Color Slides

[mehguy]

FPP has some provia 100f for 7.99. Pretty good price. But it is, however, expired but its been stored in the freezer.

Dead Link Removed

 

[cooltouch]

Given that there is probably no substitute for personal experience, I recommend that the OP get out there now and begin to acquaint himself with the peculiarities of slide film. It was through trial and error that I learned how to use it and avoid the sort of mistakes that result in wasted shots.

Most typical are metering issues where the camera underexposes the shot because a bright light source has entered the frame and fooled the meter. Because of slide film's narrow latitude, this sort of situation results in a dark image with a bright spot somewhere in the frame.

With regard to the cameras the OP mentioned, all the Nikons will work passably well, while only the Canon F-1N will give a minimal amount of frustration -- IF the right focusing screen is installed. One of the partial metering screens is best, which minimize the chance for underexposure to occur because of bright extraneous light sources. Of the Nikon's, the F3 has the tightest metering pattern, so it is most likely to give correct exposure, rivaling the Canon F-1N's when a partial screen is employed. The F2 and FM use Nikon's tried and true 60/40 weighted metering pattern, whereas the F3 uses an 80/20 pattern, which works very well with slides when Aperture Priority auto exposure is engaged. The Canon A-1 and AT-1 will work just fine for slides but since these cameras use a somewhat vague centerweighted metering pattern, extra attention must be paid toward light sources at the corners and edges and how they may negatively impact exposure.

About exposure, I always follow a general rule when it comes to slides. Expose for the main subject, and let everything else fall where it may. This may seem to be sort of a "Well duh" statement, but you'd be surprised how often people try and get creative with multiple spot readings and the like. Sometimes, though, it can still be daylight out -- bright sun even -- but the subject is in deep shade. In this situation, fill flash should be used to bring out the subject, and it usually works very well.

 

[CMoore]

I appreciate the further advice. Think i will stick with the A-1 for a few rolls and see what i get.
That said.....I have already blundered.
Do you guys ever make "Stupid Mistakes".?
1. Out shooting some slides...got to exposure #15, and kept saying to myself ..."damn, this sure seems wider than a 35".
You would think i could have just looked at the lens after 1-2-3-4 frames maybe.?
But no, finally, at 15 i look and see i have a 28mm on the camera. Nothing "wrong" with that, but why did it take me so long to add 2+2.?
2. I recently took delivery of a Sekonic L-308. So i checked it against a few of my SLR to see how things looked. During my meter "investigation" i had turned the ASA to 200 (the slides are 160) and for some reason, turned the Exposure Comp (which i NEVER use, i shoot manual) knob to 1/2+
Those things DO Effect the film, but i did not notice until 15 frames later, when i figured out why my 35mm lens seemed so wide.
Anyway.....I am ready to start over with a new roll of slides and my head screwed on straight.
Good Luck (to me)

 

[onre]

My favourite mistake is to measure the scene carefully, decide proper shutter and aperture values for correct exposure and then take the photograph without actually applying those settings.

A variation of this theme is the one where I use an older lens, focus wide open and then forget to stop the lens down for the exposure.

 

[BMbikerider]

I would support the suggestion of one previous member where it is suggested that slide film is perhaps the least desirable film to use if you are going to photograph something that may not be able to be photographed again. Slide flim will beat ANY other medium that can be projected with the saturation, sharpness, and reality being far superia. The only thing is you have to get it right 1st time - exposure, processing and actually taking the picture, get it all right and it is terrific, get it wrong and you will regret it. there is no satisfactory way of correcting mistakes.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I subscribe strongly to the theory that correction does much, but encouragement does much more, and thus hope that the first tentative steps the OP took with a litany of mistakes do not put him off (and yes, we have all made such mistakes!), but serve as a springboard of determination to progressively work to getting the results he sees in his mind's eye, no matter how many rolls of film it takes. I don't see a problem in using any old camera. I see the problem in a photographer's understanding of exposing film (transparency film in this case) along a matrice that the film delivers the best results. I didn't get stellar results when I first exposed Kodachrome 200 in the early 1980s — if anything, I probably screwed dozens of rolls (Nikon F3HP, FE2, Canon T90...)!! Granted, today transparency film isn't cheap (a roll of Velvia 50 is $36.70 here in Australia, though 120 format is significantly cheaper) so care does need to be exercised with a clear plan of attack in terms of what will be photographed and work to what the film can achieve, rather than what the heart desires. Carefully considered and exposed, transparency film is a joy to behold on the lightbox.

