Shooting 35mm transparency and why...

[xtolsniffer]

I used to shoot a lot of 35mm transparency, Velvia 50 and Provia, then I got an RB67 and tended to use that instead. In 35mm I mostly switched to negative material, but I've recently rediscovered using 35mm transparency. Given that you have to use one of those 'getty picture onto computer thingy' devices for transparency these days, rather than printing optically, I was wondering who uses still transparency over negative material in 35mm and why.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I stopped shooting slides when my children were born since I wanted prints [1980s]. I have never gone back to slides.

 

[Roger Cole]

I do - for projection.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk and 100% recycled electrons - because I care.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I stopped using 35mm RVP 50 in 2008 after hitching onto the medium format wagon. Virtually nothing is shot on 35mm now, save for a bit of fun with star trails at remote campsites during travel (chiefly on Provia 100F or 400X). There is a sad perception among many, many photographers that transparency/E6 film "doesn't exist now". This is of course far from the truth, although the range is limited and the forward outlook for continuation of E6 in any format is probably not all that promising.

 

[AgX]

Given that you have to use one of those 'getty picture onto computer thingy' devices for transparency these days, rather than printing optically, I was wondering who uses still transparency over negative material in 35mm and why.

Why "given"?

There is something called slide projection.

And as I know you are/were into slide projection I am quite puzzled by that remark above. (Likely am slow on the uptake again as usual...)

 

[Hatchetman]

Every trip/vacation I shoot slide film. Unfortunately, my E100 is about gone.

 

[Jeff Bradford]

I love Velvia 50 in 6x9 so much that I'm stocking up on remaining 220 rolls.

I scan a few to share on the internet, but mostly I just gawk at their beauty on the light table.

 

[Rudeofus]

Slides offer a different colour palette, both between different slide films, and even more so compared to negative film. If the lighting situation and the subject matter call for slide film, that's what I use, even if I mostly scan my slides.

 

[dhkirby]

If I'm shooting color, I'm almost always shooting Velvia (I do shoot a little Ektar every once in a while). I shoot exclusively 35mm.

Why 35mm? I take most of my pictures in places where a larger camera system can't go -- up mountains, down rivers, across the middle of the desert, all on my two feet or in a small boat (usually a canoe/kayak). So either I don't want to be lugging a heavy bag around, or it physically wouldn't fit in the boat.

Why Velvia? This is more difficult to explain. I wish I could print it. All the time. But I've tried out just about every C-41 film that there is, and none of them have given me the results that I want. I really only use color for landscapes, and even on a computer screen or as a hybrid print there's no other way to get the colors I want. I like the way that Ektar handles certain situations, especially ones that have a lot of green in them, like a New England forest, or the odd occasion that I need to have a color picture of a person. But 90% of the time I go for Velvia. If I'm shooting color I'm shooting it for the color. Velvia gives me the colors I want.

And maybe I'll be able to make real prints from it in the future. I'll have the positives. That's another advantage of Velvia: Fuji says it will archive for hundreds of years under the conditions I store them.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

If I'm shooting color, I'm almost always shooting Velvia (I do shoot a little Ektar every once in a while). I shoot exclusively 35mm.

Why 35mm? I take most of my pictures in places where a larger camera system can't go -- up mountains, down rivers, across the middle of the desert, all on my two feet or in a small boat (usually a canoe/kayak). So either I don't want to be lugging a heavy bag around, or it physically wouldn't fit in the boat.

Why Velvia? This is more difficult to explain. I wish I could print it. All the time. But I've tried out just about every C-41 film that there is, and none of them have given me the results that I want. I really only use color for landscapes, and even on a computer screen or as a hybrid print there's no other way to get the colors I want. I like the way that Ektar handles certain situations, especially ones that have a lot of green in them, like a New England forest, or the odd occasion that I need to have a color picture of a person. But 90% of the time I go for Velvia. If I'm shooting color I'm shooting it for the color. Velvia gives me the colors I want.

And maybe I'll be able to make real prints from it in the future. I'll have the positives. That's another advantage of Velvia: Fuji says it will archive for hundreds of years under the conditions I store them.

Let's not be too dismissive painting all MF systems as big and bulky. There are plenty of MF systems that are lighter than a few big 35mm cameras. I would personally feel hobbled by a Nikon F6 compared to e.g. a Mamiya 7II or a Fuji 6x45. At the other direction in heavyweights are such beasts as my Pentax 67 and 5 lenses weighing all of 13kg. Ah, but the image quality blows 35mm clean out of the water.

This is the first post where I have read that a photographer cannot get the colours he wants from Velvia in e.g. RA-4 printing. Additive and subtractive colourimetrics are routine in professional RA-4 print-prep production from transparency film (it is, admittedly, far removed from the straightforward CMY fiddling that was common to the Ilfochrome Classic process, even with its restrictive 2-step contrast choices). While the film's gamut is much wider and deeper than standard and extended-gamut RGB, this does not mean you are going to get willy-nilly or totally-out representations of the scene's colour. That is just not true. Tell you what, much more serious problems are caused by photographers shooting RVP in scenes with high contrast and poor highlight control. For them, not even the marvels of electronics (or a very, very skilled operator) can salvage a dog's breakfast.

I am surprised by the comment of RVP keeping "hundreds of years". I don't think that is correct. It certainly is nothing like Kodachrome (my family slides on Kodachrome from 1951 are still beautiful - nostalgic, too, to look at, but Velvia slides from 1994 are not all that spectacular even with careful conservation storage). The material life can be extended by occasional projection, very long term storage stability is not quite a forté of any Fuji emulsions.

