Hello APUG from FILM Ferrania (PART 2)

I look forward to both Ferrania's new film and the return of EktaChome and hope the market is large enough to support those 2 films as well as Velvia 50. Home projection will always be a niche market. Viewing slides on a lightbox will be so, also. Unfortunately, in the modern world, convenience is frequently a high priority that quality. The audio CD was created in the 1980's. Despite quality improvement since then with DVD-Audio, SACD, and audio on Blu-ray disks, the most popular form of popular music distribution today involves AAC or MP3 music that is "near CD quality". DVD's still outsell Blu-Ray disks.

Hopefully sales of motion picture film will be adequate to assure that these films are made for years to come.

Henning Serger said:

But I think we definitely must expand our view: Price is only one part. More important is, what you get for that price.
And with reversal film you get significantly more for your money. Therefore a higher price is principally justified.
What do you get more:

Click to expand...

Hi Henning

Thank you very much for your well-written and detailed response. Everything you say is of course spot-on. I think it's safe to say that, as slide-film enthusiasts, we all agree regarding the inherent qualities of slide film and the advantages of using it. However, the issue here is how likely a significant proportion of current as well as potential film-users will look at it this way. A lot of "education" could help, but consumers tend to respond strongly to the prices they see on shelves or web pages. Confronted with a price of $3.50 as opposed to $10.00, I doubt that a large proportion of the film-buying public will go for the latter. Not if they want to shoot as many pictures as possible of their upcoming holiday trip or of their child's birthday party. For those users, scans and prints are more than "good enough", and cost and convenience are of greater importance than superior technical quality. They may be aware of the joy of viewing slides, but I strongly suspect that they will regard it as a somewhat extravagant luxury - perhaps something to reserve for the odd special occasion, but not for everyday use.

Another factor to consider is the very forgiving nature of color negative film. Users who aren't as knowledgeable and as careful with exposure as is required by slide film, are bound to be disappointed.

Your points regarding the versatility of slides with regards to viewing are, once again, obvious and important to enthusiasts. But I'm pretty sure that small prints that can be carried in an envelope and passed around, or viewed on anything from a desktop computer to a cell phone, are perceived as more convenient - and, once again, "good enough". To a relatively undiscriminating eye, a scanned negative on a digital screen will probably look as good as a slide viewed with a slide viewer - without the hassle of the care that has to be taken with storage, transportation or handling of the slides.

As I pointed out in response to another post, the technical issues surrounding scanning are also not so relevant to more casual users, who tend to order inexpensive scans when having their films processed.

Henning Serger said:

Labs which so far offer only C41 and BW can quite easily add E6 to their programme. E6 developing machines are available both new and used / refurbished (like new). There are at least three E6 chemical manufacturers (Fuji Hunt, Tetenal, Bellini; Maybe CPAC also).

Click to expand...

Of course that can be easily done from a technical point of view. But it will only happen if the demand is there. As we all know, it's the decline of demand that has caused the options for E6 processing to almost disappear in some markets. In my country, if I weren't processing my own slides, I would have had to send my film away for processing to one of two places I know of. And then I would have had to wait until they had accumulated enough rolls of film to warrant a processing run. Fuji has stopped supplying their E6 lab chemistry here - I was actually offered some of their remaining stock at heavily discounted prices because they want to clear the storage space. The only other supplier left, Cpac, still manufactures E6 chemistry locally, but I have heard they will only be doing so until their current stock of raw chemicals has run out. Tetenal and similar kits haven't been available for many years, and have become impossible to order from abroad. So to be a slide enthusiast right now in South Africa, you have to be either raving mad, a masochist or have an absolutely undying passion for your hobby. I hope that in my case it's the latter.

Henning Serger said:

I know several labs which recently just added E6 service.
For example when I visited Singapore the outstanding enthusiasts of "Analogfilmlab" http://www.analogfilmlab.com/ just implemented their brand new (built for them) dip-and-dunk E6 processor. I visited them when they installed their new machine.

Click to expand...

I sincerely hope those are early signs of a world-wide revival. I know that in Germany the enthusiasm for slides has always been exceptionally strong.

Henning Serger said:

There are lots of business opportunities for clever labs with E6 in the future. Especially if these labs combine their service with very good E6 marketing.

Click to expand...