I have my Sekonic L758D set to +0.5 baseline for transparency film (but not for B&W film). This is because my method of printing from transparencies loses 0.5 to 1 stop. I think you would benefit by using ad-hoc simple bracketing of 0, +0.5 and –0.5. The same scene, assessed as a bracketed trio, will show you what happens when the film is given a gentle nudge or tweak here and there.

 

[tomfrh]

I can guarantee you that the film was not the limiting factor.

I don't think my number 12-15MP was that far off, it's close to what a lot of other people have concluded.

I used good lens, tripod, and compared canon D vs canon film SLR loaded with fuji slide film.

A 35mm slide is capable of capturing far more image information than full sensor 35mm d!&!+@l will ever be able to do.

Nonsense. You take a modern high resolution D (eg canon 5dsr) and it will pack in substantially more detail that a 35mm chrome. Don't get me wrong, I love 35mm slides, but all this talk about them being 400mp equivalent is just plain silly.

 

[tomfrh]

Slide flim will beat ANY other medium that can be projected with the saturation, sharpness, and reality being far superia.

Yep. I just shot some bright red liquid amber leaves on velvia (autumn in sydney), and wow do they pack a punch projected onto a white wall.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Yep. I just shot some bright red liquid amber leaves on velvia (autumn in sydney), and wow do they pack a punch projected onto a white wall.

Always thought Sydney was a bit behind the times. So it's autumn up there, while it's winter down here...?

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I don't think my number 12-15MP was that far off, it's close to what a lot of other people have concluded.

I used good lens, tripod, and compared canon D vs canon film SLR loaded with fuji slide film.



Nonsense. You take a modern high resolution D (eg canon 5dsr) and it will pack in substantially more detail that a 35mm chrome. Don't get me wrong, I love 35mm slides, but all this talk about them being 400mp equivalent is just plain silly.

400mpx?? That sounds very, very far-fetched for a 35mm tranny, even at high resolution. The larger the film format though, the larger the equivalent mp count can be.

 

[tomfrh]

Always thought Sydney was a bit behind the times. So it's autumn up there, while it's winter down here...?

It was actually a couple months ago.

400mpx?? That sounds very, very far-fetched for a 35mm tranny, even at high resolution. The larger the film format though, the larger the equivalent mp count can be.

A couple of posters above disputed my claim of 15mp, and said that's nowhere near resolving power of a 35mm tranny. One supplied a link which purported to show 400mp or some such thing..

This is a fairly good comparison, which shows the big jumps in equivalent MP as format increases, which you mention

http://petapixel.com/2014/12/18/comparing-image-quality-film-digital/

 

[tom43]

400 MP for 135mm slides is nonsense...

But as mentioned in the linked article Provia slide film has between 12 to 24 MP scanned with an Imacon system. Projected or used with a good loupe slide film demonstrates higher resolution. Velvia 100 can reach up to 135 lines per mm resulting in resolutions as high as 20 to 40 MP depending on the contrast of the scene. Provia is ca. 10% behind, especially in lower contrast scenes. Adox CMS20 b/w 135mm slides can go up to 180 MP or higher and 6x7 cm Velvia slides can exceed 100 MP.

More important: Using projection you can bring the power on the road...

 

[Les Sarile]

I don't think my number 12-15MP was that far off, it's close to what a lot of other people have concluded.

