Explain slide film to newbie

[Diapositivo]

Marginal cost doesn't tell the story. Film gives professional quality. If I had to buy a digital setup for what I am doing with film I would have to spend several thousand Euros first. Then again, I would have to worry about theft or damage every day, and/or buy insurance etc.

Supposing you shoot, as a normal amateur average, let's say 30 rolls per year. You can buy film for €4 per roll and process it for €1 per roll. That's €150 per year in material. The digital turn-over alone (obsolescence, damage, theft) will cost you more than that. If you spend €3000 for a high-quality digital camera and a couple lenses only, you are not going to use them for 20 years before having to spend some more money again. I am still using my 1980 camera and the only cost I had was a single CLA in those 32 years.

I insist electricity is a cost. Add some tenth of Euro per year only as far as proper electricity cost for backup is concerned.

Film cameras, Jobo processors, (manual focus especially) lenses really are "one time" expenses. Digital cameras are not.

Take a note of all your expenses for analogue photography and all your expenses for digital photography. Make the total at the end of each year. I would bet you will easily discover - if you use a high-quality digital setup - that film really is cheaper if you process it at home.

You have now bought a slide projector that will last more than your self. Try buying a digital projector to put at its side. In a few years I will ask you again if you bought a new projector, and if you bought a new digital projector. And a few years from that moment, I will repeat my question again

That said, I use both digital and film because I do understand that they both have a place in my shooting habits and goals. But I do insist that self-developed film photography for the average amateur is cheaper when you "do the math" over several years.

My invitation to take note was not rethorical. Do create a spreadsheet and "do the math". You'll change your mind in a few years I say.

 

[pbromaghin]

Yohimbe2, I am not trying to pile on, nor am I yelling at you. You made an unsupported generalization, expressing an unfortunately widely-held and popular misconception concerning the economics of photography. I made a statement that you are incorrect, but did not back it up with any numbers, either. Well, you deserve a fuller explanation.

I did the math about 3 years ago. I was assisted by a sales manager at my local camera store, a former manufacturer's rep who knows more about the photography business, current and past, than any other person I know. He was willing to do this because he has sold my wife plenty of digital gear.

Projected initial equipment costs for digital photography as a serious hobby came to almost $8,000 for cameras, lenses, printers, computer and software. For film, my actual spending, plus replacement cost of equipment I already had, came to about $1200 for 35mm and Medium Format cameras and lenses and semi-pro level darkroom setup.

Because it is possible (for somebody of my limited talent) to control and do with my own hands, from beginning to end with reasonable ease, I chose to shoot B&W. In 100ft rolls, film and processing costs less than $.15 per shot. Shooting about one roll per week comes to about $187 per year.

$8,000 - $1,200 = $6,800

$6,800/$187 = 43+ years of shooting digital to get back my initial investment.

Figuring from 3 years ago, I will be 95 years old at that time. These numbers are real. Where is the denial?

 

[ntenny]

The key is the first edit needs to be brutal. Any slides that are too dark, too light, out of focus, wrong colour balance, bad composition, toss them. Even if they don't seem that bad, toss them.

I dunno---I tend to favor "keep everything in storage somewhere", especially for objects with the longevity of slides. You never know what's going to be interesting two generations from now.

My late father-in-law was a snapshots-on-slides guy, mostly using the weird negative-to-positive process with cine stocks rather than true slide films---the technical quality of the materials is poor, the images generally are of the "just snapshots" grade (he was a competent guy with a camera but had no interest in being an Artiste), and I'm awfully glad he kept the lot rather than filtering them aggressively. In 1975 it was just a mediocre photo, but today it's something I can show to my son and say "This is your mom when she was your age!"

-NT

 

[Alan Klein]

I shot 35mm slides for years and projected them. I still have my Ektagraphic random access unit. I still shoot Velvia although in medium format. But I have scanned and displayed slide shows on my 52" HDTV and the displays are great. I haven't compared to slide projection one-on-one. But they apear excellent on a good HDTV.

 

[damonff]

No

Denial much here? Come on, as much as I like shooting film--- lets get real. It is MUCH cheaper to shoot digital.

Now to some of you veteran photographers, maybe you have shot thousands of rolls of film to learn your technique. Some of us are still learning, and with hundreds upon hundreds of faliures/learning shots, the cost is almost free--to fail. Just hit delete. learn, move on. (very little cost)

a 1 TB Hard Drive costs about $80. Buy two and you have backup. These will hold thousands upon thousands of pictures.

My Epson R2400 prints with archival ink. My grand childrens grand children will enjoy these pictures long after my hard drives have fermented. My best pictures are framed and matted.