Marketing will be key. It really will have to entail a major "awareness-creating" drive, including not only adverts but also articles in the print media, inserts on television, etc.

A luta continua!

Kind regards

Anton

Henning Serger said:

Dear Anton,


2. You get by far the best versatility with reversal film:
- you can just hold it against the light to enjoy it
- you can look at it through a slide viewer
- you can use a light-box and an excellent slide loupe (outstanding, unsurpassed quality, see my post above)
- you can project them (outstanding, unsurpassed quality at lowest costs for big enlargements)
- you can make optical enlargements on BW direct positive paper
- you can make optical enlargements on reversal-processd RA-4 paper
- you can make optical enlargements via internegatives on RA-4 paper
- you can scan them and make prints (inkjet or RA-4 silver-halide prints); the RA-4 prints from slides I have via good scanners (e.g. Noritsu HS-1800, and especially from drum scanners) are often significantly better than prints from negative film. For certain print applications I have therefore switched to reversal film.

With negative film you are limited to prints and / or scans. Much less versatility and flexibility.

These have also been the reasons why reversal film has been the dominating medium in professional photography for decades.

Best regards,
Henning

Click to expand...

+1

THIS!

Nzoomed said:

+1

THIS!

Click to expand...

Of course.

The issue is whether there are enough (potential) users out there who are aware of these factors and who care enough to make slide film sustainable. As Henning put it:

Henning Serger said:

We are are living in a crazy, marketing brain-washed world: People spending thousands of dollars for a 24, 36, 50 MP cam. And in 99,5% of the time they are only viewing their pictures on a 2k or 4k computer monitor which destroy the resolution and limit it to the extremely low 2 MP / 8 MP the monitor can show at max..
Same for those who rave about medium format or large format quality, but then in a first step destroy that quality by using a flatbed scanner, and further limit the quality by viewing the result on a computer monitor.
But people continue to ignore the physical fact that the image quality is not only determined by the input, but mainly by the whole imaging chain.

Click to expand...

As technology advances, the selling points are increasingly convenience, portability and cost. Quality-awareness and discernment is rapidly declining. (Just think of what's happened to our food preferences!) While enthusiasts who can afford it, will invest in home theatres, quality sound systems and decent cameras (which don't have to be expensive), the vast majority is content with the images and sounds of their smartphones. Because it's cheap, convenient and can be taken everywhere. Is it any wonder that movie theatres are having such a hard time?

Henning Serger said:

Besides that I have to totally disagree concerning scanning from my own experience (Diapositivo's and Berri's statements are spot on), the huge advantage of reversal film is that scanning is simply not needed. There is no necessity to take the time / hassle / cost of the scanning process. You have a perfect finished picture right after the film development.
Just take a light-box, for example like the excellent new Kaiser LED "slimlite plano":
http://kaiser-fototechnik.de/en/produkte/2_1_sortiment.asp?w=381
and take an excellent slide loupe from Schneider-Kreuznach, Rodenstock, Leica, Kaiser, Adox, Peak etc.
Voilà!
Then you have perfect quality which surpasses any picture on a computer monitor (no matter whether scanned negative or positive film, or digital file). A computer monitor is the viewing medium with by far the lowest quality (by far lowest resolution, no real half-tones because of the discrete LCD structure, problematic colour rendition especially with low and medium priced models).

When I look at my slides on my Kaiser light-box with my Schneider, Rodenstock or Adox loupes......what a joy!!! When I compare that to even my drumscans on my monitor (negative and positive scans), the monitor pictures cannot compete at all, they are quite crappy compared to the slides under the loupes.
Besides the outstanding detail rendition and colour brillance, slides under an excellent loupe also have a kind of three-dimensionality, which looks just great. Pictures on computer monitors are totally flat in comparison.

We are are living in a crazy, marketing brain-washed world: People spending thousands of dollars for a 24, 36, 50 MP cam. And in 99,5% of the time they are only viewing their pictures on a 2k or 4k computer monitor which destroy the resolution and limit it to the extremely low 2 MP / 8 MP the monitor can show at max..
Same for those who rave about medium format or large format quality, but then in a first step destroy that quality by using a flatbed scanner, and further limit the quality by viewing the result on a computer monitor.
But people continue to ignore the physical fact that the image quality is not only determined by the input, but mainly by the whole imaging chain.

