Color slide film - popularity?

[rayonline_nz]

I was looking on Instagram. Ok maybe some don't use that platform for serious photography but Instagram and Facebook (groups) captures a lot of users esp those who wants to take up film photography for fun and enjoyment and seek advice from others and share images.

On Instagram searching the trix400 there were over 280,000 images. #colorslidefilm only had 2,000. With Facebook groups there are groups just on film photography, most of the images are BW film or some color neg, quite seldom are color slides. I get the updates and I enjoy seeing them but sometimes the same photographer uploads his/her color slide image.

Views? Is it really the case that analogue photography is really BW and more affordable. Then perhaps a bit of color neg film. The BW film images were a bit more seriously shot to me, half body portraiture and head shots and street photographs. Color neg were more urban shots and portraiture also given films like Kodak Portra and Fuji Pro 400H. With slides I woulda thought there be a bit of landscapes but none really, I woulda thought surely people would had shot slides on a family summer vacation holiday or just their local beach or fishing wharf ...


Cheers.

 

[MattKing]

Don't forget to check transparency film and E6 - a lot of people who are new to film may never have seen a mounted or projected slide. And don't forget to search on "colour" as well as "color".
Colour transparency film is a niche within a niche. It may be that a lot of the people who use it are like me - I do not participate on social media, other than here and some old flickr uploads.

 

[mshchem]

Try Kodachrome, I know it's been gone for 10 years but there's billions of old treasures out there.
I went out today with a F5 loaded with Provia F . I don't know anything about Instagram other than how very popular it's become.

 

[138S]

In Flickr...

Velvia returns 400k results https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=velvia
Provia 288k https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=velvia
Sensia 100k https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=velvia
Kodachrome 300K https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=KODACHROME
Ektachrome 200k https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=ektachrome

 

[rayonline_nz]

Try Kodachrome, I know it's been gone for 10 years but there's billions of old treasures out there.
I went out today with a F5 loaded with Provia F . I don't know anything about Instagram other than how very popular it's become.

Yes Instagram list 100,000 images with #kodachrome. So there are all these older images on Instagram ... that people have uploaded onto it but there doesn't appear to have much slide film in the more modern times. Well ok ... now just #Velvia shows 144,000 and #Provia just 53,000. Perhaps Provia is a bit too expected. 4,000 E100G.

 

[pentaxuser]

I wonder what the sales figures for Kodak's re-entry into slide film shows? Has it repaid the investment and if not over what kind of timescale will it repay the investment? On a projector and screen a 35mm slide is great but such projectors that are needed are now quite old and are no longer produced. Can a slide show apart from its novelty value ever really complete with the ability to show pictures on what are now very large TV screens via a digital platform?

Maybe Henning, unless he is prevented by one of his NDAs, can tell us something about Kodak slide film sales and how these are progressing in terms of a return on Kodak's investment.

Alas I strongly suspect that Henning will be prevented from saying anything useful but I live in hope

pentaxuser

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I wonder what the sales figures for Kodak's re-entry into slide film shows? Has it repaid the investment and if not over what kind of timescale will it repay the investment? On a projector and screen a 35mm slide is great but such projectors that are needed are now quite old and are no longer produced. Can a slide show apart from its novelty value ever really complete with the ability to show pictures on what are now very large TV screens via a digital platform?

Maybe Henning, unless he is prevented by one of his NDAs, can tell us something about Kodak slide film sales and how these are progressing in terms of a return on Kodak's investment.

Alas I strongly suspect that Henning will be prevented from saying anything useful but I live in hope

pentaxuser

I've scanned all my slides and stopped using my projector. Well, it broke anyway. Scans were edited and converted into video slide shows for playback using DVD's. Now with my 4K 75" UHDTV, I create 4K slide shows that I keep on memory cards attached to the TV's USB jack for playback in 4K UHD. I add music and credits and the show is easier to start and the viewers don;t get headaches as often and declare they have to go home early.

Here''s an early conversion scan example of 35 year old Ektachromes but done in 1080HD.

 

[rayonline_nz]

I've scanned all my slides and stopped using my projector. Well, it broke anyway. Scans were edited and converted into video slide shows for playback using DVD's. Now with my 4K 75" UHDTV, I create 4K slide shows that I keep on memory cards attached to the TV's USB jack for playback in 4K UHD. I add music and credits and the show is easier to start and the viewers don;t get headaches as often and declare they have to go home early.

