Explain slide film to newbie

[removed account4]

I have 30 rolls of Velvia 50 and a Nikon F5. I was hoping that this film/camera combo might add a layer to my hobby (95% digital)

Where can I get this film developed? Can anyone explain what slides are and how it works to get them printed? Rockwell lead me to Velvia 50 and I'm lost

shooting slides is very similar to shooting your d-thing.
bracket your exposures a little to see what works for you
and enjoy yourself ...

i agree with you that film costs are expensive compared to the d-thing.
i am not a photo rep, or a camera store manager, but i have been shooting
assignments for 20+ years. i laugh when i hear the constant upgrade argument
as if every 6months to a year one has to upgrade everything. i have been using
the same "hardware" for a long while and i don't see the need to upgrade unless
it stops working as it is supposed to, or it can't be repaired, just like with
the various analog equipments i have purchased over the years.
there is a fever to upgrade analog equipment too ... chasing the silver bullet is not
just a Dthing, but an film thing too. there are plenty of people who have more cameras
and lenses than they can shoot in a week, and have shot, processed, printed
10 different films and made prints more developers than they can remember .

in the end it doesn't matter does it ?



good luck with your film endeavors !
john

 

[RPC]

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

So you had a problem with my post?

Explain then, what you meant by "no corrections" and how my post was not proper based on what you wrote.

And why you had to respond sarcastically.

 

[Diapositivo]

I also have the impression that asking for "no corrections" for negative films to a laboratory is just like when my mother asks for "no oil" on her pizza or when somebody asks for "abundant portions" in a restaurant. The waiter will say "of course Sir, as you wish" and will not even take note of it

The entire stuff is normally passed through an automated machine. If there is an operator which tries to strike a nice colour balance he wouldn't know what "no corrections" means. He'll just try to strike a correct colour balance.

You can ask "no corrections" only for slide scans as in that case the operator can actually aim to have a scan looking exactly as the slide. With negative there is no such an immediate term of comparison, the operator doesn't know how the negative would look "without corrections". He might use some basic/default settings but that would expose himself to a risk of client complaints. So he'll behave like the waiter. "of course Sir, as you wish"

 

[wogster]

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!

Sometimes though the corrections mask problems, unless your testing a new film, and trying to bracket exposure to find the magical exposure index that works for you, it really doesn't matter the lab print is trying to make every negative, no matter how bad, into a usable print. This is something you don't get with slides and you don't get with digital.

 

[wogster]

i agree with you that film costs are expensive compared to the d-thing.
i am not a photo rep, or a camera store manager, but i have been shooting
assignments for 20+ years. i laugh when i hear the constant upgrade argument
as if every 6months to a year one has to upgrade everything.

Your right here, film is not cheap, and your also right about constant upgrades to Digital, unless there is some
new feature you need, there is no reason why a digital camera can't see the same life expectancy as a film camera,
and this comes from a guy with a couple of film cameras in their 30's. As long as computers have USB ports, and there
are smart drivers around....

 

[Diapositivo]

Your right here, film is not cheap, and your also right about constant upgrades to Digital, unless there is some
new feature you need, there is no reason why a digital camera can't see the same life expectancy as a film camera,
and this comes from a guy with a couple of film cameras in their 30's. As long as computers have USB ports, and there
are smart drivers around....

By way of example:

my digital camera has a fixed lens and the sensor is not accessible. In theory it is protected by dust, in practice dust will slowly find its way to the sensor. I am already experiencing the first problems. The only way to clean the sensor is to give the camera to Sony. When I really have to have it cleaned, I might be better off buying another one, as this is no work that can I entrust to the generic repairer (the last element of the lens arrive at 2 mm from the sensor, it's an animal sui generis) and as even cleaning by a laboratory is often quite an imperfect work. You have to keep account of this problem with every fixed-lens digital camera. It's as if they had an expiry date.

In an ordinary DSLR you have to clean the sensor from time to time. This is a delicate operation and sooner or later you might damage the sensor. If you clean the sensor every two weeks, that means you have cleaned the sensor 2000 times in 20 years. I don't think it be easy to clean a sensor 2000 times without leaving scratches, persistent deposits or other damages.

There are many more things that can get broken in a digital camera: sensor, LCDs, servomotors on lenses. All this stuff is electronic and it won't last 70 years because capacitors fail much before. In part that's true for last generation film cameras, but there is still much more electronic in a digital camera.