Best regards,
Henning

Click to expand...

I agree that a mounted slide is a very small finished work of art. I have started shooting more 6x6 slides. When I projected some Autumn tree shots for my family they were blown away. Totally different experience than looking at a monitor. Projecting film is amazing and fun. Looking at medium and large format chromes on a light table is magic.
Best Regards Mike

mshchem said:

I agree that a mounted slide is a very small finished work of art. I have started shooting more 6x6 slides. When I projected some Autumn tree shots for my family they were blown away. Totally different experience than looking at a monitor. Projecting film is amazing and fun. Looking at medium and large format chromes on a light table is magic.
Best Regards Mike

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. So sad that that amazement and fun is being missed out on by so many.

Henning Serger said:

1. The latest reversal film generation (Provia 100F, AgfaPhoto CT Precisa 100, Velvia 50, Velvia 100, Velvia 100F, Sensia III, Astia 100F, Provia 400X, Ektachrome E100G(X), Elitechrome 100) delivers better resolution, sharpness and finer grain compared to the latest colour negative film generation from Kodak and Fujifilm. I've done hundreds of differents tests over the last years in my optical test lab, tested all these films again and again in different test conditions, and always got the same results. I discussed my results with several other very experienced experts, and they have got also the same results.

2. You get by far the best versatility with reversal film:
- you can just hold it against the light to enjoy it
- you can look at it through a slide viewer
- you can use a light-box and an excellent slide loupe (outstanding, unsurpassed quality, see my post above)
- you can project them (outstanding, unsurpassed quality at lowest costs for big enlargements)
- you can make optical enlargements on BW direct positive paper
- you can make optical enlargements on reversal-processd RA-4 paper
- you can make optical enlargements via internegatives on RA-4 paper
- you can scan them and make prints (inkjet or RA-4 silver-halide prints); the RA-4 prints from slides I have via good scanners (e.g. Noritsu HS-1800, and especially from drum scanners) are often significantly better than prints from negative film. For certain print applications I have therefore switched to reversal film.

With negative film you are limited to prints and / or scans. Much less versatility and flexibility.

Click to expand...

These points may be technically true but lets put them in perspective.

Slides may have better grain and resolution than negatives, but I would take the much higher dynamic range of negatives any day over the slight difference.

If given a choice to view an image by looking at a slide or a print, most people will want the larger print.

Projecting a slide is a unique experience, but most people will view their images on their big screen TVs if they want a big image. Maybe not the quality, but more convenient.

You can print a slide, but they are designed for projecting, not printing. The high contrast and saturation that makes them look good for projecting and the lack of a mask makes them unsuitable for accurate, quality printing. Negatives are designed for printing and are masked, and are superior to slides in quality when printed. If you want quality prints, negatives are the way to go.

You can scan a slide, but a negative too.

Yes, slides are versatile but they really only have one strong point, and that is projection. On the other hand, negatives printed on print film and projected rival the quality of slides. Actually they are better, in terms of recorded dynamic range.

Henning Serger said:

These have also been the reasons why reversal film has been the dominating medium in professional photography for decades.

Click to expand...

That is debatable, but negatives have certainly always been the dominant medium in the motion picture industry due to the quality, and in some senses, versatility over reversal film.

This is already getting quite off-topic, but...

Henning, could you recommend from Germany a E-6 lab that can do 4x5 as well? We haven't had one here in Finland since December.

RPC said:

These points may be technically true but lets put them in perspective.

Slides may have better grain and resolution than negatives, but I would take the much higher dynamic range of negatives any day over the slight difference.

If given a choice to view an image by looking at a slide or a print, most people will want the larger print.

Projecting a slide is a unique experience, but most people will view their images on their big screen TVs if they want a big image. Maybe not the quality, but more convenient.

You can print a slide, but they are designed for projecting, not printing. The high contrast and saturation that makes them look good for projecting and the lack of a mask makes them unsuitable for accurate, quality printing. Negatives are designed for printing and are masked, and are superior to slides in quality when printed. If you want quality prints, negatives are the way to go.

You can scan a slide, but a negative too.

Yes, slides are versatile but they really only have one strong point, and that is projection. On the other hand, negatives printed on print film and projected rival the quality of slides. Actually they are better, in terms of recorded dynamic range.



