rule of thumb is 90 ft a minute. so 52 weeks of 10 rolls of 5.5 feet a roll is about
2860 feet or enough film to shoot almost 32 minutes. it is an entire other ballgame.
rule of thumb is 90 ft a minute. so 52 weeks of 10 rolls of 5.5 feet a roll is aboutif you shot 10 rolls of 36 exp 35mm per week, in a year you'd have used less than what a 35mm movie camera uses in 30 minutes at 24 fps.
lots of digital cameras died for reason of faulty production
You still can buy F50 for the same price if not even cheaper.
One of the biggest differences might be that shoddy E6 processing reveals itself easily to the naked eye, whereas most people can't tell that their negatives are messed up - maybe not even after they scan them and work with the scans!
Yes, and there are still some nice condition secondhand slide projectors out there. Braun Photo Technik in Germany still provide new 35mm slide projectors, for the time being. Jensen Diaprojektoren in Germany might still provide new, but I think quite expensive, medium format slide projectors.
But too much projection is not good for the film, and there are very, very few places that can still make analog transparency duplicates, and only slightly more places that can make transparencies from high-resolution scans (preferably photomultiplier tube drum scans to preserve the original film characteristics as well as possible). And of course, all of this can significantly increase the cost of using transparency film for projection.
Additionally, many labs have stopped offering slide mounting, even if they still do E-6 processing. So, one might have the additional cost and work of acquiring materials and mounting for projection.
All of this is not to disagree with your post, but just to point out that this has become more complicated nowadays.
When I moved ten years ago, and found my projector was broken, I had already been into scanning. Now with my 75" UHD 4K TV, I create slide shows digitally from scanning to show on the TV. I add music, title, credits, etc and I find it's better than projection. I can even post some of the shows on my YouTube pages as linked below. YouiTube allows you to upload 4K for 4K TVs so the replay quality is excellent. Also, anyone with a cellphone or laptop can see the shows remotely, even on their TV. No need to bore them as guests in my home when they can stay home and be bored in theirs.
This is certainly an option, but it misses the magic of natural or incandescent light shining through the transparency. That is so much of the appeal of transparency film, that you get the picture right on the film and can view it directly, either tiny or enlarged through loupe or projector lens. I feel that many of the nice qualities of transparency film transfer well through the printing workflow, but certainly that you get an actual physical picture made right in the camera is one of the unique aspects.
View attachment 365125
Real slides do have a following. Just looking again at my local shop, they stock a few rolls of Ektachrome and when they brought up a few "new old stock" slide projectors from the basement a few years ago they did sell them. But that's not where the drive is for the increase in interest in film photography. That, very strongly, is coming from younger people buying consumer grade C41 colour negative film.
It all benefits us, because if Kodak weren't selling bucket loads of Ultramax there would probably be no Ektachrome either....but we really are a very small and rather insignificant group of people. The masses who are posting to instagram are where the resurgence of film use is at.
Right, but that is why some of the questioning in recent posts has been about why C-41 and not E-6, if they are just scanning it anyway and not darkroom printing? Thus far, the reasons would seem to be that E-6 is a more exotic film format to many, more difficult to consistently use correctly, and currently more expensive.
C-41 has a broader Subject Brightness Range than E-6 and therefore more shadow depth is possible.
I think this formulation is a bit problematic. I understand what you mean about the more limited dynamic range of E6. However, this (1) doesn't affect SBR, since SBR is a given out there in reality and doesn't care about what film you use, and if a camera is being pointed at something in the first place. Also, (2) the main problem with E6 is highlights blowing out upon overexposure in the same way negative (color, B&W) brings the risk of featureless shadows upon underexposure. The converse is also true - the highlights of C41 tend to be recoverable to a remarkable extent, and the same is true for the shadows on E6. So the formulation that 'more shadow depth is possible' in E6 is a bit awkward from my point of view.
I always shot a half-stop under on Ektachrome. Worked ok for me.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?