Batteries might be superseded by new formats. In ten years time I am not guaranteed to find batteries for my digital camera. On the other hand, I cannot buy them now as batteries get old also when not used. Third-party batteries tend to be unreliable. My camera uses "intelligent" batteries with a chip inside exchanging informations with the camera. I have doubts about the quality of generic batteries.

Obsolescence is still a problem. An agency of mine doesn't accept any more images from a camera with less than 12mp. My camera has 11mp and this agency doesn't see any more my digital work. They go on accepting analogue work (scanned at an equivalent of 19mp resolution). Many stock digital photographers are, by now, at their third or fourth digital camera generation. Film photographers never had to upgrade to remain current with quality standards. I bought my 2006 digital camera second-hand in 2008, and at the beginning of 2012 I was told it was obsolete. It seems that the perception clients have about quality of a digital image is a moving target.

Theft. Cameras have always been objects at high risk of theft. That does not apply any more to film cameras .

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

[...]

Theft. Cameras have always been objects at high risk of theft. That does not apply any more to film cameras .

Doesn't it?

 

[PhotoJim]

If you clean the sensor every two weeks, that means you have cleaned the sensor 2000 times in 20 years.

520 actually. 20 * 52 / 2 = 520.

 

[ntenny]

(neg-to-pos on cine stock, a la RGB, Seattle FilmWorks, &c.)

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...)

The color of the slides actually seems to have held up pretty well so far, to my surprise. (I don't know what stock they used to "print" them on---I suppose some sort of color dupe film.) He did keep the negatives, but I haven't checked to see what kind of condition they're in.

-NT

 

[wogster]

By way of example:

my digital camera has a fixed lens and the sensor is not accessible. In theory it is protected by dust, in practice dust will slowly find its way to the sensor. I am already experiencing the first problems. The only way to clean the sensor is to give the camera to Sony. When I really have to have it cleaned, I might be better off buying another one, as this is no work that can I entrust to the generic repairer (the last element of the lens arrive at 2 mm from the sensor, it's an animal sui generis) and as even cleaning by a laboratory is often quite an imperfect work. You have to keep account of this problem with every fixed-lens digital camera. It's as if they had an expiry date.

In an ordinary DSLR you have to clean the sensor from time to time. This is a delicate operation and sooner or later you might damage the sensor. If you clean the sensor every two weeks, that means you have cleaned the sensor 2000 times in 20 years. I don't think it be easy to clean a sensor 2000 times without leaving scratches, persistent deposits or other damages.

There are many more things that can get broken in a digital camera: sensor, LCDs, servomotors on lenses. All this stuff is electronic and it won't last 70 years because capacitors fail much before. In part that's true for last generation film cameras, but there is still much more electronic in a digital camera.

Batteries might be superseded by new formats. In ten years time I am not guaranteed to find batteries for my digital camera. On the other hand, I cannot buy them now as batteries get old also when not used. Third-party batteries tend to be unreliable. My camera uses "intelligent" batteries with a chip inside exchanging informations with the camera. I have doubts about the quality of generic batteries.

Obsolescence is still a problem. An agency of mine doesn't accept any more images from a camera with less than 12mp. My camera has 11mp and this agency doesn't see any more my digital work. They go on accepting analogue work (scanned at an equivalent of 19mp resolution). Many stock digital photographers are, by now, at their third or fourth digital camera generation. Film photographers never had to upgrade to remain current with quality standards. I bought my 2006 digital camera second-hand in 2008, and at the beginning of 2012 I was told it was obsolete. It seems that the perception clients have about quality of a digital image is a moving target.

Theft. Cameras have always been objects at high risk of theft. That does not apply any more to film cameras .

I don't know my DSLR gets the sensor cleaned about once every 3 months or so, that's the point when retouching becomes to much of a pain in the donkey. If it needs a major cleaning it will go back to Canon for that, although after 6 years, it hasn't reached that point yet.

My compact digital cost me under $100, when it needs servicing it will probably get replaced rather then serviced. Considering what some of the modern compacts are capable of, it's unsure whether I will not simply retire the DSLR when the time comes.

Your right, batteries may be the reason that a lot of digital cameras end up being decommissioned. Your also right a film photographer doesn't need to upgrade often, but that's partly because the technology is very mature. Lots of photographers in the film days wanted the latest and greatest, so cameras were tossed when auto-exposure came out, lots more were tossed when auto-focus became available as well.

 

[ME Super]

If you use a DSLR that uses AA batteries (there are a few of them) batteries are less of an issue. Memory cards, OTOH are a different story, and they do wear out.

 

[Bill Burk]

(neg-to-pos on cine stock, a la RGB, Seattle FilmWorks, &c.)