That is debatable, but negatives have certainly always been the dominant medium in the motion picture industry due to the quality, and in some senses, versatility over reversal film.

Click to expand...

Very well put, thank you.

Henning, I just read a Google translate version of that PDF you provided (I can't speak German at all, to my shame!) and it's fascinating. Thanks for sharing. I also agree that a well-executed slide is a wonderfully tactile and beautiful object. In some senses, it's the closest I've found to a "magic window" into the past. Seeing the light shining through the actual piece of film that was there at the time to "see" the scene is just marvellous. All we need to do is show people how magical it can be

miha said:

Very well put, thank you.

Click to expand...

+1

davidwalkersharpe said:

Henning, I just read a Google translate version of that PDF you provided (I can't speak German at all, to my shame!) and it's fascinating. Thanks for sharing. I also agree that a well-executed slide is a wonderfully tactile and beautiful object. In some senses, it's the closest I've found to a "magic window" into the past. Seeing the light shining through the actual piece of film that was there at the time to "see" the scene is just marvellous. All we need to do is show people how magical it can be

Click to expand...

+1

Henning Serger said:

That is definitely not a general E6 problem, but a problem of your lab or your scanner / scanning techniques. As you said you love E6 when the scans are good, just use a better lab. There are enough of them in The US. For example AgX Imaging: http://www.agximaging.com/

Or even better and much cheaper: Light-box and a very good slide loupe or projection.

Best regards,
Henning

Click to expand...

I dont use a lab, I do my own scans. I am sure it must be my technique that causes this problem. My scanner is a $2000 Plustek and gets wonderful results from negative film. My E6 positives look mostly awful, so for the past 1.5 years, I have not shot any slide film and will not be shooting my rolls of Ferrania. I will just hold them as mementos.

While the masses enjoy their "near CD quality" MP3s....there still exists a viable market for vinyl records. Indeed increased sales and good publicity has lead to a huge increase in availability such that I can walk into HMV in the mall and choose from a couple of hundred titles off the shelf. It's been over 20 years since I could do that where I live.

There will always be people who appreciate quality over convenience....hence film staging a similar partial comeback. E6 has a place in that....and in my experience E6 film does not mean dull colours.

kuparikettu said:

This is already getting quite off-topic, but...

Henning, could you recommend from Germany a E-6 lab that can do 4x5 as well? We haven't had one here in Finland since December.

Click to expand...

My recommendation :

Photo Studio 13
Heilbronner Str. 1, 70771 Leinfelden-Echterdingen,
Tel. 0711 / 790 84-0
Website: www.photostudio13.de
Filmentwicklung E6, C41 und S/W von Kleinbild bis 8x10 inch (Hängemaschinen),
auch AgfaScala, C-Prints bis 127 cm Breite,
S/W Baryt und PE bis 127 x 300 cm, Ilfochrome.

RPC said:

That is debatable, but negatives have certainly always been the dominant medium in the motion picture industry due to the quality, and in some senses, versatility over reversal film.

Click to expand...

Transparencies were the clear choice for magazine and book illustration for many years, being easily viewed on a light box, and just one step from the original subject. Negative seems to have been preferred whenever many copies of a picture or film were needed....as you say, for motion pictures or general photography such as weddings and industrial work.
Good duplicates or prints from transparencies have always been more difficult, and I have seen the occasional movie film where the original has been shot on Kodachrome (IIRC, some of the Nationa Film Board of Canada work ?) which has really been not very good, with harsh colours and contrast compared with any good negative stock.

Bit OT - I have some sets of 35mm slides which my late Father took for educational use back in the 70's and 80's. He used Kodacolor (-X, I think then), slides printed by Kodak through the dealer service which they then offered. The quality is excellent, but I'm guessing that Kodak used Eastmancolor print film, as they are now starting to show the fading to pinky-magenta characteristic of movie film prints from that time.

kuparikettu said:

This is already getting quite off-topic, but...

Henning, could you recommend from Germany a E-6 lab that can do 4x5 as well? We haven't had one here in Finland since December.

Click to expand...

