Do you still shoot 35mm transparency and why?

[xtolsniffer]

Frankly, I have too much equipment (not an easy thing to admit to, especially since I keep buying even more of it). I shoot 35mm print, 35mm monochrome (fast and slow), medium format print, monochrome and transparency. I have found that I'm using 35mm transparency less and less. I used to shoot a lot of it when I went abroad to show the family in a slide-show when I got home and really enjoyed that, but I hardly go away now and I've found that I tend to move to medium format for transparency. I was curious to see what you people use 35mm transparency film for, and what you do with it afterwards. Show it as slide shows, print from it, scan it (obviously wihtout getting into a discussion on scanning)? I feel in need of some inspiration to get the F4 loaded up again.

 

[Vonder]

Up until 2011 I used slides daily to document home life. I used a Canon A-1 with a date back, using X for the year since the thing was only supposed to be used until like, 89 or some such fixed number. It was fun. Once the date back became less fun, I switched to a regular date back and "once in a while" pictures instead of daily ones.

For me, 35mm slides represent history, especially family history. When my dad died, that's really all we had, a box full of slides, to remember him by, to examine his life and our family's life. I think of the ones I shoot the same way. Someday, when we're gone, maybe some kid will hold those little magical color slides up to a light and go "wow" just like I did. And that makes me smile.

 

[xtolsniffer]

I like that answer, thanks.

 

[benjiboy]

I shoot both 135 and 120 slide films to project, because I.M.O. it's the most beautiful way to view my colour pictures.

 

[BMbikerider]

35mm slides

Well, I think that slide film, transparency, call it what you like is a far better medium to get a good representation of the world as we would like to remember it. I still use an occasional cassette or two but I would like to use more, I just don't have the opportunity to get out and about.

Sides when projected from a good projector know no equal. More punch than prints and far more than the very best projected digital image I have ever seen. A good, sharp well composed saturated (but not too much) slide will carry the banner every time.

No wonder it was the preferred medium of advertising photographers

 

[ME Super]

I am still shooting 35mm transparency film for most of my photography, along with the occasional roll of B&W. A couple weeks ago I shot a whole roll of slide film on nothing but fall colors in less than a week. I'm looking forward to projecting those! No numeric projector comes anywhere close to even a cheap slide projector.

 

[kuparikettu]

Let me begin by stating that I print my negatives myself in a darkroom. I don't do digital prints. And I shoot a lot of 35mm, quite a big portion of that family photos.

Now then, printing photos is fun. But it can get tedious, having many rolls of film just waiting to be printed. Many many rolls, full of nice photos.

I have found slide film again mostly because of that. It's nice to have ready to look photos for projection. Got to go buy some Provia 400 for the wintertime...

 

[liquid695]

My photos goes 60% slides, the rest B&W and color film.

 

[Ambar]

I shoot mostly B&W 35mm B&W, but when I want color.. Slide film it is.. RVP50 or RDPIII, the occasional E100VS is a lot of fun too (so sad it's gone). Recently I've started printing at home so I've been shooting B&W for the most part because of the novelty and excitement behind this new endeavor.
But the reason I shoot slide is simple. Before I started printing, the only way I could show and share photos was by scanning them. I have no patience for photoshop and if I could I would rather not need to adjust anything after scanning. Not because I'm anti-digital or anti-scanning. I just don't see the entertainment value behind a night of photoshop adjustments and retouches! It's simply not fun..
Slide gives me a ready, BEAUTIFUL results with absolute minimum effort in post. Even though the latitude restriction frequently screws me over, when things fall in place, it is GORGEOUS and unlike anything else..

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I used to shoot it for commercial clients. Since their needs are very specific, I had to proof every shot with Polaroid. Chrome film have the lowest exposure latitude of all film and it's tough not to get blown out highlights while keeping shadow detail. I shot 35mm, 4x5 and 6x7 transparencies for personal work. Those days are long gone and I don't shoot chromes anymore. The tough part is getting it processed. The only place near by is 20 miles away. I used to use A&I mailers, but they've stopped processing E6. My favorite was Fuji RDP and RTP. Gorgeous looking on the light box.

 

[Roger Cole]

1. Yes.
2. For projection
and though not asked,
3. Because I don't yet have a medium format projector. If I did I think my M645 would replace a lot of my 35mm E6 shooting.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I haven't shot transparency in a hell of a long time, but I have been thinking about using more now.

Jeff

 

[Mike Wilde]

I have a big stash of slide film. I continue to add to it because the stuff now sells so cheaply at swap meets.

I have a big stash of 6 step Kodak e-6 chems that are still working fine, despite having slipped past their best by date.

I rarely mount them. They go into neg filer pages. Some times I scan them. Some time I project them. Some times I shoot an interneg and print the interneg to an RA-4 print.

They look so great just on a light box. Usually the images are a great capsule of a vacation I have taken.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

One of the enduring treats of transparency is seeing each vibrant image come to life on the lightbox. There is nothing like it.

I have shot 35mm Velvia and some Provia almost exclusively since I think 1994. Over that long period of time many, many images were taken to the Ilfochrome Classic media and framed. The discontinuance of that means these musuem-grade conservation framed prints are now appreciating in value.