Here''s an early conversion scan example of 35 year old Ektachromes but done in 1080HD.

I kinda agree but I guess the USA has a larger population so going by even the same % of interest you guys have more people who are into this niche thing. Over here in NZ, I got my projector for free and yes I think it's the hassle of analogue projectors. To share film images you need to digitise them one way or another and then sharing it at one location with some invitees it would be easier to juts plug a USB stick onto the TV.

OK for short clips etc .. I think like in the older days and also now with modern stuff, long slideshows will bore people even those at my camera club. If we do have them we tend to keep them with invited guest speakers or professional photographers. We don't do much in terms of the club member's own work. if we do it is a 10min session from a couple of different people.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I kinda agree but I guess the USA has a larger population so going by even the same % of interest you guys have more people who are into this niche thing. Over here in NZ, I got my projector for free and yes I think it's the hassle of analogue projectors. To share film images you need to digitise them one way or another and then sharing it at one location with some invitees it would be easier to juts plug a USB stick onto the TV.

OK for short clips etc .. I think like in the older days and also now with modern stuff, long slideshows will bore people even those at my camera club. If we do have them we tend to keep them with invited guest speakers or professional photographers. We don't do much in terms of the club member's own work. if we do it is a 10min session from a couple of different people.

My longer slide shows of up to 30 minutes shown on the TV (mainly digital photos to begin with from vacations) are to bore my family only although I have had friends over who saw them and said they were great. No I didn't pay them off to say that. But then again, they probably were lying.

Our photo club has "experts" over from time to time to teach us stuff. We had one guy who was into flower stills. So he showed us about 90 of them one night over about 80 minutes explaining each and every camera setup mostly the same from flower to flower, explaining their stamens, petals, and sexual habits of these floras. Everything you could care less about. By the end, all us viewers wanted to shove the guys DVD up his you know what and send him packing. Now tell the truth. How many minutes of the 5 minute video I posted did you actually watch? It's OK. You can tell me. I understand.

 

[rayonline_nz]

Now tell the truth. How many minutes of the 5 minute video I posted did you actually watch? It's OK. You can tell me. I understand.

Rolling on floor laughing. I haven't even clicked onto your video link !! Now that you say it I will later watch it.


Edit - now on this tangent. I sorta witnessed for me and think the more sought after film cameras and reflected in their hyped prices are ILC that is more portable like the Mamiya 6 and 7's, the Hasselblad XPAN. Just that they are easier to carry and use. Then some other non ILC afaik like the Makina 67's and the odd stupidly hyped like the Contax T2 etc ... Comparing to Hasselblad 500's while not the cheapest, their prices have dropped quite a bit since 2009 and obviously when they were brand new in the shop.

 

[abruzzi]

Is it really the case that analogue photography is really BW and more affordable. Then perhaps a bit of color neg film.

As I understand from others here, sales of color negative film are far greater than B&W film. Slide film I'm sure is lower, partly due to cost, and maybe partly due to difficulty (limited dynamic range...)

 

[AgX]

On a projector and screen a 35mm slide is great but such projectors that are needed are now quite old and are no longer produced.

But used 35mm projectors are ubiquous. At least overhere, where I get one anytime for less than 5€.

 

[Henning Serger]

Maybe Henning, unless he is prevented by one of his NDAs, can tell us something about Kodak slide film sales and how these are progressing in terms of a return on Kodak's investment.
Alas I strongly suspect that Henning will be prevented from saying anything useful but I live in hope
pentaxuser

No, I am not .
Ektachrome is a huge success for Kodak. Sales have been more than double (!) higher as expected.
That is why Kodak so fast added 120 and sheet film to the initial 35mm photo and movie film offers.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[markbau]

I don't understand in this day and age why slide film would even be on anyone's radar. Unless you are projecting it, (or using it for some alt-process) slide film is nowhere near as versatile as neg film. Anyone who has done much scanning will know that neg film is a joy to scan compared to slide film. I could never understand why the publishing industry used slide film but was glad to hear that Annie Leibovitz dragged the magazines she was working for, kicking and screaming, away from slide film and forced them to use her colour negs. You have to be much more accurate with exposure with slide film and shadows turn black all too easily. Yes, a well lit, well-exposed slide can produce a great scan but give me a well lit, well-exposed neg to scan any day. So, what are people doing with slides these days?