Well, almost all of the German professional E6 labs are offering sheet film development, too. It is standard service here for quality labs.
For you living in Finland I can - as 'macfred' above - highly recommend Photo Studio 13: http://www.photostudio13.de/
Just send them an email in English, and they will send you all the service details. They are doing international business for years.
They are the leading E6 lab here (our industrial scale mass volume labs like Fuji Eurocolor excluded), developing more than hundred E6 rolls / sheets every day. They are working with a Refrema dip-and-dunk processor.
The films get in per mail, are then developed, and are sent back to the customer the same day. So as a German customer, you only have to wait two days to get your films back if you use mail order (for other countries it takes a bit longer time, of course).
Their quality and service is excellent, and the prices extremely fair (indeed relatively low; the price-performance ratio is excellent).
They also offer BW reversal processing, and hundreds of other lab services (their complete programme-price list has more than 10 pages).

Best regards,
Henning

Diapositivo said:

How much wisdom in a few sentences!
Not just I wholly agree, but do think that the "slide revival" passes through the resurgence of light tables and slide projectors, even though scans of slides have their own advantages vs digital (not to be debated here).

That is something that has to do with the entire "ecosystem" of slide film to be viable for Ferrania to be a successful enterprise.
The new re-entry of Kodak in this space will make easier that an interest for slide projection (or slide viewing on a light table) re-emerges.
This is key to the success of slide film. The "culture" of slide film must be revived, not only the film consumption in itself.
Kodak re-entry in this space is good news for Ferrania, it will revive the entire market IMHO.

Click to expand...

Thank you, Diapositivo.
And I completely agree.

Best regards,
Henning

Hello Anton,

Redfox61 said:

Hi Henning

Thank you very much for your well-written and detailed response. Everything you say is of course spot-on.

Click to expand...

you're welcome.

Redfox61 said:

I think it's safe to say that, as slide-film enthusiasts, we all agree regarding the inherent qualities of slide film and the advantages of using it. However, the issue here is how likely a significant proportion of current as well as potential film-users will look at it this way. A lot of "education" could help, but consumers tend to respond strongly to the prices they see on shelves or web pages. Confronted with a price of $3.50 as opposed to $10.00, I doubt that a large proportion of the film-buying public will go for the latter.

Click to expand...

I am much more optimistic concerning that aspect. And I will prove it:
The photographer see the 3.50$ for an amateur CN film, 7,50$ for a professional CN film, and 10$ for the reversal film (just to use your example).
And next to all that he sees the prices for instant film: 13$ up to about 24$. For significantly less exposures compared to 36exp 135 film.
Instant film has the highest costs per shot. Significantly higher compared to both negative and reversal film.
Nevertheless instant film (both Impossible and Fujifilm) has increasing demand for years. Fujifilm has sold about 6.5 million (!!) Instax cameras in the last fiscal year. No other camera type has been so successful (the whole DSLM market with about 10 manufacturers feeding that market has less than half (!) of that volume).
They are currently selling more than 30 million Instax films p.a.

So price alone is not a hurdle. If people think it is worth it, they will buy it.
And if photographers get better education of the numerous unique characteristics of reversal film, they will see that this medium delivers an excellent price-performance ratio and is worth to be used.

Redfox61 said:

Another factor to consider is the very forgiving nature of color negative film. Users who aren't as knowledgeable and as careful with exposure as is required by slide film, are bound to be disappointed.

Click to expand...

I think this aspect is very much overrated. Because
1. For decades dozens of millions of photographers used reversal film and have got good results. And that with much worse cameras and light meters compared to what we have today.
I started shooting reversal film at the age of 14, with a Nikon FM. There were no computers and no internet at that time. And therefore no "experts" who could tell me that exposing reversal film is "so difficult". I've just used it, got very good results and enjoyed it. Period. I was a lucky kid .
Today lots of people (most with no real own experience in shooting slides) behave like you would need an IQ of 140 and a PhD to be able to expose reversal film.....which is of course total nonsense.
Every normal guy can expose slide film properly. And even if you don't know the very simple basics of correct exposure and don't want to learn them: Just take a modern film camera with matrix / multi-segment metering and you will get very good results in 99% of your shots. Such cameras like Nikon F90X, F80, F100, Dynax 7, EOS 30/33v, EOS 3 etc. are ridiculously cheap on the used market.
2. You have a wider exposure latitude with negative film. But you don't have a general wider latitude concerning all the other relevant quality parameters! If you underexpose negative film more than 0.5 stops, you will have visible degrading quality concerning grain (coarser), resolution, sharpness, shadow detail, colour rendition. And if you overexpose colour negative film more than about 2/3 stops, you will have less resolution, sharpness, highlight detail, colour accuracy (getting colour shifts). I will not go in further detail here, we have the other subforum for that topic.
So, if you want the best overall results - concerning all important quality parameters - you have to expose correctly. No matter whether you have reversal film or negative film (or digital). There is almost no difference concerning the exposure aspects between the mediums if you want optimal results.
A problem? No, not at all. Because we have today so much sophisticated and excellent light metering and exposing technology and options (both with build-in and external light meters) that correct exposure is very easy to obtain, including beginners.