I used good lens, tripod, and compared canon D vs canon film SLR loaded with fuji slide film.

I also recall a supposedly reputable pro conclude that a 3MP Canon D30 outresolved an Imacon scanned 35mm Fuji Provia 100 back in early 2000.
True now as it was then, everyone is limited by their own means.

 

[cooltouch]

It's possible to calculate the resolving power of a piece of film emulsion. Assuming, for example, the film is capable of resolving 100 line pairs per millimeter -- Velvia might be capable of this, not sure really -- the numbers work out to about 34.5 mp for a 36x24mm image. Of course, this is ideal and theoretical and all that, but still it shows what's possible. And yes, there are emulsions out there with 100lppmm resolving capabilities. A few with much higher ones, actually.

I've come to think that, in many cases, it's actually the lens used on the film camera that may be preventing better sharpness.

 

[wiltw]

Projected slides deliver a real punch too. I'm sure digital will match it one day, but not yet it seems.

Typically you can't even buy a d*gital projector with more than the paltry 2K resolution of HDMI, even though even the cheapest of dSLRs have 10+ MP! If you have $4-8K to blow you can get a 4K projector (and then there is the Sony at $27K street price)

Pathetic, the world has forgotten the majesty of the projected MF slide!

 

[tomfrh]

But as mentioned in the linked article Provia slide film has between 12 to 24 MP scanned with an Imacon system. Projected or used with a good loupe slide film demonstrates higher resolution

I compared to projected. A 20mp d image was showing a little more detail than the projected slide. They matched at around the 15mp mark.

this agrees with what they found in their research above.

I'm sure if you used a perfect lens and had perfect film flatness you could get a bit more, perhaps nearing the 30+ mp figure above.

I've seen the figures of 12/15/16/20 many times, and this agrees with my own testing.

35mp d cameras are pulling away by 20mp, that's all there is to it. If someone wants to prove otherwise go for it, but hand waving doesn't cut it.

 

[tomfrh]

Typically you can't even buy a d*gital projector with more than the paltry 2K resolution of HDMI, even though even the cheapest of dSLRs have 10+ MP! If you have $4-8K to blow you can get a 4K projector (and then there is the Sony at $27K street price)

Pathetic, the world has forgotten the majesty of the projected MF slide!

That's for sure. Projection is great.

I have a MF projector. I prefer the 35mm most of the time. Less hassles. Film stays flatter. 35mm projection is great. It's real "rabbit out of a hat" stuff as far as I'm concerned. A format that produces a very dodgy 16x12 can make a magical wall size photo!

 

[CMoore]

That's for sure. Projection is great.

I have a MF projector. I prefer the 35mm most of the time. Less hassles. Film stays flatter. 35mm projection is great. It's real "rabbit out of a hat" stuff as far as I'm concerned. A format that produces a very dodgy 16x12 can make a magical wall size photo!

I have been pondering this for a long time, but was always afraid to ask a dumb question.......Why is that.?
Do projectors offer magnification to a screen that is not possible to do so with a print.?
They can show a 35mm movie on a big screen, but a 2'x3' print looks lousy.....

 

[Diapositivo]

I'm sorry to digress in the old film vs digital resolution but I cannot resist, put the blame on me if the thread goes astray.

According to this test, a Nikon Coolscan LS-5000 obtain real 3.650 dpi from scans.
http://www.filmscanner.info/en/NikonSuperCoolscan5000ED.html
My experience with this scanner is entirely compatible with this assumption.

24 x 36 mm equals 0,945" x 1,417".
One can easily obtain 3.650 dpi from a slide film with a total equivalent pixel count of 3.450 x 5.170 effective pixels both of luminance and chrominance.
That equals 17.8 mp but both on colour information and luminosity information (with a 17.8 mp Bayer array typical of digital cameras, the luminance information would be 17.8 mp but the colour information would be 1/3 of it).

