Just a quick question about Slides

[tim_walls]

The fact that transparencies are positives does not make them the "finished image". They are the "finished image" *only* if you plan to view them on a light box or a projector screen their whole life. The "finished image" is the reproduction made from the transparency for whatever purpose the pix were desired, such as a page in a magazine, to use just one example.

OK, so I'm playing Devil's advocate here, but slide film should be the finished image. Not the finished use sure, but it should be the finished image.

One of the reasons slides are good for your page in a magazine is you can give it to the printer and he knows exactly what the image on the page is meant to look like. It's meant to look like the slide. The image on the slide defines the finished image, in a way that negative film does not.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

The fact that transparencies are positives is what accounts for their exposure sensitivity. The fact that they are positives does not make them the "finished image". They are the "finished image" *only* if you plan to view them on a light box or a projector screen their whole life. The "finished image" is the reproduction made from the transparency for whatever purpose the pix were desired, such as a page in a magazine, to use just one example.

Ah well, but we commercial photographers have always tried to create transparencies that embodied all the corrections "within the camera" and lighting and prep-ing of the subject so the processed transparency could be considered a "finished product" and the only subsequent "corrections" would be those needed to conform the image to the final reproduction media, thus one CAN consider a processed slide or transparency the finished product, as far as the photographer is concerned.

 

[2F/2F]

OK, so I'm playing Devil's advocate here, but slide film should be the finished image. Not the finished use sure, but it should be the finished image.

One of the reasons slides are good for your page in a magazine is you can give it to the printer and he knows exactly what the image on the page is meant to look like. It's meant to look like the slide. The image on the slide defines the finished image, in a way that negative film does not.

What is a "finished use"? Finished means finished; in its final form. "Use" isn't the kind of word that can have "finished" attached to it. A transparency, just like a negative, is a piece of raw material from which to make the desired print (except if it is simply being used as a slide, or being viewed directly). How does this rationale fail to apply to negative film as well? By that reasoning, any photographer should be able to make a print from a neg at a predetermined "neutral" filter pack, and expect color balance to be "exactly what the image on the page is meant to look like". A piece of film is almost never "perfect" out of the camera, no matter what type of film it is, and even if it is "perfect" out of camera, it still must be reinterpreted to make the final product. Adjustment goes on in litho printing, just like it does in silver printing. Like with silver printing from negs, you give instructions to the printer if you want anything other than a straight print of what you hand over. The difference is that you hand over a transparency when you have shot a transparency, and you had over a print when you have shot a neg. Either one has been interpreted by you for color and density. It is just a matter of where the interpretation goes on. Yes, you need to have more forethought and do more in camera to get a transparency just how you want it, and color balance is not as easy to change as with a neg. I am not saying that transparencies do not demand more from the photographer. I am just saying that the transparency itself is rarely finished, unless you are looking at the transparency itself for all its life. In an ideal situation, color neg film would also be filtered to the exact desired balance in camera, but most people don't do that, simply because they don't need to.

 

[tim_walls]

What is a "finished use"? Finished means finished; in its final form. "Use" isn't the kind of word that can have "finished" attached to it. A transparency, just like a negative, is a piece of raw material from which to make the desired print (except if it is simply being used as a slide, or being viewed directly). How does this rationale fail to apply to negative film as well? By that reasoning, any photographer should be able to make a print from a neg at a predetermined "neutral" filter pack, and expect color balance to be "exactly what the image on the page is meant to look like". Adjustment goes on in litho printing, just like it does in silver printing. Like with silver printing from negs, you give instructions to the printer if you want anything other than a straight print of what you hand over.

Huh?

You appear to be arguing semantics from the somewhat limited position of someone who apparently doesn't understand the language he's arguing in. finished (adjective) - completed, final, ended. use (noun) - purpose for or way something can be used. By extension, "finished use" = completed or final way in which something can be used.

Adjectives can indeed be applied to nouns. It's one of those things you learn at school.


Beautiful language? Of course not; but there again, it was a construct of rhetoric (in response to the concept of 'finished image' which you disapprove of) more than beauty.


The reason a slide film is closer to a 'finished image' than a negative is exactly as you describe - a negative requires some other information to be passed on to define a final image - even if all that other information is is the 'predetermined "neutral" filter pack'. The slide encapsulates everything which needs to be conveyed to determine the finished image; the negative - as you admit, above - does not.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Ah well, but we commercial photographers have always tried to create transparencies that embodied all the corrections "within the camera" and lighting and prep-ing of the subject so the processed transparency could be considered a "finished product" and the only subsequent "corrections" would be those needed to conform the image to the final reproduction media, thus one CAN consider a processed slide or transparency the finished product, as far as the photographer is concerned.