Redfox61 said:

Your points regarding the versatility of slides with regards to viewing are, once again, obvious and important to enthusiasts. But I'm pretty sure that small prints that can be carried in an envelope and passed around, or viewed on anything from a desktop computer to a cell phone, are perceived as more convenient -

Click to expand...

Well, concerning convenience:
1. In the situations I want / need convenience, I mostly use reversal film instead of negative film because it is more convenient. The result is finished after development, and I don't need to go to my darkroom to make prints as with my negative films or need to makes scans of the negatives.
And I often show my slides to others in a very fast and convenient way (family, friends) by using an excellent slide loup and the small Kaiser LED slimite plano light-box: This set is much smaller and lighter than a laptop, can be used with and without power from a grid. The handling is very similar to viewing pictures on a tablet. But the quality of the slides is much much better.
http://kaiser-fototechnik.de/en/produkte/2_1_produktanzeige.asp?nr=2453
This is a very convenient (and extremely cheap) way to show slides to others, at home and at all other locations. I am organising film photographer meetings regularly. And I have always the loupe and light-box with me, presenting slides. There is always a huge "wow, what an incredible quality" when new, young photographers see that the first time in their live.

2. Yes, there are probably hundreds of millions of people, who prefer convenience to quality. But there are also dozens of millions of people who prefer quality to convenience. And this group is the market for film photography in general:
Is developing BW film and printing it optically convenient? No, but it delivers outstanding results and is a lot of fun. The demand for BW film is increasing, despite of being not very convenient.
Is shooting instant film (e.g. compared to using a smartphone or a digital compact camera) convenient? No, it is not. Despite that there is a huge boom in instant photography.
Summary:
The "convenience addicts" are not the main target market for film photography. And honestly: We don't need them. There are more than enough other people with different preferences out there to feed a sustainable long term film revival.

Best regards,
Henning

RPC said:

These points may be technically true but lets put them in perspective.

Slides may have better grain and resolution than negatives, but I would take the much higher dynamic range of negatives any day over the slight difference.

Click to expand...

Well, I think the aspect "dynamic range" is often much overrated. In digital imaging there is for quite some time a hype about that topic which has lead to an often extreme "tech sheet masturbation" which has completely lost the connection and relevance for real, daily photography. And that has partly spilled over in the last years to film photography. I want to give reasons for my assessment:
1. In most cases the contrast range of the scene is less than 1:64 / six-stops. So no problem for reversal film at all (the current reversal films have indeed up to 10 stops DR with detail captured on the film, but that is a different topic).
2. In the few cases when the contrast range of the scene is bigger than the dynamic range of your film, you have lots of different options to reduce the contrast:
- fill-in flash (gives perfect results even at very high contrasts; it is a very easy to handle, extremely versatile and low-cost option)
- reflectors
- gradual filters
- pol-filter
- pull-developmet
- diffuse pre-exposure / pre-flashing.
So there are enough methods to reduce the object contrast to the dynamic range of your photographic medium (no matter whether reversal film, negative film, digital).
3. Is full detail in highlights and shadows always necessary to get an impressive picture? No. Just look at all of the iconic pictures of our photographic history. Lots of them (perhaps even most of them) don't have perfect detail in both shadows and highlights. It is just no problem, because you don't necessarily need it to transport the message of the picture. If there is a bit lack of detail in the deeper shadows, so what? You don't place the important details for a shot in the deep shadows (or the bright highlights). Therefore no relevant information loss.

