Color Slides

[CMoore]

Two more questions :
1. I have NO Knowledge of color or slides. Do i need to worry about how the slides are processed...C-41 Vs E-6 or is there only one method anymore.?

2. anybody have Experience/Opinion on this film.?
https://www.amazon.com/Lomography-X...51,p_n_feature_keywords_browse-bin:4000834011

Thank You

 

[Les Sarile]

Correct about E-6 being a standardized process. Haven't tried the Lomography slide yet.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

E6 = process for slides
C41 = colour negatives

If you have no knowledge of the use of slides, then it is paramount to get your hands on just one roll at this time, and run it through the camera, and process it. The purpose of this would be to test the camera's exposure, and your awareness of lighting conditions that can give rise to problems with slide film which has inherently higher contrast than C41 (not made any easier by using a tiny format such as 35mm), but for meaningful results you must remember that slide film does not give you the same amount of latitude as C41 or B&W film. Slides are always processed in E6 (some uncommon B&W films can be processed as "slides", or more correctly, reversal processing).

Does the retro/1960s look appeal to you? That is what you'd get with the Lomo' film, rather than the honest, cold, hard edge of unmashed Provia 100F.

 

[AgX]

Two more questions :
1. I have NO Knowledge of color or slides. Do i need to worry about how the slides are processed...C-41 Vs E-6 or is there only one method anymore.?

There is C-41 film to make transparencies (not necessarily slides) from C-41 negatives.

 

[CMoore]

OK...Thanks.
Right now i have the Film Project ASA-160 in a Canon A-1. I believe they call it Retro Chrome.
I will be doing just what you suggest.
As far as which "look" i prefer.....i really have no idea at this point.
The Lomo is more Affordable/Cheap than most, so i asked about it.
Thanks Again

 

[Diapositivo]

I suggest you buy an external incident/reflected lightmeter and learn to use it. Slides are not difficult to use, with good metering technique you'lll be fine in most situations, and you will recognize instantly those circumstances where the subject brightness range exceeds what a slide film can take with pleasant results. An external light meter goes a long way in assuring a correct exposure in difficult situations IMO. When photographing children you want to be concentrated on the moment, and not on exposure.

Automatic exposure, with all the backlight - bright background situations to be concerned of, is IMO less reliable and simple than analysing the light with an external light meter and working in manual mode.

I wouldn't be pessimistic about slide film being the next casualty. Ferrania is going to come back in a few quarters, and their first product will be slide film in various formats. They will also provide chemicals as far as I understand. I wouldn't be surprised if they were thinking about some kind of rotary processor as well, they stated they consider home-processing key for the well-being of the market.
Super-8 cine film in transparency also seems to be in their plans.

Certainly slide film is the weakest, more fragile part of the film market, but is far from being dead.

Considering your long-term project I warmly advice you to buy a rotary processor or to try in any case to develop slides at home. That will result in much satisfaction and great savings.

I also suggest to buy one of those electronic devices able to extract a numeric-format image from a slide. It's children pictures, you certainly want to circulate some of them in the family using the usual numeric formats. Don't be deterred by the price, for a long-term project you will not regret the expense. Try to go for real quality. (If you want to dig into this matter more, please open a thread on DPUG.org and come back here to warn us so that we can answer to you there).

 

[MartinCrabtree]

What he said..............

 

[Prof_Pixel]

In the early 1990's, when Kodak developed the Photo CD format, it was decided that 16 megapixels represented all the useful information in a 35mm frame, considering things like lens MTF, etc.

I've posted a correction with additional information over on DPUG at http://www.dpug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4121&p=29393#post29393

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Obviously not the forum to do this but I would be interested in pursuing this further if you are the owner of this test and data.

I dusted off my old notes. See my posting on DPUG at http://www.dpug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4121&p=29393#post29393

 

[macfred]

... I also suggest to buy one of those electronic devices able to extract a numeric-format image from a slide ...

Nice paraphrase for a taboo word here on APUG ...
Fabrizio, you have a remarkable photography site - love the Paris album !

 

[kb3lms]

The Lomography 200 Slide film is just fine. You can get it cheaper through FPP than Amazon, and support FPP in the process. Not all FPP's film is expired or hand rolled, the branded stuff I have bought through them (Kodak, Lomo, Ilford) has all been fresh.

The Lomo slide film tends towards the gold/yellow in it's color balance in my experience. They like to market it for cross processing but there is nothing special about it. I am told it is an Agfa film of some sort and of current production.

-- Jason

 

[Diapositivo]

I am told it is an Agfa film of some sort and of current production.

Do you mean Agfa (the real firm, not the AgfaPhoto brand) is still producing slide film? I knew they produced their aerial photography slide film, which was also sold under the Rollei brand, but I thought they had ended production.