So the question is: how would a 36 mp sensor (with 12 mp colour information and 36 mp luminance information) compare with a quality amateur-photographer scan slide?

My answer: it would never match it. The slight advantage in pixel count (less than twice total pixel count, which means less 1.4 pixel count factor on each axis) would never compensate for the lack of a shoulder in the highlights! Slide film has a God-given shoulder in the highlights, and a foot in the shadows, which much, much more gracefully render a subject in complex lighting than highlight clipping in the highlights and noise mud in the shadows which is the result of digital technology whatever the pixel count (actually, the greater the pixel count, the greater the problems with shadow noise and highlight clipping).

I can say this because I do extensively use digital (80% of my archive is digital) and I do "pixel peep" every shot, digital or analogue. I am a serious digital photographer. I love digital photography. I am very ecumenic as far as photographic technologies are concerned. But I do see limits in overall digital image quality.

For me, digital has a clear advantage in versatility, analogue has a clear advantage in overall quality reproduction, regardless of how many megapixels it can deliver.

The commons misconception that film can compete with digital only in MF is IMHO entirely unfounded. The "rentability" of my analogue stock archive, entirely 135, is clearly higher than the digital one. This is confirmed by other photographers licensing pictures through my main agency (Alamy, a UK company). Film sells better. Quality is not expressible merely by pixel count and, to quote Zen master Suzuki, the flight of a butterfly cannot be expressed by an equation (or something to that effect).

 

[DREW WILEY]

Nothing can quite compete with the beauty of a good ole slide show, although everyone dreaded it when Aunt Maude wanted to show her vacation
pictures of the Muffler Shop Hall of Fame in Fresno for hours on end. The best slide shows were the earliest, soon after the invention of panchromatic film. They'd align three carbon arc projectors, each holding a glass plate of the same scene with tricolor filters, then with a separate one of these
over each projector. Slow going, especially handling those really hot big glass negatives, but allegedly no finer color reproduction system has been
invented to this day. Digital projections are like eating sand by comparison to viewing real film.

 

[tomfrh]

My answer: it would never match it

That's your answer, which you arrived at via very questionable assumptions and calculations.

My answer, which I arrived at through direct testing, and which ther people have arrived at with testing, is that 35mm slide are good for about 12-20mp, depending on the breaks.

Beyond that the d sensors start pulling ahead.

If someone does some microscope analysis of real photographic slides and and proves they're good for much more than that I'd be thrilled, as I love slides. But so far I haven't seen it.

 

[tomfrh]

I have been pondering this for a long time, but was always afraid to ask a dumb question.......Why is that.?

I believe the natural viewing distance is a large part of it. If you look up close its fairly mushy.

Also you are viewing the first copy of the scene, rather than a copy of copy, so it's very pure.

35mm movie film is actually only half frame, yet still looks great. Better than a static frame. I understand this is because the imperfections (grain, blur, etc) are only brief, and your brain "sees through it" more than a static frame.

 

[Les Sarile]

That's your answer, which you arrived at via very questionable assumptions and calculations.

My answer, which I arrived at through direct testing, and which ther people have arrived at with testing, is that 35mm slide are good for about 12-20mp, depending on the breaks.

Are there any of these testing results available for independent review?

 

[wiltw]

I have been pondering this for a long time, but was always afraid to ask a dumb question.......Why is that.?
Do projectors offer magnification to a screen that is not possible to do so with a print.?
They can show a 35mm movie on a big screen, but a 2'x3' print looks lousy.....

I think that the appeal of the projected transparency has less to do with absolute detail resolution, and more to do with the dynamic range of the image formed by projected light (vs. reflected light of the print)

 

[tomfrh]

I think that the appeal of the projected transparency has less to do with absolute detail resolution, and more to do with the dynamic range of the image formed by projected light (vs. reflected light of the print)

Ah yes, this is true for sure. The natural impact of those illuminated colours, rather than reflected light of dyes in a print.