RPC said:

You can print a slide, but they are designed for projecting, not printing. The high contrast and saturation that makes them look good for projecting and the lack of a mask makes them unsuitable for accurate, quality printing. Negatives are designed for printing and are masked, and are superior to slides in quality when printed. If you want quality prints, negatives are the way to go.

Click to expand...

With all respect, but from my decades-long experience - and the experience of lots of friends who are excellent photographers and make prints from slides, too - I have to disagree that for quality prints only negative film is the way to go.
You can make absolutely outstanding prints from slides, too. Lots of prints you see in exhibitions are from slides. I often prefer prints from slides because of the finer grain, higher resolution, better sharpness und more brillant colours.
A print is physically limited to a contrast range of about 5 - 5,5 stops (that is significantly less than the max. contrast range of a slide). If your shot is in that DR range, you don't have any problems at all. You can directly print with full shadow and highlight detail.
If it is above that range, you can exploit up to ten stops with a drumscanner, getting all that detail on the print. The next step is using an excellent laser printer for RA-4: Excellent quality labs have it, e.g. the Agfa d-lab.2+ for prints up to 30x45cm, and the Lambda and LightJet printers for huge prints.
That is my current optimal way to go for excellent prints from slides.

Just some time ago I've seen one of the most iconic pictures ever in an exhibition in Berlin: Steve McCurry's "Afghan Girl". The original is 35mm slide film (Kodachrome). The big print in the exhibition was just excellent. No lack of quality at all. Would the print have been better if the shot would have been on negative film? No.

Best regards,
Henning

Diapositivo said:

How much wisdom in a few sentences!
That is something that has to do with the entire "ecosystem" of slide film to be viable for Ferrania to be a successful enterprise.
The new re-entry of Kodak in this space will make easier that an interest for slide projection (or slide viewing on a light table) re-emerges.
This is key to the success of slide film. The "culture" of slide film must be revived, not only the film consumption in itself.

Click to expand...

Totally. When I refer to "marketing" as an "awareness-creating" process, including e.g. articles and discussions in the media, that is part of building the ecosystem. Public slide shows by good photographers can also play a big role in re-establishing the culture of viewing projected slides. When I saw a medium-format slide show for the first time, it was a "life-changing" experience. From that moment on, I knew that one day I HAD to shoot MF slides and project them. Now, many years later, it's finally become possible.

davidwalkersharpe said:

Henning, I just read a Google translate version of that PDF you provided (I can't speak German at all, to my shame!) and it's fascinating. Thanks for sharing. I also agree that a well-executed slide is a wonderfully tactile and beautiful object. In some senses, it's the closest I've found to a "magic window" into the past. Seeing the light shining through the actual piece of film that was there at the time to "see" the scene is just marvellous. All we need to do is show people how magical it can be

Click to expand...

Thank you, David.

I fear the Google translation is.....not so optimal, saying it diplomatically..... But a proper English translation is in the works.
For all of you who are also on Facebook, you are invited to follow and contribute to this project of sharing the joys of slide film:
https://www.facebook.com/letsshootslidefilmagain/

Best regards,
Henning

Henning Serger said:

Thank you, David.

I fear the Google translation is.....not so optimal, saying it diplomatically..... But a proper English translation is in the works.
For all of you who are also on Facebook, you are invited to follow and contribute to this project of sharing the joys of slide film:
https://www.facebook.com/letsshootslidefilmagain/

Best regards,
Henning

Click to expand...

Haha, well, that may be true, but I think I got the overall meaning! A Google translate version is significantly better than nothing at all I look forward to the "proper English translation" when it appears. (Un)fortunately, I am not on Facebook anymore, so I shall have to wait until the project breaks free from that platform

Thanks again,
Dave

I read the original in German trying to think of how I would translate it and I doubt Google would do a very good job.

We should get an update from Dave sometime before the end of the week I should think. It'll be interesting to see what kind of information he'll have to share about demand and their production schedule. Maybe he'll even have something to share about progress towards the reversal film. Supposedly their chemist is mostly working on that project still.

Hi Henning

Henning Serger said:

Hello Anton,
Instant film has the highest costs per shot. Significantly higher compared to both negative and reversal film.
Nevertheless instant film (both Impossible and Fujifilm) has increasing demand for years.

Click to expand...