[thanks @macfred for the nice words]

 

[thuggins]

Now, as for 200iso, Provia and Velvia 100f and 100 emulsions respectively can be very satisfactorily exposed at EI200++ (up to 800 for Provia) in competent hands, and provided exposure is moderated along each film's ideal matrix to give predictable results. The market definitely isn't screaming out for high speed transparency film, but Provia 400X (useful right up to EI1600) is still available as legacy stock, though it is expensive.

Lomography, as a boutique player, does not make its own film. It is sourced from Fuji to Lomography's pallete specifications. That is the same for Agfa with its Precisa range (Provia).

I appreciate your observations and plan to try some of this Lomography film. If it is Velvia or Provia that will be immediately apparent as both of these produce unique color palettes. But your reasoning about it just being a 100 speed film pushed a stop would appear to create some problems. We all know that a one stop error in transparency film will completely ruin the image.

While I have pushed Provia 400 to 1600 with wonderful success, a pushed film requires special processing. While I'm not an expert at processing E-6, I would like to believe that all the rolls I've marked "Pushed two stops" and the extra money I've spent for push processing is not just some big joke that the guys in the lab get a chuckle out of. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable can comment on the nature and differences of push processing.

As for your camera store not selling much of it, could it be that folks who shoot slides are buying it in bulk? All of my tranny film bought for this entire century <g> has come from Adorama, and I live in one of the biggest cities in the US where anything is available for the right price.

 

[thuggins]

I dusted off my old notes. See my posting on DPUG at http://www.dpug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4121&p=29393#post29393

Without wanting to join in this flame war, that is a fascinating analysis that proves how a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The key give-away is the phrase, "adequately represented consumer 35 mm images".

The reason I had to start buying my film from Adorama at the turn of the century (see above) was because the biggest professional camera store in Dallas had drastically cut their film stocks. This was well before d!&!+@l "cameras" were more than just clunky oddities. The clerk informed me that the vast majority of their sales were disposable cameras. When I incredulously remarked on their horrible image quality he replied (and I quote) "People don't care about image quality".

So you need to qualify your analysis by restricting it to random snapshots taken by a bored housewife using a cardboard camera with a plastic lens and the world's crappiest 800 speed print film processed and printed by a pimple-faced kid at Walmart. (My apologies to all bored housewives who enjoy taking snapshots and to all pimple-faced kids that work at Walmart.)

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Without wanting to join in this flame war, that is a fascinating analysis that proves how a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The key give-away is the phrase, "adequately represented consumer 35 mm images".

You must remember this was in the VERY early days of digital imaging(around 1990)! The few people working with digital at the time had VGA images (640x480 or 0.3 MP) to work with , so a 6 MP image was 'large' by the standards of the day. As I noted, the Pro PhotoCD format had provisions for a 64 base image (25 MP), which were very good.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I appreciate your observations and plan to try some of this Lomography film. If it is Velvia or Provia that will be immediately apparent as both of these produce unique color palettes. But your reasoning about it just being a 100 speed film pushed a stop would appear to create some problems. We all know that a one stop error in transparency film will completely ruin the image.

While I have pushed Provia 400 to 1600 with wonderful success, a pushed film requires special processing. While I'm not an expert at processing E-6, I would like to believe that all the rolls I've marked "Pushed two stops" and the extra money I've spent for push processing is not just some big joke that the guys in the lab get a chuckle out of. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable can comment on the nature and differences of push processing.

As for your camera store not selling much of it, could it be that folks who shoot slides are buying it in bulk? All of my tranny film bought for this entire century <g> has come from Adorama, and I live in one of the biggest cities in the US where anything is available for the right price.

If you refer to my earlier post, I do not advocate that beginners running slide film for the first time (the OP, in this case!), with no familiarity of the narrow and uncompromising exposure latitude and contrast, underake any push-pull processing, not even for "just for fun". What I did advocate, what I stridently advocate in workshops, is that photographers learn to expose slide film along a considered matrice that delivers the best aesthetic and technical results within the film's known range. This means you could take years ... decades, exposing hundreds of rolls of film without ever having to consider push-pull processing. Pushing/pulling slide film introduces compromise; there is no real benefit other than hobbling one quality at the expense of another. I probably last pushed Provia 100F in 1996; I use Velvia exclusively for all of my production work, and have not pushed or pulled it for probably close to two decades — I really have no record of doing it. I don't need to! I know how to expose it well, in conditions that suit it. That's what all photographers need to think about. And leave the pushing/pulling to the geeks.