Touché.
And nothing more needs to be said. At least for we working pros!
I'm off now to the Ciba lab, then frameshop. Enjoy the discourse.

 

[2F/2F]

"Final way in which something can be used" is exactly why the phrase sounded funky. That makes no sense, content wise. The fact that adjectives are applied to nouns does not mean that every adjective works with every noun. Final use makes more sense than finished use.

At any rate, this is a minor issue, and we should not get stuck on it. I'm not trying to bust your balls on a language issue (or on any issue). It was just awkward, so I didn't really know how to read it. "Finished use" was intended to clarify, but only made it more confusing for me.

In either case, transparency or negative, the printer usually gets a positive from which to work (or used to, anyhow). Your interpretation of the positive ideally goes on in camera for the transparency, and can go on in the enlarger for a neg., but either way, the printer gets a positive that is close to the desired final printed image. So the idea that a pos. decidedly gives more clarity of the desired artistic vision to the printer is what I am arguing against. It gives the printer the needed material *faster* and allows him/her to make a higher quality reproduction more quickly, but, if anything, a print you have made from a negative transmits more of the artistic intent. As someone mentioned above, the photographer's work is done once the positive is created and delivered...but *as long as there is reproduction of any kind required for the final display of the image, the film itself is never the finished image.* That last highlighted bit was the whole reason for making my initial post regarding transparencies being finished images.

 

[2F/2F]

Touché.
And nothing more needs to be said. At least for we working pros!
I'm off now to the Ciba lab, then frameshop. Enjoy the discourse.

Wait...if your transparencies are the finished image, why are you having Ilfochromes made? Why not just have the whole world over to your lightbox to view your work that is finished right out of the camera? Are you also saying that you never adjust color balance when printing your transparencies? Are you saying that you never adjust density? That you never hold back light or add more to certain areas of the print? Are you saying that every Ilfochrome print you make looks *exactly* like your original transparency?

Not that this would not be a beautiful way to see your work, and that it would not be stunning work right out of the camera, but impractical and inefficient. You rely on reproductions to share your work, as do most photographers. Thus the reproductions are the finished images.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

So, if I have a transparency that to my eye is perfect and "finished" and I have a Cibachrome made for exhibition, and also the transparency is used for reproduction in a magazine, and also is reproduced on a web-site...which is the "finished" product? In my opinion, as far as the photographer is concerned, the transparency represents the finished product...all the others are reproductions of the finished product.

 

[tim_walls]

Wait...if your transparencies are the finished image, why are you having Ilfochromes made? Why not just have the whole world over to your lightbox to view your work that is finished right out of the camera?

Not that this would not be a beautiful way to see your work, but impractical in inefficient. You rely on reproductions to share your work.

Are you also saying that you never adjust color balance when printing your transparencies? Are you saying that you never adjust density? That you never hold back light or add more to certain areas of the print?

You're quite hung up about this 'finished image' thing, aren't you?


Let's try a thought experiment. Let's say I'm a painter...




(a) If I give you a canvas with a pencil sketch and a load of numbers on it, and a sheet of instructions saying 'apply paint of colour (x) where number is written', is the pencil sketch a finished painting?


(b) If we agree in advance the instructions about applying paint to particular numbers, and so only give you the pencil sketch, is the canvas and pencil sketch a finished painting?


(c) If I give you the canvas fully painted and say 'this is the painting,' is it a finished painting?


(d) If you take a pot of emulsion and paint over the painting I gave you in (c), does that mean the original was not in fact a finished painting?


(e) If the museum where I exhibit my paintings chooses to reproduce it in the museum catalogue, does the act of reproducing it mean that, by definition, the painting was never finished?

 

[2F/2F]

So, if I have a transparency that to my eye is perfect and "finished" and I have a Cibachrome made for exhibition, and also the transparency is used for reproduction in a magazine, and also is reproduced on a web-site...which is the "finished" product? In my opinion, as far as the photographer is concerned, the transparency represents the finished product...all the others are reproductions of the finished product.

To us, the transparency is often the finished product, both conceptually, and as far as where we see out way out of the project. But if you have taken that picture with the intent to use it for anything other than viewing on a light box, the reproductions are more of the finished image than the transparency itself. They are the ones that will be viewed, interpreted, and felt by viewers, even though they are just reproductions of your perfect (and most likely better-looking) transparency.