 

[KidA]

This is the first post where I have read that a photographer cannot get the colours he wants from Velvia in e.g. RA-4 printing. Additive and subtractive colourimetrics are routine in professional RA-4 print-prep production from transparency film (it is, admittedly, far removed from the straightforward CMY fiddling that was common to the Ilfochrome Classic process, even with its restrictive 2-step contrast choices). While the film's gamut is much wider and deeper than standard and extended-gamut RGB, this does not mean you are going to get willy-nilly or totally-out representations of the scene's colour. That is just not true. Tell you what, much more serious problems are caused by photographers shooting RVP in scenes with high contrast and poor highlight control. For them, not even the marvels of electronics (or a very, very skilled operator) can salvage a dog's breakfast.

How do you get slides to print on RA-4???

 

[AgX]

Be custmized RA-4 reversal processing. Or by using make-shift internegatve films.

 

[railwayman3]

One good point about using slides is that every shot, good, bad or indifferent, is there immediately after processing in a finished state ready to use, keep, or discard. No dozens of negatives waiting to be printed (if, like me, you ever get round to printing them at all ! ).

 

[ME Super]

I use transparency over color negative most of the time because I like to project. Nothing beats a projected slide. Projecting negatives is a little weird, what with blue suns and magenta grass, plus there's the orange mask.

I have had negatives "printed" to 35mm slides as well. It currently requires digital techniques, but it can be done. They look good, too.

 

[Colonel Blimp]

When I project colour slides at home my children love it. That's enough reason for me to keep shooting slide film (35mm).

 

[trondsi]

I shoot slide film because, in most situations, it seems to produce better results in my eyes. The only negative film that appeals to me is Ektar, as a nice change, but even that one has problems when I compare to my photos using Provia slide film, with some exceptions. I also find the easy viewing of the original a big advantage. Just my personal preference.

 

[Roger Cole]

How do you get slides to print on RA-4???

Be custmized RA-4 reversal processing. Or by using make-shift internegatve films.

There are plenty of commercial labs that will do this via scan and then expose RA4 via digitally controlled laser machines.

 

[miha]

When I project colour slides at home my children love it. That's enough reason for me to keep shooting slide film (35mm).

This!

 

[sagai]

I used to shoot a lot of 35mm transparency, Velvia 50 and Provia, then I got an RB67 and tended to use that instead. In 35mm I mostly switched to negative material, but I've recently rediscovered using 35mm transparency. Given that you have to use one of those 'getty picture onto computer thingy' devices for transparency these days, rather than printing optically, I was wondering who uses still transparency over negative material in 35mm and why.

My reason is fairly simple ...

I have given a try for a second hand Leitz with a ColorPlan lens on it before.
Since than I am desperate to turn it on and on again to stare the slides on the wall.
Nothing really compares to projected slides, leaves always me speechless …

 

[BradleyK]

Slides offer a different colour palette, both between different slide films, and even more so compared to negative film. If the lighting situation and the subject matter call for slide film, that's what I use, even if I mostly scan my slides.

+1. And add to this a couple of additional reasons: 1. The force of habit: When I got introduced to photography by my late father (a life-long Kodachrome/ Ektachrome/and sometime Fujichrome shooter), he was adamant about learning proper technique (and he also liked giving slide shows). In his opinion, slides gave you exactly what you instructed the camera to do; if your technique was lacking/faulty, the evidence was in your slides - there was no corrective; 2. Kodachrome (my exclusive color film for 31 years); and 3. The ability (post demise of Kodachrome, for myself), as Rudeofus suggests, to "match" my choice of slide film with the subject matter I happen to be shooting. To date, as I work my way through a ridiculous stash of Ektachrome, this has meant choosing to use either E100G or E100VS.

Once my stash of Ektachrome has been exhausted (I'm hoping by the end of this next year), I will, of course, have to reassess my choice of films. Fuji Velvia 50 and Provia 100 are potential candidates; as well, I await to see what our friends in Italy will have to offer. Given the uncertain future of E6 at the moment, however, I cannot see myself buying any more 120 in case lots (20 pro-packs) or multiple bricks of 35mm. I hope my pessimism is proven wrong.

 

[KidA]

Be custmized RA-4 reversal processing. Or by using make-shift internegatve films.

How is this customized process done??

 

[DREW WILEY]

Both ideas are more hypothetical than practical. Yes, you can reverse; but don't expect very realistic results. And making quality internegs has always been tricky. That's one area where people cussed at pro labs all the time, even when internegs service was routine. I don't know anyone currently doing it. I have done some preliminary testing with current materials, with mixed results which still need fine tuning. Basically, I unsharp mask the chrome original to get in ideal contrast range for the inteneg film, a role Portra 160 seems decent at. But it's very tricky to tame the dyes in something like Velvia for a good match with Portra. Astia or E100G are a better bet. And of course, sheet film contacted to sheet film is best, provided both are on dimensionally stable polyester base, as opposed to acetate.

 

[wblynch]

I just got a box of EliteChrome slides back from the lab. They are really pretty

I have a friend who takes another photo of his projected slides, right off the screen, to get his prints.

I might try that.

 

[AgX]

How is this customized [RA-4] process done??

see here:

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

 

[wildbill]

I stopped shooting slides when my children were born since I wanted prints [1980s]. I have never gone back to slides.

your answers are so helpful.