 2]

Oh boy what did I get into?🙄 😀

You have entered heaven Pherdinand. 🙂 :angel:

After viewing on a light table I scan and print the ones I like. Then I keep them just like negatives.

Someday someone will get rid of an MF projector for a good price and then I'll be able to really enjoy them. 🙂 There is no film viewing process better than optically projected slides. IMHO :angel:

 

[sf]

slides in 120

slides in 120

I care for slides just as I care for negatives. I keep them all in archival pages in a notebook tucked away in a special storage container. Only reason to mount slides is if you decide to project them. I scan mine. Or I have them printed at Chrom'n'R in Los Angeles, the last remaining type-R printer I know of on the west coast.

 

[T_om]

I keep all my 6x6 chromes in glassine envelopes. None were mounted, all were scanned. I have been going back through them over the last few years and re-scanning and placing them all in Adorama poly sleeves in a 3 ring binder.

Tom

 

[Little Prince]

I haven't arrived at a conclusion on procedure. This is a very confusing matter to deal with, but so far I've been projecting my slides. 35mm is a breeze. The lab mounts it in nice plastic mounts and I can project from a Kodak. They are available quite cheap with any number of lenses of different lengths.

120 is serious stuff though. I don't have a light box and I was attracted to the idea of projecting 120 after doing that with 35mm. I am using an MF projector right now, but it's just not that easy. First, since my set up is at home and I don't live in a mansion, projection distance is small. This means I need a wide lens to get the same size image as from 35mm. Such lenses are pretty much unavailable and even if you find one, it will cost a fortune. I use a regular 150mm lens. Not a very large image.

Mounting is done by self. So far I've been using cardboard self-sealing mounts. They are quite flimsy and clearly not meant for projection. But they are the only cheap option I know of. Metal mounts quickly get costly. Save them for your best shots. I'm seriously considering a light box, to save on costs. Just get it from the lab and look at it on the table.

You can always store them in those plastic pages (print-file etc). I haven't seen any scratches from doing this, but then I have never scanned anything either.

Let us know how it goes.

 

[Little Prince]

Oh, I forgot to mention that the cardboard mounts I use are only for 6x4.5. The mounts for 6x6 from the same source as for some strange reason too large to fit in the slide tray.

 

[Bob Michaels]

I edit them on a light box, scan the ones I really like and print them on an Epson.

 

[Todd.Hanz]

Mine come in a plastic sleeve, uncut on the roll. I scan what I want and either re-roll them or cut them and put them in one of those clear "archival" notebook sheets for storage.

Todd

 

[Doug]

Wow, I'm surprised so many respondents don't mount MF slides; just scan 'em and put 'em away like negative strips. Years ago I normally shot Ektachrome in my Pentax 6x7, and I cannot now fathom WHY I chose transparency film. Some have been printed commercially, before digital scanning was so widespread. Never had any intent to project them, and none were ever mounted. Then a couple years ago when I bought a used Fuji GA645 the seller threw in some rolls of 120 Ektachrome. Hate to waste film, so I've shot a couple rolls and had them scanned by the lab and have treated them just as I do negative film. Despite the ease of seeing the slide results positively, so to speak, I prefer to shoot negative film for the wider range of tones captured. This offers more flexibility in post-processing, and I can look over the lab scans to see what I have.

 

[Pherdinand]

Hmm, so far there was no answer that would help convincing me to shoot more slides.
Thanks all, anyway!

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Mine come in a plastic sleeve, uncut on the roll. I scan what I want and either re-roll them or cut them and put them in one of those clear "archival" notebook sheets for storage.

Ditto. The ones I really love I mount myself and keep in a box, but perhaps I should rethink that.

 

[Doug]

One consequence of mounting transparencies is the loss of access to the edges of the image. In most cases these edges weren't seen in the viewfinder anyway, but they're useful at times.

As I recall in the past, transparencies were said to have less grain and better sharpness than color negative materials. For this and probably other reasons, transparencies were regared as the higher quality more professional medium, and color neg was for family snapshots and box cameras. 🙂

It's obvious that negative films have improved dramatically in recent decades, perhaps moreso than slide film...

 

[Little Prince]

I don't know. When you get the slide flat in the mount and have a good shot, it does look amazing. No look you get on any print. Be it sharpness or grain or anything. The only worry is having to deal with a reduced contrast range. It's too easy to end up with bad pictures.

 

[thpook]

Part of the reason slides became the pro photogs medium of choice was just plain time. When you think of some of the NatGeo photogs that usually shot approximately 500 rolls on assignment, it makes sense that the editor would want to be able to sort them quickly. Throw the slides on a light box, make a mark on the mount for "Yes" "possibly" "no" and you can go through 18000 slides in a couple of days.

Another reason was archival quality. Kodachrome is probably still the best archival film.

I shoot slide film when I shoot color, mostly because I don't like thinking "Oh, I can fudge exposure a little, it's print film it'll turn out ok." Slide film is incredibly unforgiving, and shows you your failures immediately. They are much harder to see with negative film. I also find that negative film is a pain in the butt to scan.

I have had an idea for some of my best 6x6 chromes, though. I think I'm going to make a backlit frame that I can mount on my wall, and probably have 4/9 slides mounted on what will essentially be a wall mounted, glass covered light box. If I do it right, it should look fantastic.

 

[Pherdinand]

Maybe you can put a cheap 3x Fresnel lens in front of them, thp. 🙂

I see your point with the fast editing.

 

[jaapv]

Just buy a used 6x6 projector (for next to nothing nowadays) find the nearest white wall and be prepared for a jaw-dropping experience 🙂

 

[dreilly]

Actually, I find that medium format projectors aren't all that cheap--unless you find a seller on the big auction monster that doesn't know what they have. That's what I got, a sleak 1960s dual-format thingy...you load one slide at a time, but it is an awe-dropping experience.

 

[jaapv]

My trick is to look through the unsellable stuff in 2ndhand camera-shops. It yielded me a as-new Braun 6x6 with three magazines for 50 Euro.....

 

[Pherdinand]

What's that, "unsellable stuff" and where can I find it?😀
The camera shops I know carry secondhand items at a very high price, sometimes 50-80% more than the e-bay, marktplaats etc. prices.

 

[Little Prince]

Same here. Secondhand stuff from camera shops I can find are really overpriced (compared to the going market rates).