Slide film? I like. But then again, a simple projector hooked to my computer will do the job well (as well or better). And I can hit print anytime. (something I'm still confused about with Slide film)

Editing. (now this is huge) lets say my white balance is off ( my first roll of Velvia 50) Too bad. Buy more film.

Film Cost. $7 a roll, $10 to process. About $17 bucks. (for 36 shots) Hate all your pics? (Or LEARNED SOMETHING new?) too bad. Shell out the $$$

Digital cost. (0) Shoot countless pictures and choose your best,----learn---much. (my $40 card can hold well over 1000 pictures)

OK, with that all aside. I want to do BOTH> Film and digital. Why? Because I want to learn photography. Thats it. 99.0% of the digital photography population started like me----with digital. I'm one of the few curious to see where it all started. (although they all tell me I'm nuts). I know film has a place and want to learn.

No.

If you buy one digital camera for $6,000 and never buy another, maybe.

But that's not the situation with digital.

Develop slides at home and the cost per roll is $1.67 with the Tetenal kit. Film is cheap if you know where and how to look. For example, I bought a 100 ft. roll of old emulsion Velvia RVP for $70 online. 20 rolls per can. $3.50 per roll. Total per roll with developing is $5.17 or about $.14 per frame.

C41 and B/W are even cheaper if you use Rodinal, D76, XTOL, or a C41 kit.

And my camera and lens are both from the 1970s and cost me $150.

But, as The Digital Underground sang in the 1980s, "Do what you like."

 

[yohimbe2]

OK, too silly. I regret opening this can of worms as the worms have crawled in an opposite direction. No need to pull out our spreadsheets analyzing cost differences.

This forum is full of folks that shoot film, and many have been shooting film for many years. Please understand that there are some like me that started photography with digital......How many people that started with digital come back to film? I have no idea. But I would bet it is a very small percentage.

So lets say we are talking about a man/woman that already has a few Digital bodies, software, computer, printer, flash, lenses etc...(and decides to go back to film) Come on now-----it is VERY expensive to shoot film. (without a dark room)

Nikon d5100 Kit with Zoom lens (About $800) Add a 50 mm 1.8 ( $100) printer (Epson R2400 used $200) and software (Lightroom or NX2 $200) and it comes to around $1500 (add or take a few accessories) Shoot your head off-----take THOUSANDS OF PICTURES> Toss away all the junk.....Turn the shoot speed to max FPS ! (Something I cant afford to do with my F5 at 8 FPS)-------------

You just cant do this with film. (now I'll come back later to tell you why I think thats a good thing for folks like me------who are Snap Happy)

I have learned much reading your well written responses and must admit there are many very valid points being made. I'm glad I asked--I learned something and have something to think about.

While I got you (and before I get slammed) Can anyone recommend other film types to try other than Velvia 50/100? I could use some non slide film a little faster for my kids.

 

[wogster]

OK, too silly. I regret opening this can of worms as the worms have crawled in an opposite direction. No need to pull out our spreadsheets analyzing cost differences.

This forum is full of folks that shoot film, and many have been shooting film for many years. Please understand that there are some like me that started photography with digital......How many people that started with digital come back to film? I have no idea. But I would bet it is a very small percentage.

So lets say we are talking about a man/woman that already has a few Digital bodies, software, computer, printer, flash, lenses etc...(and decides to go back to film) Come on now-----it is VERY expensive to shoot film. (without a dark room)

Nikon d5100 Kit with Zoom lens (About $800) Add a 50 mm 1.8 ( $100) printer (Epson R2400 used $200) and software (Lightroom or NX2 $200) and it comes to around $1500 (add or take a few accessories) Shoot your head off-----take THOUSANDS OF PICTURES> Toss away all the junk.....Turn the shoot speed to max FPS ! (Something I cant afford to do with my F5 at 8 FPS)-------------

You just cant do this with film. (now I'll come back later to tell you why I think thats a good thing for folks like me------who are Snap Happy)

I have learned much reading your well written responses and must admit there are many very valid points being made. I'm glad I asked--I learned something and have something to think about.

While I got you (and before I get slammed) Can anyone recommend other film types to try other than Velvia 50/100? I could use some non slide film a little faster for my kids.

Try any of the modern Kodak or Fuji negative films.....

 

[damonff]

Fuji Superia 200 is cheap and awesome (to my eyes).

 

[yohimbe2]

Fuji Superia 200 is cheap and awesome (to my eyes).

Thanks, I just ordered 20 rolls. Anything else good with flash?

 

[damonff]

Kodak 160 NC but it's hard to find in canisters. Ultrafine has it in 100 feet rolls, that's how I buy it.