The color of the slides actually seems to have held up pretty well so far, to my surprise. (I don't know what stock they used to "print" them on---I suppose some sort of color dupe film.) He did keep the negatives, but I haven't checked to see what kind of condition they're in.

-NT

That's the brand I used, RGB, and my slides faded except one I put in a glass mount. It's a stark difference.

The fading might be why you think the pictures look amateurish.

Check out the negs when you get a chance. In my case the negs (which were returned in plastic sheathing) held up very well.

 

[removed account4]

SNIP

. Your also right a film photographer doesn't need to upgrade often, but that's partly because the technology is very mature. Lots of photographers in the film days wanted the latest and greatest, so cameras were tossed when auto-exposure came out, lots more were tossed when auto-focus became available as well.

forget about "the film days" nearly 90% of the folks who post here on apug
seem to have more equipment than they know what to do with
i don't think it is a days gone by, or a digital thing ...

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[wogster]

SNIP

forget about "the film days" nearly 90% of the folks who post here on apug
seem to have more equipment than they know what to do with
i don't think it is a days gone by, or a digital thing ...

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I was just saying that if we go back 20 some years, long before digital, people still retired perfectly good films because some new technology came out. If you bought your first camera system in 1960, that camera system is probably still functional, but was replaced in the 1970's when auto exposure became the big deal, and you would have replaced all of your bodies and most lenses, because AE needed the light meter and it needed to either set or detect the aperature. Then you replaced it again 90's when Auto-focus came out. Now a lot of people have replaced it all again in the 2000's to get digital. Lots of those old camera generations are languishing in basements and attics because the resale market died when the technology was usurped.

One of the advantages with film cameras is that I can put the latest and greatest film in my elderly camera and have the latest and greatest sensing material. This is in essence the problem with digital cameras, in order to improve the sensor you need to replace the entire camera (body), this may not always be the case, it is right now because the technology is still a moving target.

 

[Roger Cole]

Most of us that have lots of film cameras have them because we can; we like them and they're cheap these days. The prices of used film cameras are a pittance compared to high end digital (but not necessarily compared to digital that can do pretty nicely.)

Another point is that we have more need for them. With digital, you don't have to change film mid roll or shoot up the rest of the roll to change to a faster, slower, black and white, different whatever film. I have three working 35mm bodies that I usually carry when I'm shooting 35mm, each usually loaded with a different kind of film. Or I should say I have them available - as on our recent trip to my wife's family reunion in Alabama. I had fast black and white (TMZ) in one body, E100G in a second and Provia 400 in a third. I'm shooting a lot of slides this year while I can. I seldom took all three bodies out of the house at the same time, but I didn't have to do the hassle of mid roll changes (and a wasted frame to be sure) either. I DID take the medium and fast slide cameras out at the same time, and could choose one for shade, the other for sun. This is un-necessary in digital. (Ok, not strictly necessary in 35mm either, but it sure is handy and the bodies are cheap enough now - well the MX was, I paid a bit more for the LX.)

In medium format this goes away if you have interchangeable backs, but the systems are much bigger and heavier. I didn't even take my 645 Pro system as I was already taking a rather large 35mm kit and the Linhof 4x5. I DID take my Yashicamat as the entire bag with camera, lens hood, Luna Pro SBC and spot attachment, cable release and extra film is still quite small and light. But again - while there are medium and even large format digital cameras, most people don't have them, don't really need them, and can't afford them.

I'm not sure this adds up to a recommendation in either direction as to which costs less in equipment. I probably still have less in all three 35mm bodies, three lenses (one Pentax prime and two Vivitar Series 1s), Yashicamat with the accessories mentioned above, and the Linhof kit with my lenses, film holders, spot meter, filters, Polaroid back etc. than I'd spend for one top of the line full frame digital - but not for a middle of the road APS sized one.

Bottom line is, as long as you can afford it, who cares which one is cheaper? Use what you like.

 

[wogster]

Most of us that have lots of film cameras have them because we can; we like them and they're cheap these days. The prices of used film cameras are a pittance compared to high end digital (but not necessarily compared to digital that can do pretty nicely.)

