Any people that aims to get a end result on the slide?

rayonline_nz · Feb 9, 2014

Just out of interest if anyone strives to get an image on the slide? I know that you can do the hybrid way with slides but interested if any out there that just project the slide or look at it on the lightbox etc. Getting the color temperature right and employing the filters etc. If I make prints at the lab - I just request "match slide".

Ricardo Miranda · Feb 9, 2014

I'm not sure if I got your question right: are you asking if there are photographers using slide film for projection?
If that is the question, then yes. I use slide film so I can project and enjoy a big screen.
I don't get what you are talking about colours temperature. All slide films in manufacture are daylight balanced, if that's what you want to know.
And the only filters I use are a polariser and a warm-up 81B filter.

bsdunek · Feb 9, 2014

Or are you asking about making prints from slides? There were several papers in the past that would print positives from positives. The last one that I know of was Ilford Ilfochrome, but I guess that's discontinued now. I think the only good way today is to scan the slide and print with inkjet.
Back in the day, my Dad used an Agfa product to make prints from slides. They were quite good, but now show fading.

lxdude · Feb 9, 2014

I think the OP's referring to getting it right in the camera, including any color correction. A print then only needs to match the slide as closely as possible.

ME Super · Feb 9, 2014

My son and I both shoot slides for projection. You have to get it right in camera for that. There's no opportunity to correct anything in post production if you project so it has to be right in camera.

Rick A · Feb 9, 2014

These days I don't shoot any slides, but all my personal ones are for projection onto a screen. I have also shot chromes for magazine publication, on a commission basis.

omaha · Feb 9, 2014

My one (and, really, only) great disappointment in re-discovering film last year was learning that the era of color positives seems to be largely over. Sure, I can still get out-of-production film at an almost reasonable price, but it seems that the social infrastructure to make real optical prints from that film is gone.

Too bad, really. I have a bunch of old Kodachrome positives that I really love. There is not nothing like the way the colors pop off of those on a light table.

So, for optical enlargements I shoot B&W and am (slowly but surely) learning how to get good prints in my darkroom. For color, I shoot Portra and Ektar and use a hybrid workflow. I still try to get it as close as possible in-camera.

frank · Feb 9, 2014

Cibachrome was awesome!

Mainecoonmaniac · Feb 9, 2014

I haven't done that in years. I printed on Cibachrome and the contrast is very hard to tame on the material. Besides, I don't think they make it anymore. I also made internegs on Kodak 4x5 interneg film and I got good results. I don't know if the film exist anymore. One viable option is to scan the slide and print it through Shutterfly or print in an inkjet. But I still Cibachrome is has to most beautiful color.

Chan Tran · Feb 9, 2014

I haven't photographed with slide film for a long time but I think I will start doing it from this point on. I just got my DSLR so there is not much need for color negative film any more. Projecting a slide is much better than any digital system can display right now. You can have 36MP file and more but the highest resolution display is only 8MP (for the new 4K display).

StoneNYC · Feb 9, 2014

I still shoot slide film, 35mm, 120, and 4x5.

Yes it's ALWAYS important to photograph properly and to be accurate, personally, I feel like there's a "worthyness" to shooting E-6, that you really have to be good to shoot it properly, and only the worthy can get good results (by worthy I mean someone who takes their time and exposed properly). So yes a good photographer will be accurate and careful with exposure with good results, but that's true of all images shot, or should be.

fretlessdavis · Feb 9, 2014

I don't do my own hybrid workflow for E-6 stuff. Essentially, when I get slides back, I look at them on the light box, project 35mm, sometimes load MF in my enlarger and point it at the wall. When it comes time to printing, I don't want to have to mail off slides for scanning, then get scans back for editing, just to then upload or send files for printing. I strive to get the right color balance on the slide, so all I have to do is mail out slides for printing, with the note "No corrections. Print to slide."

I've had great luck from this process. I've tried playing with color balance in my enlarger, and specifying color correction units when mailing slides, but it's not a replacement for getting it right right off the bat with filter selection, and prints will come back not quite exactly how I like them. Same thing with exposure... I strive to be dead on, and find it's easier and more economic to bracket if it's tricky than to have to send off for scans to correct myself.