 

[Bill Burk]

My late father-in-law was a snapshots-on-slides guy, mostly using the weird negative-to-positive process with cine stocks rather than true slide films---the technical quality of the materials is poor,

I did this for just a few years in college until I realized to aspire to be "professional" I would need to shoot Kodachrome.

If he saved the negs and you have them, they may still have all the original color. Or at least color that could be restored. (I can explain how I do it... over at DPUG...).

yohimbe2, Good for you to want to do both!

 

[Roger Cole]

Portra 400 for faster film in color neg for nice neutral color. Portra 800 for another stop of speed. Ektar 100 for a color negative film with very vibrant saturated color.

Black and white can get you a ton of choices, almost too many sometimes, but labs that do it well are rare and can be pricey. Most of us just do it ourselves. You can buy everything you really need for a B&W darkroom for a few hundred dollars these days (often way less if you keep an eye out and know what you're looking for) but that doesn't provide a place to use it. All you really need is a room that can be blacked out. You can get by without running water and wash film and prints in the bathroom or kitchen (I do this) but it is really nice to be able to leave it all set up all the time. I would take my permanent darkroom without running water over a temporary set up in a bathroom with the need to set up and clean up each time any day. In fact I did make just that choice.

I think it seems digital costs more to us folks who have been shooting film for decades because we can't conceive of shooting hundreds of shots on an outing. I often curse that 36 is just too darned many and I have to leave a roll in the camera for weeks or do a mid roll change for a different type. One of my medium format cameras yields 12 shots on a roll of 120 and the other 15 and this often seems about perfect to me. But if you are used to popping off a few hundred frames at a time then film will indeed get very expensive very quickly if you don't change your shooting style.

Someone else alluded to it but those of us who shoot large format take film to the other extreme. My 4x5 black and white costs from a bit under a buck a shot to over $1.50, color from $2 to $3 not counting processing and it can take maybe 10 minutes to set up and get ready for a shot. It's not unusual for me to spend a half hour setting up, moving slightly, focusing composing and metering, and then decide the shot doesn't work and not even take it. The film costs way more per shot but I spend less per hour out with my 4x5 camera than I do with any of my smaller cameras.

 

[Alan Klein]

I was looking at some of my Velvia 120 medium format negatives from 15-20 years ago. They were with 4x5 inter-negatives that the printer took of the Velvia when they printed 16"x20" on C paper for me. The prints seem to have faded somewhat since then. What happens to the vibrant colors when inter-negatives are used? What do people do today to print from the slides?

 

[pbromaghin]

Pretty much any film that people mention here will give good results. The differences are mainly a matter of taste. If you like the vibrant, jump-off-the-page colors of Velvia, Ektar 100 is a good substitute. It's much cheaper to purchase and process and is way more forgiving of exposure variance, so you'll probably get more keepers.

BTW, I do own a rather good digital camera. I just hardly use it because film gives me so much more enjoyment.

 

[yohimbe2]

Pretty much any film that people mention here will give good results. The differences are mainly a matter of taste. If you like the vibrant, jump-off-the-page colors of Velvia, Ektar 100 is a good substitute. It's much cheaper to purchase and process and is way more forgiving of exposure variance, so you'll probably get more keepers.

BTW, I do own a rather good digital camera. I just hardly use it because film gives me so much more enjoyment.

Speak of the devil. I shot a roll of Ektar 100 early this evening...Good to know this is decent film.

Tonight I hiked with two tripods/cameras over my shoulder. I use my digital camera as a "SCOPE" to see if I have any good shots/lighting. I found a very special angle of a road tonight with my D90. Then, I let the film fly.

Great forum all. I appreciate the tips very much and am taking notes of all of your recommendations.. I'm loving this F5 (Although the focus points on digital are MUCH better). At this point, I'd say If I had to choose between film and digital there is no question digital would be the winner. But I dont have to choose and get to have my cake and eat it too...!!!

 

[damonff]

F5

I love my F5. It has a roll of Ektachrome 200 in it right now. Great film.

I don't like Ektar. I think it is junk.

160 NC is much better.

In my opinion of course.

 

[Roger Cole]

Ektar generates a lot of love and a lot of hate. I really like it, but see another thread here for someone who doesn't. (Eventually locked because of the turn it took, but worth your read.)

160NC is a discontinued film, but there's so little difference between the new Portra 160 and 400 and the old NC and VC, which had become quite similar anyway, it makes little difference. True that there's not a really pastel film like the old Agfra Portrait anymore, though.

 

[pukalo]

yes, Ektar...you are rolling the dice, and seting yourself up for a big let down with the film experience....would be much better off shooting a roll of slide film, any slide film. It gives max differentiation from the digital experience in many ways IMO...and generally gives better scans/digital results too (sharper, better colors, better resolution).