 

[PittP]

Support to Diapositivo's and Poisson du Jour's observations!
The 200-ASA slide film offered by Lomo, Maco and others is actually aerial film made by Agfa-Gevaert in Belgium, and its image character differs significantly from the Fuji (and Agfaphoto) offerings. The yellow tint apparently is an inconsistent feature. The film is no longer made or available from Agfa, thus, it may not be the choice for a long-term project.
The characters of Agfaphoto Precisa and Fuji Provia (not Velvia) match well, slides can be mixed in a series for projection without disturbing effects. For outdoor snaps consider using a 1A filter for warmer colours and pleasing skin tones. Also consider a slight over exposure as suggested above, the resulting softer palette is pleasing with people photography.
Mind the expiry dates on Fuji and Agfaphot slide films when kept at (cool) room temperatures; deep frozen (-18°C), however, they don't seem to age.
My (current?) bottleneck for using slide film more regularly is the E6 development: I have to do it myself or take films to Europe. The former is handicapped by the cost and short shelf life of the chemicals (1st dev and Blix2!), the latter by awkward delays... Hope, you're in a better place on the planet (in this respect).
---
I'm currently considering a different approach to slides:
Use a normal, preferably soft / wide latitude negative film (c41) in camera to take the shots.
Make contact copies of the keepers on transparent "paper" supplied for back-lit presentation (common in advertising light boxes) and use these for projection.
If anybody already tried this, I'd be very curious!
Otherwise: Looking forward to Ferraniafilm's solutions... crossing fingers.
Good light!

 

[macfred]

The characters of Agfaphoto Precisa and Fuji Provia (not Velvia) match well, slides can be mixed in a series for projection without disturbing effects. For outdoor snaps consider using a 1A filter for warmer colours and pleasing skin tones. Also consider a slight over exposure as suggested above, the resulting softer palette is pleasing with people photography.

I agree !
I use AGFA Photo Precisa 100 for 35mm (pretty cheap here in Germany) and FUJI Provia for medium format - no big difference. I rate Precisa and Provia @Iso 80 in sunny conditions -
B+W Schneider-Kreuznach Skylight KR1.5 filter works perfect in most situations (not only with portrait work).

 

[MartinCrabtree]

I have some underexposed Kodachromes from an outing with some friends that I treasure simply because of the subjects and that night. Don't sweat perfection in your quest. Capture the memories. Maybe I'll use the magic box and post a couple later.

 

[John51]

I am still printing from Velvia, almost continuously since first taking it up that film in 1994. We're back to good ol' RA-4 now and the results are better than Ilfochrome Classic with much finer control.

How are you printing from slides with RA4?

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

John51: I started with traditional wet darkroom RA-4 but was never satisfied with the results. Then followed Ilfochrome Classic, which I maintained "for too bloody long", according to some vocalists. When that met its end in '010, I switched to hybridized A-to-D RA-4 with D-to-A (write-to-film) RA-4 printing. The results of this are several orders of magnitude better than what could be achievevd by both traditiional RA-4 and the Ilfochrome Classic process. I am also printing much bigger than could be achieved by wet RA-4 and again, from Ilfochrome Classic.

 

[Alan Gales]

I used to shoot contrasty Kodachrome 25 and occasionally Kodachrome 64. I shot using contrasty Zeiss lenses and printed on contrasty Cibachrome paper. Shooting slides isn't that hard. I've bracketed shots with my determined exposure, a stop above and a stop below. All three would look very close. Two stops off would make a difference. Just avoid contrasty situations like the midday sun. You should avoid these situations anyway. Just get a roll of slide film and shoot it.

One thing about APUG has me baffled. It's when people talk about the mystique of shooting slide film or medium format film or large format sheet film or whatever. There is no mystique. Just do it. I remember wanting to shoot infrared black and white. There was no internet forums. No one I knew shot it. My friends at the camera store hadn't shot it. I just bought a roll of infrared film and shot it. That's how you learn.

 

[railwayman3]

Going back to the OP's query. I wouldn't complicate things with the more unusual films.....just keep to Provia or AgfaPhoto Precisa, either are quality films, using a reputable E6 processor. Maybe use a 1A or similar filter if you like slightly warmer results.

As Alan Gales says "There is no mystique, just do it!". Remember that people used Kodachrome successfully for years for their family and holiday snaps, often with simple cameras and just the little paper exposure guide leaflet from the film box !

 

[John51]

John51: I started with traditional wet darkroom RA-4 but was never satisfied with the results. Then followed Ilfochrome Classic, which I maintained "for too bloody long", according to some vocalists. When that met its end in '010, I switched to hybridized A-to-D RA-4 with D-to-A (write-to-film) RA-4 printing. The results of this are several orders of magnitude better than what could be achievevd by both traditiional RA-4 and the Ilfochrome Classic process. I am also printing much bigger than could be achieved by wet RA-4 and again, from Ilfochrome Classic.

Given the site rules wrt on/off technology, are you meaning the process that modern labs do with customers negs and slides for making prints?

 

[MattKing]

Given the site rules wrt on/off technology, are you meaning the process that modern labs do with customers negs and slides for making prints?

The critical point about "Poisson's" workflow is that it involves taking pictures using film, and then printing the results on to real photographic colour paper.

The intermediate steps that involve a side step from film through some digital mechanisms and then back to the "real" paper may not be well suited for discussion here on APUG, but they certainly do allow for high quality photographic results from film, and help preserve the availability of materials for those who still print optically.