End use of colour slide film?

[AgX]

Apart from projecting, there are dedicated slide viewers that present a nice experience for casual viewing on the go.

I saw that as another form of projection, actally even a way nearer to looking at slides on a lightbox, than on a reflective screen.

I have projectors that incorporate a rear projection screen, but also yield the possibility to project on a big, reflective screen. I got the impression that such dual-use projectors were more a european thing.

 

[AgX]

As an example two scans from the same frame of film of well exposed Kodak Gold 100, was a very common and I'm sure well used film in the US. The difference is so vast you'd think they were from different frames of films.

You hardly can take this as an example for the way a colour negative would be handled in a good printform workshop. There a base filtration would have been applied, whereas at a minilab a automated process is directed at an assumed aim image.

 

[Les Sarile]

You hardly can take this as an example for the way a colour negative would be handled in a good printform workshop. There a base filtration would have been applied, whereas at a minilab a automated process is directed at an assumed aim image.

Exactly my point. Prior to the minilab era, I've never seen color negatives so out of whack.

 

[Helge]

I saw that as another form of projection, actally even a way nearer to looking at slides on a lightbox, than on a reflective screen.

I have projectors that incorporate a rear projection screen, but also yield the possibility to project on a big, reflective screen. I got the impression that such dual-use projectors were more a european thing.

Rear projection is terrible. It robs the slide of sharpness and saturation.
What I’m talking about is basically a light box, holder and magnification in one neat portable package.

 

[George Mann]

Rear projection is terrible. It robs the slide of sharpness and saturation.
What I’m talking about is basically a light box, holder and magnification in one neat portable package.

I own one made by Kaiser. It is a low quality piece of junk!

 

[Sirius Glass]

My relatives would suddenly get headaches and say they had to go home the minute they saw the projector or screen come out. They'd even skip dessert. Imagine that.

I used that trick to get my ex-in-laws to leave. It was wonderful. The ex never realized that I had weaponized my slides because our friends loved them. The ex to this day still tells her new hubby how great my photographs are.

 

[bluechromis]

I hear the comment that, "slide film was meant to be projected" as though that was a reason it no longer had any usefulness. But color negative film was originally intended to make darkroom prints. Neither one was originally created for the purpose of being scanned as part of a hybrid process that is so common today. I don't hear people say that negative film is not being using for it's original purpose in the same way they talk about slide film. Sometimes people say that Portra was designed to be scanned. I don't know if that is true or if they wanted less contrast so the groom's dark suit and bride's white dress would both look OK. Maybe it can be argued that it is more problematic that slide film is seldom being using for its original purpose, but I don't see how slide film is categorically different than negative film with regard to changes in its use.

 

[AgX]

I don't hear people say that negative film is not being using for it's original purpose in the same way they talk about slide film.

You seemingly overlooked all my remarks on this in other threads. I just do not get it.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I hear the comment that, "slide film was meant to be projected" as though that was a reason it no longer had any usefulness. But color negative film was originally intended to make darkroom prints. Neither one was originally created for the purpose of being scanned as part of a hybrid process that is so common today. I don't hear people say that negative film is not being using for it's original purpose in the same way they talk about slide film. Sometimes people say that Portra was designed to be scanned. I don't know if that is true or if they wanted less contrast so the groom's dark suit and bride's white dress would both look OK. Maybe it can be argued that it is more problematic that slide film is seldom being using for its original purpose, but I don't see how slide film is categorically different than negative film with regard to changes in its use.

Sure. Do what you like. After I had a bunch of 6x7 medium format Velvia 50's (mainly), I went to a pro printer who printed around 30 16x20" prints that I framed for mounting on the walls in my house. He used 4x5 internegatives to copy the original chromes and then print them. I suppose the same can be done with Ektar or Portra today except scanning them and printing directly from the computer or by a pro printer using digital printing. One thing is that Kodak says that Portra and Ektar are easier to scan than other color negative film. I found that Portra is easier but I had trouble with Ektar 100 which is why I stick with chromes. Now I's shooting 4x5's Ektachromes and Provia chromes which I never used before. Should be interesting.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The reason the pro printer used 4x5 internegatives, I forgot to mention, was that this was 30 years ago.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Sure. Do what you like. After I had a bunch of 6x7 medium format Velvia 50's (mainly), I went to a pro printer who printed around 30 16x20" prints that I framed for mounting on the walls in my house. He used 4x5 internegatives to copy the original chromes and then print them. I suppose the same can be done with Ektar or Portra today except scanning them and printing directly from the computer or by a pro printer using digital printing. One thing is that Kodak says that Portra and Ektar are easier to scan than other color negative film. I found that Portra is easier but I had trouble with Ektar 100 which is why I stick with chromes. Now I'm shooting 4x5's Ektachromes and Provia chromes which I never used before. Should be interesting.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Better internegs than ever can be made today. It just requires something everybody in this day and age seems allergic to - time and effort. Everybody wants everything yesterday, and doesn't care about the quality. But most commercial internegs in the good ole days were relatively miserable. Speed and volume of output was the priority even back then unless one could afford a true custom print job. My philosophy has always been, if you want something done right, do it yourself.

 

[Helge]

I hear the comment that, "slide film was meant to be projected" as though that was a reason it no longer had any usefulness. But color negative film was originally intended to make darkroom prints. Neither one was originally created for the purpose of being scanned as part of a hybrid process that is so common today. I don't hear people say that negative film is not being using for it's original purpose in the same way they talk about slide film. Sometimes people say that Portra was designed to be scanned. I don't know if that is true or if they wanted less contrast so the groom's dark suit and bride's white dress would both look OK. Maybe it can be argued that it is more problematic that slide film is seldom being using for its original purpose, but I don't see how slide film is categorically different than negative film with regard to changes in its use.