Another point is that we have more need for them. With digital, you don't have to change film mid roll or shoot up the rest of the roll to change to a faster, slower, black and white, different whatever film. I have three working 35mm bodies that I usually carry when I'm shooting 35mm, each usually loaded with a different kind of film. Or I should say I have them available - as on our recent trip to my wife's family reunion in Alabama. I had fast black and white (TMZ) in one body, E100G in a second and Provia 400 in a third. I'm shooting a lot of slides this year while I can. I seldom took all three bodies out of the house at the same time, but I didn't have to do the hassle of mid roll changes (and a wasted frame to be sure) either. I DID take the medium and fast slide cameras out at the same time, and could choose one for shade, the other for sun. This is un-necessary in digital. (Ok, not strictly necessary in 35mm either, but it sure is handy and the bodies are cheap enough now - well the MX was, I paid a bit more for the LX.)

In medium format this goes away if you have interchangeable backs, but the systems are much bigger and heavier. I didn't even take my 645 Pro system as I was already taking a rather large 35mm kit and the Linhof 4x5. I DID take my Yashicamat as the entire bag with camera, lens hood, Luna Pro SBC and spot attachment, cable release and extra film is still quite small and light. But again - while there are medium and even large format digital cameras, most people don't have them, don't really need them, and can't afford them.

I'm not sure this adds up to a recommendation in either direction as to which costs less in equipment. I probably still have less in all three 35mm bodies, three lenses (one Pentax prime and two Vivitar Series 1s), Yashicamat with the accessories mentioned above, and the Linhof kit with my lenses, film holders, spot meter, filters, Polaroid back etc. than I'd spend for one top of the line full frame digital - but not for a middle of the road APS sized one.

Bottom line is, as long as you can afford it, who cares which one is cheaper? Use what you like.

When I shot mostly film, I usually had one of the Ilford B&W films -- often PanF, or FP4 in the Konica FC-1, I don't think I shot more then 5 rolls of HP5, and only shot 2 of Tri-X, and that was only because I took a photography course that required it, always thought it had ugly grain. The TC usually had some colour negative film in it, usually whatever was cheapest at the store when I bought it. In the old days that was lots of Kodak Consumer film, then it became films like Fuji Superia where I got a 4 roll pack for $7. The TC is now 35 years old, has a light leak and desperately needs new leather and a CLA, the meter which requires mercury batteries to work properly is dead. The camera is now officially retired, and a Canon Digital Rebel replaced it for colour work. What I have found though, as I get older is that I often don't want to carry 2 bodies and 6 lenses, so I added a P&S digital to the mix, and that 160g camera, can go in a pocket so it's almost always with me. I expect it will see the most shooting over the next few years.

 

[yohimbe2]

Today, I carried one camera and a single roll of film. (Velvia 50) It was a clear day with bright sunshine and blue skies------very rare in the DC area.

36 Shots. Thats it. I brought only one roll to limit my shooting.

And then I got a call....three rolls of Velvia 50 slides ready for pickup. Tonight I sat in complete awe of how good this hobby can be. My images were blasted on my living room wall HUGE and detailed. I've found something special here.

Thanks all ! I'll pass on the D800 for a while. This F5/ Velvia/Ektagraph projector will keep me going for quite a few generations of digital cameras. (with my D90 as a backup)

 

[pbromaghin]

How cool is this. Just like a Disney movie.

Welcome home, Yohimbe2.

 

[Hatchetman]

Keep an eye out for a decent projector screen. I got one in good condition for $40 shipped via eBay (I think it was $10 plus $30 shipping).

 

[yohimbe2]

OK. 50 years later, I have discovered joy in an old technology (on its way out). I get it. I REALLY GET IT. I can look at my pictures in a way I never imagined. HUGE !!! Detailed !!!

Now, I like to be different. And the fact that ACE photos told me not to shoot film only piqued my interest...I'm so glad I didnt listen to their advice (on film, but they are the best when it comes to digital)

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO !!!

My coworkers that have all taken an interest in photography have been invited to a conference room where I will demonstrate the power of film---With a slide projector ! They own D5100's , D800's, D7000's, Canon ???.

They are impressed with my 13X19 prints---------wait till they see an "old school" projector.

Thanks all.....And now the questions......

1. How big can a Ektagraphic III amt go? At what size will this projector look best?

2. What other slide films are good? Is Velvia it?

3. How good is a Ektagraphic III amt? Can I do much better?

4. What is the risk of this slide film fading completely? I've already watched Velvia 120 and other fade, just as I'm getting started.

5. Any tips for shooting Velvia 35 in direct sunlight? On my Nikon camera (F5) can a negative bump in compensation help to saturate color? I'm shooting direct sdunlight with a 81a filter........


And last thing......Where I found a local shop that can scan film slide to digital.....Newbie pictures to come soon ! ( I shot 7 rolls of Velvia 50 this weekend)

 

[Diapositivo]

I don't know about your specific projector, but I wouldn't go so far as to project an image more than around 1 metre x 1 metre, the bigger the image, the less the contrast, saturation etc. Your projector will probably be some 3 - 4 metres away from the screen.