 

[Roger Cole]

yes, Ektar...you are rolling the dice, and seting yourself up for a big let down with the film experience....would be much better off shooting a roll of slide film, any slide film. It gives max differentiation from the digital experience in many ways IMO...and generally gives better scans/digital results too (sharper, better colors, better resolution).

I find this very strange and not at all consistent with my experience. Ektar is a bit less tolerant of sloppy exposure or, particularly, open shade skylight without filtering, than other negative film, but is still a lot more forgiving than slide film. Again, in my experience. I only have my Ektar commercially printed on photo paper so far. I don't know if it's purely optical or lightjet style. Doesn't matter - I get really nice results from it.

Don't worry about the Ektar. Just shoot the stuff.

One thing to be aware of though, is that slide film is more like digital in having little exposure latitude and what it does have tends to be on the underexposure side. That is, slight underexposure is less damaging to the results than overexposure. Both will tend to "blow out highlights" or show clipping in the highlights (same effect, in analog and digital terms respectively) from overexposure. Negative film has FAR more latitude, even Ektar, but it's mostly on the overexposure side. In fact it's almost impossible to accidentally overexpose most negative films to a degree that visibly harms the results, with proper printing. It can be done but takes a tremendous amount of extra light. With negative film, when in doubt always err on the side of generous exposure.

I just got back a roll of 120 Portra 400 that I shot after forgetting to reset the meter from shooting FP4+ at 125. Results are beautiful.

 

[pbromaghin]

yes, Ektar...you are rolling the dice, and seting yourself up for a big let down with the film experience....would be much better off shooting a roll of slide film, any slide film. It gives max differentiation from the digital experience in many ways IMO...and generally gives better scans/digital results too (sharper, better colors, better resolution).

What kinds of problems have you had? It always behaved well for me. Having concentrated on B&W, it's been a couple of years since I shot it, but the last roll handled all kinds of conditions. Thanks to Colorado's variable weather, mid-day sun, forest shade, medium overcast and the magic hour of sunset all occurred in the same day. There were no problems that couldn't be attributed to photographer error. One shot in particular stands out - four people sitting together, two in shade and two in bright sun with no blown out highlights or disappearing shadow detail. As much as I love Velvia, that would have been an ugly mess; the whole roll probably would have.

 

[Roger Cole]

What kinds of problems have you had? It always behaved well for me. Having concentrated on B&W, it's been a couple of years since I shot it, but the last roll handled all kinds of conditions. Thanks to Colorado's variable weather, mid-day sun, forest shade, medium overcast and the magic hour of sunset all occurred in the same day. There were no problems that couldn't be attributed to photographer error. One shot in particular stands out - four people sitting together, two in shade and two in bright sun with no blown out highlights or disappearing shadow detail. As much as I love Velvia, that would have been an ugly mess; the whole roll probably would have.

A lot of that was discussed (without clear conclusions, except that at least some people having trouble with it seem to be scanning it and it may be more trouble and take more care to get right than some other films) in that other thread.

I don't get it either. I think it's a great film. The Portras are generally better portrait films but even there Ektar can do well. I shoot Portra 400 as my standard color neg film, but switch to Ektar when I want more saturated color.

 

[pbromaghin]

Roger, I wondered about that thread, too. Kodak says it was designed to be scanned. I can't remember if I have scanned my own, but the lab scans (from a pretty good lab) have always been good. I always ask for no corrections to prints so they will show all my screw-ups. There have been no issues there, either.


Peter

 

[RPC]

Nothing personal, but I always shake my head when I hear of someone asking for "no corrections" with color negative film. There always has to be corrections, since the orange color of the masking system has to be removed, either when making an optical print or scanning (mostly by software). This involves a huge correction. Then, a subjective correction is made to give what the viewer thinks is correct. A true, no correction image would have a terrible, blue-cyan cast from the reversed mask. Unless you are getting that from your lab, you certainly are getting corrections by software and/or an operator. And they are more or less arbitrary!

 

[Hatchetman]

Sometimes they "correct" the exposure, which is hugely annoying. Especially if you've ordered prints.

 

[pbromaghin]

Nothing personal, but I always shake my head when I hear of someone asking for "no corrections" with color negative film. There always has to be corrections, since the orange color of the masking system has to be removed, either when making an optical print or scanning (mostly by software). This involves a huge correction. Then, a subjective correction is made to give what the viewer thinks is correct. A true, no correction image would have a terrible, blue-cyan cast from the reversed mask. Unless you are getting that from your lab, you certainly are getting corrections by software and/or an operator. And they are more or less arbitrary!

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pedantic