Slide -> C41 film -> lab versus slide -> lab

[John51]

I'd like 12x8 prints of my favourite slides. With my preferred lab, sending them a roll of C41 film of slides I have copied and having it printed 12x8 gives the lowest cost per print.

Even their professional service where skin tones get balanced etc. comes to about a quid per 12x8 if I order an extra set of prints. From a dig file, it's almost 3 times that and even more if I send them the slide.

What I'd like to know is would this give acceptable prints (assuming decent slides to start with) or is it false economy? Camera is an Om1n.

 

[bvy]

You lost me. You copied the slides on to negative film? And you want to make prints from those?

 

[darkroommike]

In the good old days there were a lot of ways to make good prints from slides (and some not so good). First was Cibachrome/Ilfochrome very nice color but contrast was high, so you needed to make contrast reducing masks. Another option-expensive-was Dye Transfer absolutely wonderful and very expensive. No longer an option. Another obsolete option was Kodaks' RP3000 reversal process so bad even Kodak didn't use it. The best cheap option used to be Kodaks' 6x9 internegatives shot on their 70mm internegative film (a lower contrast C-41 process film) "C" prints from these internegatives was very darn good and not too spendy. You could also get custom internegatives on 4x5 internegative film, both Fuji and Kodak made C-41 4x5 internegative film. And custom "C" prints. One other approach was to use some sort of flashing to reduce negative contrast and shoot internegatives on standard 35mm film (my boss, the cheapskate, used this technique) this would work best if you had a slide duplicator with contrast reduction but you could also overexpose the film and then "pull" it to lower contrast.

Today, if I still needed to do an analogue solution to making prints from slides, I'd use a standard ISO 200 Kodak Gold (less contrast than Ektar) shoot at box speed using a cheap duplicator. And then get prints made. But I'd probably just say "screw it" sc*n the slides and make d*g*t*l prints. Why complicate something that easy?

 

[bvy]

I'm in the fence about D prints. Another option is reversal processing RA-4 (casualty referred to as RR-4). I've done it with mixed results. Others report good results.

 

[foc]

I have been a professional photographer, processor, and minilab owner for over 35 years and in my experience you get what you pay for. If the lab produce something for €1 and a similar product for €3 , just think why do they do that. As with most things, time is money, so take your pick.

As has been said above why complicate it. I would a digi file and make all my own corrections on screen so WYSIWYG.

I used to shoot lots of slides using a slide duplicator on an Olympus OM4ti using Fuji Reala many years ago, At the time the prints from these negs were good but not compared to what can be produced today.

 

[John51]

darkroommike, thanks for the details. If I go for the labs pro service, in which they optimise the settings to balance skin tones etc. will their hybrid process be able to tame the excess contrast at all?

bvy, apologies for the confusion. I'm wanting to get a quantity of 12x8 prints made from slides and I (as yet) don't do any colour processing. The question is about saving money without losing too much image quality.

Say I have 24 slides that I want to have 2 prints of each, 12x8.

Send the slides to the lab and it's £3.61 per print = £173.28

Send 24 files to the lab and it's £2.89 per print = £138.72 (Not that my scanner is good enough to make a 12x8 from.)

Copy the 24 slides onto a roll of Kodak Gold 24exp and send that to the lab, professional service for 12x8 is £31.19 plus £15.60 for an extra set of prints = £46.79

 

[MattKing]

If you are going to go the 35mm "internegative" route, I would suggest the lower contrast/saturation option of Portra 160.

And do your best to minimize the contrast of your light sources, as well as consider polarized light sources.

 

[AgX]

"And do your best to minimize the contrast of your light sources."
What does this mean?

"As well as consider polarized light sources"
Why?

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

"And do your best to minimize the contrast of your light sources."
What does this mean?

"As well as consider polarized light sources"
Why?

Hmm. I'm not entirely clear on those points either. But maybe the honourable member Mr King is referring to the suppression of spectrals afforded by polarisation (?)
And of the first point, shooting in diffuse illumination reduces contrast to a more even spread as opposed, for instance shooting in bright sunlight where there are deep (black) shadows and intense highlights (for the most part beyond the capacity of all current slide films to record with any degree of adequacy).

To the OP: If the lab, or you, is required to "tame excess contrast", then you are not exposing the film correctly and by association, process that follow such as printing and duplication will not be of the best standard; that is to say, slide film today cannot handle "excess contrast". The best illumination is diffuse (what I just said in the paragraph above).

With well-exposed slide film, you must give a pro-level lab explicit details of how you want the prints rendered; they are not mind-readers. If the slides show even exposure, printing is very straightforward, especially with hybrid processing.

 

[MattKing]

The reference to polarization may be not well thought out.

Bot when it comes to using normal film and a 35mm camera to essentially make inter-negatives, the character of the light illuminating the slide is important - the more diffuse the better.

 

[John51]

(there was a url link here which no longer exists), I wouldn't be sending the lab an unexposed slide film of dupes but a C41 film of internegs.

I know that copying can increase contrast, I assume that it is less with a C41 interneg than a straight dupe?

When making the exposure, isn't contrast simply a factor of light intensity? Shadows don't get deeper, the light areas get brighter which makes the shadows appear darker.

If so, would the 'lowest contrast' exposure for an interneg be the lowest light level that doesn't get into reciprocity failure of the film?

 

[MattKing]

The "character" of the light source used for the interneg does matter.

Think of the differences between light sources with enlargers. Point source - typical condenser - diffusion head will give prints with progressively less contrasty results.

You need to make sure that the source of light used for the exposure minimizes the contrast buildup. The more diffuse the better. It should, of course, also be very even.