...and photography is not painting. In general, nobody comes to see your original film, as with painting. They wouldn't want to do so in most cases. They come to see enlargements.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

You rely on reproductions to share your work, as do most photographers. Thus the reproductions are the finished images.

I completely disagree..the transparency is the finished product, and the "reproductions" are just that "reproductions".

 

[tim_walls]

...and photography is not painting..

Which part scared you off - 'experiment' or 'thought'?

 

[2F/2F]

I completely disagree..the transparency is the finished product, and the "reproductions" are just that "reproductions".

I agree that nothing looks better than your perfect transparency on a light box. That in and of itself is enough finished image to satisfy you, me, and lots of other photographers.

However, this is to disregard the purpose of making the image. The developed transparency is an item needed in the process of making something else in most cases, and usually does not stand alone. The purpose of making that great transparency is usually to make something else from it - "using" it - not simply to have a great transparency. It is the main ingredient - the apples - but not the pie served a-la-mode and ready to eat. It is just like any other piece of film. It needs to be "used" to create the true product; the magazine, advertisement, catalog, book, Website, gallery show, etc. Those are the purposes and final products of shooting that image; not to have a perfect piece of film in your hands.

Back OT, transparencies are positives, and that is the main reason they are different from any other piece of film. That is it. They don't have any magical properties and are not any more perfect than any other kind of film. They are just quicker, easier (or at least they used to be), reproduce with better quality (less generation loss) and more speed (and can be projected if they are *used* to make slides). Transparencies get a legendary and mythical rap because they are fun and beautiful in person, and because they were what was primarily used by "serious" shooters, as well as having the nostalgic character when used in slideshows. (I personally never had slideshows outside of school as a kid, because my dad shot 126 color neg. and got prints, but watching standard-eight movies was my "emotional' equivalent of this.) I think they are beautiful and fun, and like many others, I personally like my nice piece of film on the light box better than any print. However, I don't shoot with the intention to just have a piece of film for myself and call it the finished image, product, use, whatever you want to call it.

 

[2F/2F]

Which part scared you off - 'experiment' or 'thought'?

...not wanting to fall into someone's bad Internet analogy trap.

 

[nworth]

Aside from the saturation issues mentioned above, contrast is an issue that works against using transparency films for portraits. Most transparency films have very high contrast, which is usually not flattering for portraits. But you can control lighting ratios in a studio portrait and avoid much of the problems. Films like Astia and EPY are built to avoid the worst of these problems. There are lots of examples of excellent portraits on transparencies. The fashion industry standardized on these films for years. But it takes care and skill to do it right.

 

[DJGainer]

Since you say that you usually use B&W and have only tried a few no portrait fuji films, why not try the Fuji ProS and the Kodak Porta lines? That way you can really compare your results and decide what you like. Also, try different lighting situations (beginning/end of day v. middle of the day).

 

[denmark.yuzon]

Since you say that you usually use B&W and have only tried a few no portrait fuji films, why not try the Fuji ProS and the Kodak Porta lines? That way you can really compare your results and decide what you like. Also, try different lighting situations (beginning/end of day v. middle of the day).

yes, but those films are very rare here... there are provias and velvias in my local fujifilm lab, but quite expensive compared to neopan which i use all the time out in the streets... while the kodaks are being sold by individuals over the net..

though ive used some color c41 films, i just cant bring together the colors that i want.. i just suck using color films.. sometimes its just oversaturated, and sometimes the colors are just flat.. so im looking at slides now, maybe it will give me the rich colors i want, but some people discourage me to use it since its expensive and would require a lot of skill and experience.

and exposures are my problem too.. i base my settings from the cam's (FM2n) metering, and i shoot -1/2 underexposed.. i find it hard to get proper exposure... so i asked that would it be ok if i still shoot -1/2 underexposed, but you guys told me it would be too much...

 

[markbarendt]

and exposures are my problem too.. i base my settings from the cam's (FM2n) metering, and i shoot -1/2 underexposed.. i find it hard to get proper exposure... so i asked that would it be ok if i still shoot -1/2 underexposed, but you guys told me it would be too much...

If you are talking about negative films, which I think you are here, I'd suggest trying over exposure instead.

C41 films tolerate over exposure better than under exposure.