I wish there were economic options for 35mm slides, as inviting everyone over for beer, pizza, and a slideshow after a nice canyoneering/climbing/backpacking trip is always a blast... Can't have whacky color balance for that!

Also, being that careful with C-41 (and B&W, too!) is very helpful. Scanning yourself, and I imagine RA4, are MUCH easier if the color balance and density are the same shot to shot.

StoneNYC · Feb 9, 2014

fretlessdavis said:
I don't do my own hybrid workflow for E-6 stuff. Essentially, when I get slides back, I look at them on the light box, project 35mm, sometimes load MF in my enlarger and point it at the wall. When it comes time to printing, I don't want to have to mail off slides for scanning, then get scans back for editing, just to then upload or send files for printing. I strive to get the right color balance on the slide, so all I have to do is mail out slides for printing, with the note "No corrections. Print to slide."

I've had great luck from this process. I've tried playing with color balance in my enlarger, and specifying color correction units when mailing slides, but it's not a replacement for getting it right right off the bat with filter selection, and prints will come back not quite exactly how I like them. Same thing with exposure... I strive to be dead on, and find it's easier and more economic to bracket if it's tricky than to have to send off for scans to correct myself.

I wish there were economic options for 35mm slides, as inviting everyone over for beer, pizza, and a slideshow after a nice canyoneering/climbing/backpacking trip is always a blast... Can't have whacky color balance for that!

Also, being that careful with C-41 (and B&W, too!) is very helpful. Scanning yourself, and I imagine RA4, are MUCH easier if the color balance and density are the same shot to shot.

Wish they made 4x5 projectors lol

fretlessdavis · Feb 9, 2014

StoneNYC said:
Wish they made 4x5 projectors lol

Stanely Kubrick wasn't happy with smaller formats for projected backdrops.... So he invented an 8x10 projector for 2001: A.S.O. that projected onto a special super reflective screen 90' wide.

I'm sure it could handle 4x5, too

Dead Link Removed

StoneNYC · Feb 9, 2014

fretlessdavis said:
Stanely Kubrick wasn't happy with smaller formats for projected backdrops.... So he invented an 8x10 projector for 2001: A.S.O. that projected onto a special super reflective screen 90' wide.

I'm sure it could handle 4x5, too

Dead Link Removed

I'll just go ask "Stan" if I can borrow it for parties....

ME Super · Feb 9, 2014

They made 8x10 projectors. We call them overhead projectors. See if you can get your hands on one of those and make yourself a4x5 mask and there you go. A 4x5 projector that can also handle 8x10!

fretlessdavis · Feb 9, 2014

ME Super said:
They made 8x10 projectors. We call them overhead projectors. See if you can get your hands on one of those and make yourself a4x5 mask and there you go. A 4x5 projector that can also handle 8x10!

That's actually a great idea... I'm sure those things are cheap these days!

EDIT: $60 with free shipping on the auction site for a refurbished school unit...

StoneNYC · Feb 9, 2014

fretlessdavis said:
That's actually a great idea... I'm sure those things are cheap these days!

EDIT: $60 with free shipping on the auction site for a refurbished school unit...

Thanks, yes that's a way to go, sorry this is semi hypothetical for me, I have no space for such GAS. But a projector works well for 4x5/8x10

fretlessdavis · Feb 9, 2014

StoneNYC said:
Thanks, yes that's a way to go, sorry this is semi hypothetical for me, I have no space for such GAS. But a projector works well for 4x5/8x10

Same. I'm always moving around, so I have to stay quite compact, and those are definitely NOT compact...

rayonline_nz · Feb 9, 2014

lxdude said:
I think the OP's referring to getting it right in the camera, including any color correction. A print then only needs to match the slide as closely as possible.

2x. Got it right .. Ie you might want to use a 81 filter, or maybe 80A in other situations or maybe a 82 if you want to enhance the cool look etc. So your final result for yourself is on the slide ... and if you make prints it's to match whatever you captured in camera instead of say the lightroom or darkroom ...

Poisson Du Jour · Feb 9, 2014

I don't think one should go to the trouble and expense of shooting transparency just to have the slides sitting on the lightbox or to project them. That's quite expensive for the end result, and given that Fuji will be increasing prices between 22 and 25% this April, one should be looking at squeezing every bit of value out of transparency film and the beauty if offers in imaging.