That's easy to explain. Instant film, by virtue of being "instant", totally feeds into the convenience/instant gratification culture. It's the closest film can come to digital in that respect - with the advantage of offering something tangible that can be passed around or given to somebody.

Henning Serger said:

So price alone is not a hurdle. If people think it is worth it, they will buy it.

Click to expand...

Right. And currently the vast majority of film users don't see slides as having a big enough advantage to part with so much of their hard-earned money. At least not where I live, and as far as I can tell not in many other parts of the world. This probably has a lot to do with context-specific factors such as education, standard of living, "culture" (with everything that includes), etc. I'm sure the situation is somewhat different in Germany and some of the other more prosperous countries.

Henning Serger said:

And if photographers get better education of the numerous unique characteristics of reversal film, they will see that this medium delivers an excellent price-performance ratio and is worth to be used.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. This can't be stressed enough.

Henning Serger said:

I think this aspect is very much overrated. Because
1. For decades dozens of millions of photographers used reversal film and have got good results. And that with much worse cameras and light meters compared to what we have today.

Click to expand...

Yes, I must admit that I was simply repeating the "conventional wisdom" we hear all the time. The first slides I watched were taken by my mother and other family members and friends with Kodak Instamatics, by people who did not know a thing about exposure. The first slides I took (also at about 14) were with a Minolta Himatic-C - a very humble compact camera. And they were pretty well exposed. In comparison, your Nikon FM was very advanced!

Henning Serger said:

So, if you want the best overall results - concerning all important quality parameters - you have to expose correctly. No matter whether you have reversal film or negative film (or digital). There is almost no difference concerning the exposure aspects between the mediums if you want optimal results.

Click to expand...

Again, that goes without saying - as far as "the best overall results" are concerned. But there is no denying that color negative film will still yield a usable image with a pretty large degree of exposure error (especially overexposure), much more so than reversal film.

Henning Serger said:

Well, concerning convenience:
1. In the situations I want / need convenience, I mostly use reversal film instead of negative film because it is more convenient. The result is finished after development, and I don't need to go to my darkroom to make prints as with my negative films or need to makes scans of the negatives.
And I often show my slides to others in a very fast and convenient way (family, friends) by using an excellent slide loup and the small Kaiser LED slimite plano light-box: This set is much smaller and lighter than a laptop, can be used with and without power from a grid. The handling is very similar to viewing pictures on a tablet. But the quality of the slides is much much better.
http://kaiser-fototechnik.de/en/produkte/2_1_produktanzeige.asp?nr=2453
This is a very convenient (and extremely cheap) way to show slides to others, at home and at all other locations. I am organising film photographer meetings regularly. And I have always the loupe and light-box with me, presenting slides. There is always a huge "wow, what an incredible quality" when new, young photographers see that the first time in their live.

Click to expand...

And again, you are preaching to the converted. Those are some of the reasons why most of us on this forum shoot slides. But that sure as hell is not how the vast majority of current or potential film users see it.

Henning Serger said:

2. Yes, there are probably hundreds of millions of people, who prefer convenience to quality. But there are also dozens of millions of people who prefer quality to convenience. And this group is the market for film photography in general:
Is developing BW film and printing it optically convenient? No, but it delivers outstanding results and is a lot of fun. The demand for BW film is increasing, despite of being not very convenient.
Is shooting instant film (e.g. compared to using a smartphone or a digital compact camera) convenient? No, it is not. Despite that there is a huge boom in instant photography.
Summary:
The "convenience addicts" are not the main target market for film photography. And honestly: We don't need them. There are more than enough other people with different preferences out there to feed a sustainable long term film revival.

Click to expand...

I share that optimism regarding film in general. I see it happening. But slide film? Not so sure, but it would be a dream come true if it were to happen. So let's start "educating" - there's a lot of work to be done!

kuparikettu said:

This is already getting quite off-topic, but...

Henning, could you recommend from Germany a E-6 lab that can do 4x5 as well? We haven't had one here in Finland since December.

Click to expand...

If you can't find one, there is a very good professional lab for analogue developing here in The Netherlands, called: Color Utrecht
website: http://colorutrecht.nl (in Dutch)
Phone: : 0031 - 30 – 231 31 07
E-mail : info@colorutrecht.nl

I use them often and never had any failure or problems.