 

[Stephen Schoof]

So, if I have a transparency that to my eye is perfect and "finished" and I have a Cibachrome made for exhibition, and also the transparency is used for reproduction in a magazine, and also is reproduced on a web-site...which is the "finished" product? In my opinion, as far as the photographer is concerned, the transparency represents the finished product...all the others are reproductions of the finished product.

I agree, even if it's idealistic. I consider the transparencies I see on my lightbox and (more to the point) project for audiences to be the real thing, and everything else is a reproduction of varying quality. At least I don't consider the sometimes badly cropped, blurry, oversaturated renditions of my work that have appeared in publications over the years the 'final product.' If you're doing you're own scanning and printing, I can see how the film could be just another step in the process, but that's just not me.

though ive used some color c41 films, i just cant bring together the colors that i want.. i just suck using color films.. sometimes its just oversaturated, and sometimes the colors are just flat.. so im looking at slides now, maybe it will give me the rich colors i want, but some people discourage me to use it since its expensive and would require a lot of skill and experience.

and exposures are my problem too.. i base my settings from the cam's (FM2n) metering, and i shoot -1/2 underexposed.. i find it hard to get proper exposure... so i asked that would it be ok if i still shoot -1/2 underexposed, but you guys told me it would be too much...

Unless you scan/print your own C41 you'll never know if your problems are yours or the lab's. Except for exposure being more critical, which can be overcome by bracketing, I don't see how slides require more skill than anything else. My only caution would be to be sure you evaluate your results on a standardized lightbox. Otherwise, have at it, and good luck.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Aside from the saturation issues mentioned above, contrast is an issue that works against using transparency films for portraits. Most transparency films have very high contrast, which is usually not flattering for portraits. But you can control lighting ratios in a studio portrait and avoid much of the problems. Films like Astia and EPY are built to avoid the worst of these problems. There are lots of examples of excellent portraits on transparencies. The fashion industry standardized on these films for years. But it takes care and skill to do it right.

Astia and EPY?
And...?
You could always have a look at Provia 100 or 100F for much less contrast and saturation than its flashy, ultrablocked stablemate Velvia and a more neutral palette to boot.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

[QUOTE Originally Posted by denmark.yuzon]and exposures are my problem too.. i base my settings from the cam's (FM2n) metering, and i shoot -1/2 underexposed.. i find it hard to get proper exposure... so i asked that would it be ok if i still shoot -1/2 underexposed, but you guys told me it would be too much...[/QUOTE]


Yes, 0.5 under exposure is often a bit much. 0.3 is better but you certainly can make do with 0.5, as I did for 24 years: you have to know the light.

Slides that are overexposed (or underexposed, the more serious problem) are done for at that point —exposure. If printing, the image can sometimes be salvageable by a skilled printer, particularly to the Ciba process, but highlights will obviously be blown (loss of detail) if the lighting is wrong for the film in the first place e.g. with Velvia 50, diffuse, not point light, is its intended illumination; indeed many reversal films do return excellent results in that sort of light. Overexposed trannies also look obviously botched when projected; my early work (late 70s to late 1980s) proved that. If using Fuji stock e.g. Velvia, be aware bright sun will make that film look bloody awful and long exposures in anything like brightening sun (from hazy) will blow highlights (unsalvageable as the film's dynamic range has been breached). Crux: Provia in very contrasty (bright light) conditions; Velvia for flat/overcast conditions or maybe even Astia. Remember that one film will not do for all situations. '

The subsequent post querying how slides can require more skill than anything else misses the simple, but important fact of latitude: much more generous in negatives than trannies that's why slide exposure needs considered care. Period.

 

[Stephen Schoof]

The subsequent post querying how slides can require more skill than anything else misses the simple, but important fact of latitude: much more generous in negatives than trannies that's why slide exposure needs considered care. Period.

That's true, but latitude can be managed to a degree by film choice, graduated filters, careful selection of light and subject, etc. Those are skills to be acquired, but so is printing from negatives, whether in a darkroom or with scanning and Photoshop. My point was just that every medium has a skill set that needs mastering sooner or later, and that color slides are not as intimidating as the OP seems to have been told. I feel like I've had a pretty good handle on slides for a while now, but I couldn't dodge and burn a print if somebody put a gun to my head.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

If you shoot transparencies for your job, as I do, you learn to light your shots to fit within the transparency window of exposure variation. So the fact that transparencies are "more" contrasty is just not really an issue, rather it is just one of the exposure factors learned and applied when using transparency film.

The same applies for outside transparency shots. You use techniques to adjust your scene brightness to "fit". Things such as graduated ND filters, etc.