 

[perkeleellinen]

I lived overseas for a year and had no access to a darkroom. I shot slides because I could easily see what I was shooting over the year by holding them up to the light. When I got home I started scanning them, got sick of sitting in front of a laptop and bought a projector! I did find scanning slides easier than negs cause I had an original that acted as a gauge.

 

[cjbecker]

35mm slide film is the only color I shoot, solely to project, and look at on the light table. Use it to document our lives. BW is used to print in the darkroom and less important snapshots that I want to record on a contact sheet.

I don't do any scanning (the wife would like me too tho)

 

[Henning Serger]

I don't understand in this day and age why slide film would even be on anyone's radar. Unless you are projecting it, (or using it for some alt-process) slide film is nowhere near as versatile as neg film.

It is just the opposite: Reversal film is by far the most versatile film type and much more versatile than negative film.
Because
- reversal film is already finished with perfect results after developing, no further steps needed to enjoy the picture
- you can hold it just to the light to enjoy them
- you can put them in a slide viewer to enjoy them
- you can put them on a light table using an excellent slide loupe to enjoy them in perfect quality
- you can project them to enjoy the unsurpassed quality with huge enlargements
- you can scan them and viewing the results on a computer monitor
- you can scan them and making prints on RA-4 silver-halide paper (which often gives even better results compared to CN film because of the better detail rendition of reversal film), or print on inkjet, too
- you can make optical prints via enlarger on BW direct positive paper.

With negative film you only have the optical print or scan, scan-and-print option. Nothing more. So much less options, much less versatility compared to positive film.

Furthermore reversal film has the following advantages:
- better sharpness
- higher resolution
- finer grain.
I know for sure because I have tested all films on the market in my optical test lab.

And reversal film also often has cost advantages: After developing you already have a finished picture in perfect quality. No further steps needed.
With negative film you always have to make prints and / or scans. And that is expensive if you want to have high quality.
Therefore the costs per picture are often lower with reversal film compared to transparency film. For me e.g. that is the case.

Anyone who has done much scanning will know that neg film is a joy to scan compared to slide film.

Not in general: Scanning reversal film has two really important advantages:
- you always have the original in true colors as a reference for the scan; that does not work at all with CN film (our brain cannot reverse a colour negative into real colours).
- all scanners with the exception of drumscanners enhance the film grain by scanner noise; this problem is less visible with reversal film because of the finer film grain.

I could never understand why the publishing industry used slide film

They had and have very good reasons for that:
- the original slide as colour reference for scan before printing
- better detail rendition (finer grain, better sharpness, higher resolution).

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I bracket my medium format shots. So reversal film tells me immediately which of the three is in the best exposure. I seem to get pretty good scans from my Epson V600. https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort...1&tags=velvia&user_id=55760757@N05&view_all=1 There's actually more data in the shadows than seems apparent just looking at the slide initially. Also, I find it easier to get the color done faster when scanning from slide film. I also like the color palette of Velvia 50.

I have tried Ektar 100 negative color film. But had more problems with getting the colors right when scanning. Also, bracket is not so apparent because which is the right one of three? Ijust got a 4x5 large format camera and had to buy Velvia 50 direct from Japan. It's not sold here. Very expensive so I may have to make a change to Provia or something else. We'll see.

 

[jtk]

I've been scanning and "film scanning" decades of my slides.

I'd sometimes shoot Kodachrome (rather than digital) if it was available.

The main advantage of Ektachrome was same day processing in excellent E6 labs, but same day Kodachrome processing was possible, with no extra charge, if you lived near a Kodak lab (as in Northern CA).

Kodachrome has wonderful blacks, Ektachrome doesn't come close.

I've never processed C41 but I'm thinking about it. Photoshop reverses color neg beautifully and easily.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I wonder which result will return Porta and Kodak Gold. In insfacikr herds.
Price and absence of E6 labs even in major cities. It was OK in fifties, but now it just doesn't fly.

 

[jtk]

Few pros use Ektachrome these days... plenty of reasons starting with the fact that clients won't look at it.

If you're shooting any kind of film the ultimate reason is printing or perhaps posting online (I don't do that)....therefore whatever film you're shooting needs to be digitized if it didn't start out that way.

 

[Henning Serger]

Price and absence of E6 labs even in major cities. It was OK in fifties, but now it just doesn't fly.