It is harder to scan. It looses much of it’s luster and purpose when scanned.
There is no other way to get as large, high resolution and high contrast “reproductions” as slide readily allows.
You could do a Kodak Colorama if you had several thousand dollars.

 

[George Mann]

I don't hear people say that negative film is not being using for it's original purpose in the same way they talk about slide film.

Most people are apathetic and apologetic. But nonetheless, you will hear this argument all day long from me.

 

[bluechromis]

You seemingly overlooked all my remarks on this in other threads. I just do not get it.

I am sorry if I do not seem to be cognizant of your posts in this thread. I went back and reread them. As for posts in other threads perhaps you could direct me to those. I am honestly not sure to what you are objecting. I did not mean to say that you personally said that slide film is obsolete because it was meant to be projected, but that people sometimes say that. My point is that I find it more useful to talk about the characteristics of the film stocks such as contrast, saturation, grain etc.

 

[AgX]

I say that slide film is not obsolete as long there is a chance to project it (or to look at it at a lightbox). I just do not get that scanning slide film thing of today. But I realize that the majority here at Photrio takes a different stand on this.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I say that slide film is not obsolete as long there is a chance to project it (or to look at it at a lightbox). I just do not get that scanning slide film thing of today. But I realize that the majority here at Photrio takes a different stand on this.

Combining old technology with new is nothing new. When the first automobiles were being built, it was the existing horse-drawn carriage makers who made them. They got rid of the horses and put an engine in the carriage. Does "car" come from carriage?

When I found I could take old film slides and make digital slideshows (or use digital pictures as the original "slides", and add narration, music, titles, menus, credits, annotation,s fades, etc., I was really exciting to do and see. It's another form of creativity that adds to the traditional slideshow with projector. I could burn DVD's and make copies to give to relatives or even download them to YouTube so others can watch them easily.

 

[Helge]

I own one made by Kaiser. It is a low quality piece of junk!

Well it’s basically a light box with a loupe in front.
There’s is only so many ways to fuck up a simple loupe. It is possible though of course.

 

[Helge]

One way to conduct a slideshow that isn’t a snore fest, is to keep the tempo up.
Keep them wanting.
If you used a year compiling the carousel doesn’t mean it should take an hour taking a round trip.
If your projector has an auto change set it to thirty seconds per slide tops.
Then let it go and let people do what they want.
That’s actually a good way to hone your skills of taking attention and interesting grabbing photos. They should hopefully do the job of attracting an audience themselves.

 

[Mesabound]

Hm, I have certainly had more issues scanning slide than color negative (especially compared to Portra which scans very easily IME), but I don't doubt user error on my end here.

 

[Les Sarile]

Better internegs than ever can be made today. It just requires something everybody in this day and age seems allergic to - time and effort. Everybody wants everything yesterday, and doesn't care about the quality. But most commercial internegs in the good ole days were relatively miserable. Speed and volume of output was the priority even back then unless one could afford a true custom print job. My philosophy has always been, if you want something done right, do it yourself.

Early 2000 I sent a frame of each film type I shot to Fuji Pro in Arizona to get 20" X 30" traditional prints made. Included were some slides. When I got the prints back, included were internegs they took of the slides in order to make prints.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

One way to conduct a slideshow that isn’t a snore fest, is to keep the tempo up.
Keep them wanting.
If you used a year compiling the carousel doesn’t mean it should take an hour taking a round trip.
If your projector has an auto change set it to thirty seconds per slide tops.
Then let it go and let people do what they want.
That’s actually a good way to hone your skills of taking attention and interesting grabbing photos. They should hopefully do the job of attracting an audience themselves.

Thirty seconds!! How about three? When I do a vacation slideshow converted to digital, I started at 5 seconds using one second fades, then reduced it to four seconds because five was too long. People don't want to stare a picture for thirty seconds. Who does that?
Here's an Ektachrome slide show I did that lasts around 6 minutes and each slide is about 5 seconds, with music. Take a look and tell me if you actually got through the whole thing?

 

[Helge]

Thirty seconds!! How about three? When I do a vacation slideshow converted to digital, I started at 5 seconds using one second fades, then reduced it to four seconds because five was too long. People don't want to stare a picture for thirty seconds. Who does that?
Here's an Ektachrome slide show I did that lasts around 6 minutes and each slide is about 5 seconds, with music. Take a look and tell me if you actually got through the whole thing?

Depends on the setup. If it’s casual background to conversation, like music, it can work. But notice how I write “tops”.
Problem is if there is a mini lecture attached to each and every slide.
That get’s old real fast.
Unless you are doing an actual lecture, it should be a very short show.
Twenty pictures at the most.
Or alternatively with a whole carrousel, something that is just there, while you converse and eat and drink.

Of course you should also enjoy you own photography.

It should never be a chore to take out the projector. Otherwise you might as well not have it.

 

[grat]

Alan... actually, I watched that video about 6 months ago. All the way through. I admit, I did a bit of fast-forwarding between images. I was looking up Key Largo for some reason (the place, not the song).

 

[Maris]

All the colour transparency film I shot in a commercial setting was just a means of carrying the image from the back of the camera down to the plate setters workshop prior to the printing presses turning out industrial quantities of colour illustration.

So why not colour negative? Because the art editors I worked with could not read colour negatives and did not trust received opinion that the pictures were just fine. Considering the responsibility involved and the money committed I can't blame them. And the transparency could be compared to the press output. If the match wasn't good hell could be raised.