In September last year I migrated to the 6x7 format which is used for the majority work now, but due to that format's size and weight specs, the evergreen, versatile 35mm EOS 1N (loaded with Velvia, Provia or even a B&W like ACROS) is the preferred choice for bushwalking (also multiformat pinhole).

No trouble finding E6 processing at the moment; they do the processing, I bring it back to the studio for cutting and vetting. The best of the pics are archival card mounted and labelled; this assists the printer as it has all my identification info on it, additional to scanning, colourimetric and final RIP requirements.

I do have a cache of Velvia, Provia and the much-derided Velvia 100F and only place an order for more film when there is one box remaining.

 

[lxdude]

Because it's gorgeous.
And because I know what I will get.

 

[Diapositivo]

I use slide film for stock photography. I don't mount any more, only scan them. Lightbox and loupe are a very satisfying way to look at them. Negatives can't offer that.

 

[winger]

I just got some E6 in 35mm. I've hardly used it much if you compare the numbers of rolls to how many of print or B&W I've done, but I've done enough to usually get what I want. I have this idea of shooting some things and then projecting them on another subject and shooting that result.
And I'll likely use some to photograph life in general.

 

[removed account4]

once in a blue moon
because if i decide to duplicate it through current modern means,
it is easier than with negative film ...
i have a stash of chrome film, formats 30mm - 5x7
and it looks beautiful processed in coffee, as a black and white negative
the cast is a drag but i can remedy that through modern means ...

i have always wished wanted dr5chrome to process a my film, but
i am too short on cash to do that ... from what i understand
dr5 does stellar work and i kind of wish i could fast for a few weeks
and send him my food $$ for slides

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

once in a blue moon
because if i decide to duplicate it through current modern means,
it is easier than with negative film ...
i have a stash of chrome film, formats 30mm - 5x7
and it looks beautiful processed in coffee, as a black and white negative
the cast is a drag but i can remedy that through modern means ...

i have always wished wanted dr5chrome to process a my film, but
i am too short on cash to do that ... from what i understand
dr5 does stellar work and i kind of wish i could fast for a few weeks
and send him my food $$ for slides

<*choke*> Coffee!? As a B&W negative!? Sacrelege!
Considering the cost of transparency film, I don't see the point from an economic point view. Each to his own though, I guess...

 

[Dave in Kansas]

Yes, I continue to shoot 35mm slides and just got a roll back last week. When properly exposed, I love how the look on the screen. I also like the idea that they can be put in a shoe box and perhaps be discovered someday by my grandchildren, and they can simply hold them up to the light to see what the world looked like at the time they were taken.

I have to admit, however, that I don't shoot enough of them and need to do more.

Dave

 

[wblynch]

All those years I didn't take slides because I wanted prints and getting them from slides was expensive and problematic.

Now that 99.9% of commercial prints come from scans, slides make much more sense.

I came back to film after the Kodachrome kill-off and in the last year of processing people were selling Kodachrome for $25 a roll. So I missed out on Kodachrome.

I tried some Ektachrome and loved it but now they killed that dead too. I bought 40 rolls before it was gone and I shoot one every month or two. I love to project them with my $30 Leica projector I got from Ebay.

 

[MattKing]

I've been shooting 120 transparency film since Kodachrome went away.

But I have a medium format projector.

 

[Chris Nielsen]

Have recently started doing 35mm Velvia again. When those morons who write photoshop filters that are meant to look like Velvia show off their work I can show them what Velvia is actually like. None of those filters are within 1000 miles of what it really looks like!

 

[Stephen Schoof]

I shoot probably a couple hundred rolls a year, mostly Velvia 50, for nature, travel, etc. I have never been interested in post processing (traditional or digital) and I like making all my creative decisions in the field. I enjoy the final slides myself on a lightbox, project the best for friends and family, and occasionally have some published. I have a few printed and I like the simplicity of sending a slide to a good lab, asking them to match the final print to it, and getting back essentially what I expect.

By now of course most photographers with my interests have gone digital, but I've resisted so far because 1) I like film, 2) I don't like post-processing, and 3) FX digital bodies are bricks that I don't want to carry into the backcountry and DX bodies have few options with regard to wide-angle lenses.

I do like the new Portras for everyday family pictures, but if E6 disappears I'm afraid my serious film days will be over. Hopefully that's still awhile off.

 

[removed account4]

<*choke*> Coffee!? As a B&W negative!? Sacrelege!
Considering the cost of transparency film, I don't see the point from an economic point view. Each to his own though, I guess...

hey poisson du jour

no place is left near me who can process bigger than 35mm chrome film
i don't want to deal with processing it myself because i don't want to deal
with the chemistry and the drain ...
and with kids, i am too broke to pay 20$ for a roll of 120 or
$5+ / sheet of 4x5 or 5x7 film to be turned into a beautiful chrome by mailing it away
...besides all my chrome film is outdated by at least 5 or 6 years, shelf stored
and probably not very good as well ... chromes
i figure using it in coffee is better than selling it for cheaps, or throwing it out