The number of E6 labs is increasing globally. Also due to the introduction and huge success of Ektachrome. Lots of labs which so far have only offered C41 are now also offering E6.
And there are lots of labs worldwide which offer excellent quality, excellent service, attractive prices and online business: The films are processed the same day they are coming in, and sent the same day back to the customer.
And there is always the option to process E6 at home: It is very easy, very cheap and delivers perfect results.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

Few pros use Ektachrome these days...

Because Ektachrome was discontinued in 2012 and just introduced back recently.
Pros have used Provia and Velvia all the time. I know several who have continued using it.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I've been scanning and "film scanning" decades of my slides.

I'd sometimes shoot Kodachrome (rather than digital) if it was available.

The main advantage of Ektachrome was same day processing in excellent E6 labs, but same day Kodachrome processing was possible, with no extra charge, if you lived near a Kodak lab (as in Northern CA).

Kodachrome has wonderful blacks, Ektachrome doesn't come close.

I've never processed C41 but I'm thinking about it. Photoshop reverses color neg beautifully and easily.

I don;t have PS but use Lightroom. I also have PS Elements. Do you know how these programs handle color negative scans? What's the process with PS that makes it so good?

 

[markbau]

It is just the opposite: Reversal film is by far the most versatile film type and much more versatile than negative film.
Because
- reversal film is already finished with perfect results after developing, no further steps needed to enjoy the picture
<<<Well actually there are more steps if you want a print or want it on your monitor>>>
- you can hold it just to the light to enjoy them
<<< Yes you can, if you want to squint and see a colour blob>>>
- you can put them in a slide viewer to enjoy them
<<<Sure, if anyone even remembers slide viewers>>>
- you can put them on a light table using an excellent slide loupe to enjoy them in perfect quality
<<< And art director might enjoy this, but showing a slide to a group is a bit impractical unless you have a huge light table with lots of loupes>>>
- you can project them to enjoy the unsurpassed quality with huge enlargements
<<< Bo argument on this point, as I stated in my post>>>
- you can scan them and viewing the results on a computer monitor
<<< Sure, but you can scan negs too>>>
- you can scan them and making prints on RA-4 silver-halide paper (which often gives even better results compared to CN film because of the better detail rendition of reversal film), or print on inkjet, too
<<< Those of us that cut our teeth printing Cibachromes would beg to differ, contrast reduction masks etc compared to printing negs which was a breeze in comparison>>>
- you can make optical prints via enlarger on BW direct positive paper.

With negative film you only have the optical print or scan, scan-and-print option. Nothing more. So much less options, much less versatility compared to positive film.
<<<See above. With negs you can scan them or print them, with slides you can scan them or print them, no difference>>>

Furthermore reversal film has the following advantages:
- better sharpness
<<< Really? I beg to differ, sure K25 and K64 were amazing films for sharpness but compare a Cibachrome from them to a decent print from any decent neg film >>>
- higher resolution
<<< A lab device might say so, my eyes don't>>>
- finer grain.
<<<See above>>>
I know for sure because I have tested all films on the market in my optical test lab.

And reversal film also often has cost advantages: After developing you already have a finished picture in perfect quality. No further steps needed.
With negative film you always have to make prints and / or scans. And that is expensive if you want to have high quality.
Therefore the costs per picture are often lower with reversal film compared to transparency film. For me e.g. that is the case.
<<< As I said, if you are only going to project, I agree 100%, if you want a print neg film is the go to.



Not in general: Scanning reversal film has two really important advantages:
- you always have the original in true colors as a reference for the scan; that does not work at all with CN film (our brain cannot reverse a colour negative into real colours).
- all scanners with the exception of drumscanners enhance the film grain by scanner noise; this problem is less visible with reversal film because of the finer film grain.
<<<Most pros put a neutral grey card in a shot for the lab person to work with, remove casts by analyzing the grey card and you have as close to perfect colour as you can get, comparing the print to the slide is for amateurs, slides often had casts, do you recall non pro Kodachrome that was very fresh? It had a pretty nasty green cast. I know, I printed tons of Cibachromes with all too fresh Kodachrome, they were a nightmare and you would never reference the original slide as it was way too green>>>


They had and have very good reasons for that:
- the original slide as colour reference for scan before printing
- better detail rendition (finer grain, better sharpness, higher resolution).
<<See above>>>

One of the biggest pro customers were weddings and portrait photography, ever heard of a wedding photographer that shot slide film? I didn't think so.
Refer any further correspondence to Annie Leibovitz.

Best regards,
Henning