Do eliminate all ambient light before projecting. For "all" I mean really all, make a test. Light creeps from adjacent rooms, tents which you think are light-tight are not, etc. If you can make the obscurity of the room "absolute" the final result will be better (better black point, better saturation, better contrast). By the same token use a proper projection screen, and open it one hour before the projection so that all the wrinkles can cure themselves.

Velvia, as said, is high-contrast, it has a tendency to block shadows and blow highlights, which results in a typical Velvia look, where if the pure-white and pure-black parts are a very small part of the image, the rest of the image will appear very saturated, but if the pure-white and pure-black parts of the image are a bit more extended, the image will have an unpleasant appearance. Velvia should be better use in situations where you don't have to face high brightness range IMO, but YMMV.

Slides fade after hours of continuous projection. If you project them for a few seconds, as normal, you should enjoy many decades of projections without problems, unless you organize 10 projections per day that is. Fading is more a problem for continuous use such as slide exhibition in musea, with a slide projector left unattended going on for the entire day, and for many days, or weeks, in a row.

I would generally advice against underexposing slides to try to boost saturation. Underexposing just raises the "black point" thus giving a sensation of higher contrast/saturation sacrificing details. I'd rather pay attention to the perfect obscurity of the room, so that the "blackest black" of the slide is "blacker", and in using a proper screen, so that the white is proper pure bright white and all colours are duly saturated.

If your projection to your coworkers is not too near in time I would suggest to try another film, a more "normal" one (Velvia is unlike any other film) so that you can also demonstrate to your colleagues, and to yourself, the normal rendition of a slide and the peculiar "Velvia look" in contrast and saturation. That would arise even more interest. Velvia is like one of those huge dogs who are exaggerately expansive and insalivate your face before you can say "nice dog!". Somebody likes it. Somebody prefers a more normally and politely behaved dog, or film .

Exposure: if the brightness range is not particularly worrying I would just use an incident light meter, metering in the sunlight when you have a mixed sunlight/shadow scene. If the scene has a high brightness range (white objects in sunlight and relatively dark objects in the shade) then as a fast rule:
avoid Velvia ;
measure as above and close 0.3 EV to prevent highlights from blowing.
As always YMMV, conditions apply, and no warranty given.

 

[Roger Cole]

I think by "fade" in this case he meant "be discontinued."

I think slide film is on its way out and we probably have a couple of years, maybe a bit more, but that's just a guess. I've been shooting a lot more slides myself for just this reason, while I still can.

Note that Velvia did NOT go away in 120. There are, or were, three Velvias: 50, which you shot, 100 and 100F. Only the 100F went away in all sizes. Provia, also still made in both 100 and 400 speeds, is an excellent film and less saturated (but still bright and vibrant) and contrasty than Vevlia. There's still some Astia to be found at times but it's been gone in 35mm long enough that it's hard to find so we'll leave that out. Kodak recently stopped making all slide films. Still, E100G, the amateur Elitechrome 100, and E100VS are all still to be found here and there. E100VS is similar to Velvia in some ways (saturated, contrasty) but I found it a bit less harsh. I was shooting a lot of E100G when it was discontinue then bought some more for the film fridge on the announcement. A bit more contrasty than the lamented Fuji Astia but less so than other recent slide films, an excellent film for portraits and light that's a bit too harsh for the super saturated films.

I have a fair number of E100G shots and at least on Provia 100 on my Flickr page (link in signature) if you want to check those out.

 

[yohimbe2]

I don't know about your specific projector, but I wouldn't go so far as to project an image more than around 1 metre x 1 metre, the bigger the image, the less the contrast, saturation etc. Your projector will probably be some 3 - 4 metres away from the screen.
.

Thanks ! I tried projecting with a much smaller image and am very pleased. The images are much more crisp now.

So if not Velvia, what other film should I consider?

 

[Roger Cole]

What's your subject? What's your light?

 

[MattKing]

I generally like to use something like a 50" x 50" screen, so that is closer to 1.5 meter x 1.5 meter.

An Ektagraphic III projector was designed for things like commercial sales presentations, in moderately large rooms - they are/were higher quality machines.

There are differences however in the quality of lenses available for it, and screens also vary in quality, so you need to consider those variables as well.

There are other top line projectors (e.g. Zeiss) that may be higher quality, but few will be as rugged, durable and flexible workhorses as an Ektagraphic.