It is a specialised area to print from slides without too much loss of quality, but "match slide" is actually not possible in a technical sense, post-scan once colourimetrics and profiling have taken over. The gamut of slide film is not the same as RGB (and vice-versa), so post-op work strips that and recombines into an expanded matrix (sRGB or AdobeRGB) which is then further tightened up for loss at print. There is a lot to be said, a lot in getting exposure spot-on at the time of exposure, in the camera and not rely on corrections available at the post stage, which will only derange the image — essentially a compromise.This is very especially true for highlights that have blown, shadows that have blocked up or film that has casted due to expiry or improper storage or exposure. The print process is the other specialised aspect requiring a thorough understanding of colourimetrics-profiling specific to each type of emulsion and matching it to the printer — usually there is a loss of around 0.5 to 1 stop at this stage. And by and by, it is not inkjet printing but exposure to hybrid photographic paper.

When done professionally by experienced ops with input from the photographer (proofing etc.) this hybrid process is the bees knees in quality and one of the reasons Ilfochrome Classic did not stand a chance in its dying days because of the emergence and progress of hybrid materials and workflows. Sure, slides look gorgeous on a lightbox and people will crowd around to see the "living images" glow before their eyes. In a nutshell, use slide film and exploit it to the max.

fretlessdavis · Feb 9, 2014

I would argue against the economy aspect. Slides can be displayed as slides. Negatives cannot. For B&W work, a roll of 120 developed, and 5" prints made from it will cost almost the same in the long run. Without those prints, there is nothing to display.

Also, a lot of those issues that you mentioned above, with careful filter selection and exposure won't happen. Blocked shadows, blown highlights, and casts of film won't be there if you're careful.

I also get your point about sRGB not being similar to the gamut of slides, but a good printer when told "print to slide" will get DAMN close.

Poisson Du Jour · Feb 9, 2014

fretlessdavis said:
I would argue against the economy aspect. Slides can be displayed as slides. Negatives cannot. For B&W work, a roll of 120 developed, and 5" prints made from it will cost almost the same in the long run. Without those prints, there is nothing to display.

Also, a lot of those issues that you mentioned above, with careful filter selection and exposure won't happen. Blocked shadows, blown highlights, and casts of film won't be there if you're careful.

I also get your point about sRGB not being similar to the gamut of slides, but a good printer when told "print to slide" will get DAMN close.

Sometimes though the problems endemic to transparency are taken into account yet can still and do happen, even with careful exposure based on experience. Changing light is one of the biggest traps for photographers, especially hand-held metering. In-camera meters will track changing light during exposure (e.g. evaluative/matrix/multipattern or whatever). This all comes back to bracketing in those situations where some doubt or uncertainty exists. It's good insurance. Oh, you can always go back, too.

Lots of tricks are employed to bring a print to life from transparency; metallic media provides a beautiful, radiant glow to highlights under spot illumination while cotton / rag art media emphasises subtle colours and textures. In the end though, the print will be an entirely different and individual beast to the transparency it came from (just like a wet darkroom print from a negative), and if it's done right, you'll be darned happy with the result.

Alan Klein · Feb 10, 2014

I shoot Velvia 50 in 120 mf 6x7mm landscapes. I scan and print at home with a flat bed and print small size 8 1/2" x11". What print process, paper, etc would you recommend for large prints let's say 16x20" and larger? Thanks. Alan.
Edit: in outside lab.

StoneNYC · Feb 10, 2014

Alan Klein said:
I shoot Velvia 50 in 120 mf 6x7mm landscapes. I scan and print at home with a flat bed and print small size 8 1/2" x11". What print process, paper, etc would you recommend for large prints let's say 16x20" and larger? Thanks. Alan.
Edit: in outside lab.

I use Dwayne's Photo for printing my scanned slides because they use light-jet style printing on RA-4 paper essentially a digital projector and chemical print, the results are generally excellent. I've had one mess up and they went above and beyond to fix it (re-did an 11x14 print 6 times for me).

I prefer slides on metallic paper, but the normal paper they use, whatever it is, is also good. It's all kodak for sure.

Any people that aims to get a end result on the slide?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency