Slide film shooting and hopelessness

Alan Edward Klein · Jan 8, 2025

DREW WILEY said:
Prints and slide shows are two different things. In fact, a level of exposure optimized for projection might not be ideally exposed for sake of printing. I sure learned that the hard way early on. Then you have to factor the method of printing. If you want RA-4 output you have to either get it scanned and submitted to a programmed laser printer, or else generate a decent internegative from it first. I do it the latter method; but doing that well is both time-consuming and expensive. Printing a slide directly is no longer possible, now that both Cibachrome and Type R prints are gone.

The default is to simply shoot color neg film instead, and enlarge it directly onto RA4 paper, which is in fact more economical than black and white printing. But I like doing both, so have to juggle my budget accordingly.

There must be millions of old slide projectors out there for free, covered with cobwebs in attics and closets. A competently done slide show utterly blows away looking at images on a computer screen... well, at least if it's right kind of content, and not a five hour long nightmare like Aunt Maud showing her vacation pictures of a sausage factory in Peoria - I remember some of those ordeals.

Digital "slides" played through my 75" smart TV look great. I no longer have a slide projector and haven;t used one in years. So I can;t compare one to one at the same time. It;s much brighter with more contrast because TV broadcasts light while slide presentations reflect light off a screen. Showing them on large TV is great especially because with digital, you can add music, narration, titles, and credits, right into the digital show track. Plus it's simple to start. No setup. Just click to start the show before Aunt Maud feigns a headache and tells you she has to go home

Ivo Stunga · Jan 8, 2025

...and that rubs me all the wrong ways. Why shoot Slide Film if you're adding a limiting factor to the equation (lossy scan, lossy display)? Is your scanner capable to lift all there is to lift from emulsion, staying true to the grain and color fidelity without any iffy approximations and sharpness cheating, does it focuses properluy and does service or disservice?
Is your TV calibrated and does it display uncompromised color gamut? How are the black levels and contrast?

Slides are very bright at low magnifications. And if the projector can take it, there's always a brighter/hotter bulb available.

And there are screens with glass beads embedded, making the image brighter.

But why do that if room light can be controlled, making brightness issues moot? Do you ask for brighter image at cinema?

But to each his own.

How's your eyesight?

DREW WILEY · Jan 8, 2025

Sad if nobody can tell the difference. Should visit an optometrist.

I'm sure glad NOBODY is going to confuse one of my own prints for anything digitally printed. Even the subtle individualtistic toning of many of the black and white ones would be hard to achieve unless one upped the ante to very pricey quad printing press reproductions,
and then you're basically just multiplying the same thing. Yes, I've seen highly competent black and white inkjet prints, and very professionally done color laser prints - still not the same thing. I don't have room to brag however ... I've also seen prints made over a hundred and fifty years ago that blow anything most of us do clear out of the water due to their subtle gradation.

If you want a fair comparison of the nature of a slide versus digital or TV projection, then order up a transparency the same size and backlight it. Overdone or poorly selected, it can sure get gaudy and certainly not to my own taste, but that could be said with any form of kitchy presentation. If you want a real challenge, try to attain the look of a transparency in an actual color print instead - that will separate the men from the boys.

koraks · Jan 8, 2025

Alan Edward Klein said:
you can add music, narration, titles, and credits

*shudder*

The whole point of a private/living room slide show is the social part - you talk about what you see. The photographer / traveler / etc. tells anecdotes, people reflect on the images. The last thing you want is to fix the pace and add distracting elements like music. What a mess.

retina_restoration · Jan 8, 2025

koraks said:
*shudder*

The whole point of a private/living room slide show is the social part - you talk about what you see. The photographer / traveler / etc. tells anecdotes, people reflect on the images. The last thing you want is to fix the pace and add distracting elements like music. What a mess.

Agreed. I blame TikTok and Instagram for promoting this egregious idea that every f*cking thing has to have an effing soundtrack. Terrible idea. The worst.

Alan Edward Klein · Jan 8, 2025

Before you knock it, why don't you look at a couple of my slide presentations? Click on one of the YouTube links below in my signature block and then show yourself one of the shows most of them with digital captured.But you'll get the idea you can show it on either a monitor or show it on a full size t v.Then, come back and tell me what you think.

DREW WILEY · Jan 8, 2025

I remember professional slide shows. We didn't have TV's, movie theaters, or even phones yet due to the nature of the terrain. So once in awhile some world traveler would set up his venue at a school auditorium with a high powered slide projector, and people would drive from many miles away and pay a token fee to see the show and hear the lecture. Same with rodeos or softball games. With such a low population density, it was common for people to drive up to two hours one way on steep winding roads for such "social events". A different world back then, but memorable, and better in my estimate.

I was itching for a 35mm camera and slide shows of my own. That came in due time. And even the tiny town store, smaller than a mobile home, kept Kodachrome on hand, on the same shelf as rifle and shotgun ammunition.

koraks · Jan 8, 2025

Alan Edward Klein said:
Before you knock it

I posted my response in the full awareness of the ones you've shared on YouTube. You're evidently very happy with them, and that's what counts.

Milpool · Jan 8, 2025

DREW WILEY said:
Sad if nobody can tell the difference. Should visit an optometrist.

I'm sure glad NOBODY is going to confuse one of my own prints for anything digitally printed. Even the subtle individualtistic toning of many of the black and white ones would be hard to achieve unless one upped the ante to very pricey quad printing press reproductions,
and then you're basically just multiplying the same thing. Yes, I've seen highly competent black and white inkjet prints, and very professionally done color laser prints - still not the same thing. I don't have room to brag however ... I've also seen prints made over a hundred and fifty years ago that blow anything most of us do clear out of the water due to their subtle gradation.

If you want a fair comparison of the nature of a slide versus digital or TV projection, then order up a transparency the same size and backlight it. Overdone or poorly selected, it can sure get gaudy and certainly not to my own taste, but that could be said with any form of kitchy presentation. If you want a real challenge, try to attain the look of a transparency in an actual color print instead - that will separate the men from the boys.

I don’t think this is correct. It was at one time, but the proverbial ship has long since sailed.

retina_restoration · Jan 8, 2025

Milpool said:
I don’t think this is correct. It was at one time, but the proverbial ship has long since sailed.

A few years ago I was visiting Zeb Andrews at Blue Moon Camera in Portland, and the shop had a customer show on display at the time. 80% were B&W prints, some were printed by the customers and some were printed by Blue Moon for the show. Zeb and I had in the past discussed the pros and cons of inkjet VS silver gelatin prints and the subject came up while discussing the prints on display. Zeb told me there was a mix of inkjet and silver gelatin prints on etc wall, and no matter how carefully I studied them (from 6-8 foot viewing distance: they were on the wall, behind the shop counter) I could not reliably say which were silver gelatin prints and which were inkjet.

Now, I'm no novice when it comes to making silver gelatin prints. Back in the 80's and 90s I was frequently hired by many high profile Toronto artists to print their show works, so I have a lot of experience. So it's not like I don't have the background to identify a silver gelatin print. But in the 2020s, it has become very difficult to tell inkjet prints from silver gelatin prints. My own work, when printed via inkjet, is so similar to how my silver gelatin prints look that the difference is negligible. I am absolutely certain that 99.5% of viewers would not be able to say with any certainty what process produced my prints*. Maybe its different with color work, but you won't be able to convince me that good B&W inkjet prints don't look as good as a high quality silver gelatin print.

*in 2024/25 most of my printmaking work is still done by Salt, Kallitype and silver gelatin processes.

DREW WILEY · Jan 8, 2025

The ship sank. Maybe the time will come when pigment sets are produced or ground fine enough to behave as if transparent like dyes, and have that kind of "life" to their appearance; but the necessary complement of such "nano pigments" simply doesn't exist yet. I'm speaking of color printing. Inks are relatively opaque, and have a heavy surface feel to them.

I've tested the finest ground pigments currently made (which can't be found at art stores), and came up with a process set which should work quite well with respect to color carbon printing and so forth, but not well enough to constitute the holy grail, in my opinion. There are actually industrial R&D depts looking into the same question, but for sake of big bucks marketing, like translucent automotive finishes. But there are certain hue categories they still can't achieve at a nano colorant level. So the hunt goes on.

In the meantime, I'll stick with dye based color photography and printmaking. If one compares the most versatile dye system, namely dye transfer printing, to the same images optimized to inkjet, well, there can be a sense of luminance or "life" to a well done dye transfer print which simply doesn't exist in even the best of inkjet prints. Of course, one's success rate using inkjet instead will be far far higher, and it's a very democratic process almost anyone can learn. So the fact that inkjet is by far the dominant commercial as well as amateur option is no surprise. But sheer quality of result is another thing.

There's also the option of very high gloss reflective prints which impart a sense of transparency and depth, like Cibachrome formerly, and Fuji Supergloss today. I've taken that route to a considerable extent. But not all images work well in high gloss, and they're trickier to frame and display illuminate too, especially in big sizes.

Alan Edward Klein · Jan 8, 2025

Alan Edward Klein said:
Before you knock it, why don't you look at a couple of my slide presentations? Click on one of the YouTube links below in my signature block and then show yourself one of the shows most of them with digital captured.But you'll get the idea you can show it on either a monitor or show it on a full size t v.Then, come back and tell me what you think.

koraks said:
I posted my response in the full awareness of the ones you've shared on YouTube. You're evidently very happy with them, and that's what counts.

If you don't like the titles, credits and music and narration, that's fine, you can always shut it off. The other way is not to make it a video which is what you were looking at. Just show a slideshow on your TV and that would take the original Jpeg and display it on the 75 inch TV without any background video or credits or music.

GregY · Jan 8, 2025

koraks said:
I posted my response in the full awareness of the ones you've shared on YouTube. You're evidently very happy with them, and that's what counts.

The beauty of Youtube, is that you can watch or not ("and that's what counts")
The captive audience of the slide show......not so much.

koraks · Jan 8, 2025

Alan Edward Klein said:
Just show a slideshow on your TV and that would take the original Jpeg and display it on the 75 inch TV without any background video or credits or music.

Yes, I've done that on occasion. It's been a (long) while, probably over a decade ago. Kind of fun, but nowhere near the magic of a proper slideshow.

GregY said:
The captive audience of the slide show......not so much.

Imagine the captive audience that's being parked in front of a 75" screen to watch a YouTube video.

Sirius Glass · Jan 8, 2025

Milpool said:
I don’t think this is correct. It was at one time, but the proverbial ship has long since sailed.

Did it sink when it steamed out of the train station?

Milpool · Jan 8, 2025

retina_restoration said:
A few years ago I was visiting Zeb Andrews at Blue Moon Camera in Portland, and the shop had a customer show on display at the time. 80% were B&W prints, some were printed by the customers and some were printed by Blue Moon for the show. Zeb and I had in the past discussed the pros and cons of inkjet VS silver gelatin prints and the subject came up while discussing the prints on display. Zeb told me there was a mix of inkjet and silver gelatin prints on etc wall, and no matter how carefully I studied them (from 6-8 foot viewing distance: they were on the wall, behind the shop counter) I could not reliably say which were silver gelatin prints and which were inkjet.

Now, I'm no novice when it comes to making silver gelatin prints. Back in the 80's and 90s I was frequently hired by many high profile Toronto artists to print their show works, so I have a lot of experience. So it's not like I don't have the background to identify a silver gelatin print. But in the 2020s, it has become very difficult to tell inkjet prints from silver gelatin prints. My own work, when printed via inkjet, is so similar to how my silver gelatin prints look that the difference is negligible. I am absolutely certain that 99.5% of viewers would not be able to say with any certainty what process produced my prints*. Maybe its different with color work, but you won't be able to convince me that good B&W inkjet prints don't look as good as a high quality silver gelatin print.

*in 2024/25 most of my printmaking work is still done by Salt, Kallitype and silver gelatin processes.

I agree. I’m as picky as it gets and still enjoy the darkroom but in recent years the best inkjet prints I’ve seen from people who are great at it (incidentally they are often people who used to be superb darkroom workers) are at least as good as anything that has ever come out of a darkroom. That includes not only B&W but also colour work by people who at one time were tops at dye transfer, Ciba or printing from negatives.

The technology has come far enough (and then some). As always it’s then a matter of how much skill one has in digital editing and how much care is taken doing the work.

I’d love to learn digital/hybrid but just haven’t had the time and I don’t have any of the equipment. Hopefully one day.

GregY · Jan 8, 2025

koraks said:
Yes, I've done that on occasion. It's been a (long) while, probably over a decade ago. Kind of fun, but nowhere near the magic of a proper slideshow.

Imagine the captive audience that's being parked in front of a 75" screen to watch a YouTube video.

Thankfully the slideshow is a thing of the past.....
& judging from the # of views on youtube...... the theatre shut down....

DREW WILEY · Jan 8, 2025

Milpool - I live here in the world epicenter of Tech, and happen to know some of the best inkjet printers alive, including technical consultants for Epson etc; but in each case, I feel they did their best color work back in their darkroom days. It's that background which in fact allowed them to become excellent inkjet printers, because they already understood what they wanted. But there is also a real benefit to being somewhat restricted to what a particular medium can do best. Restraint becomes an asset. One of those people kept referring to the kind of "control" he could obtain through digital printing that he couldn't before. I don't disagree with that, but replied, "I don't want to control my medium; I want to dance with it, and let it lead".

Taylor Nankervis · Jan 8, 2025

I am not a control freak; but I do ensure everything is correct in-camera with my eye on the end result: the print.
I am happy with my giclée production — it's all we have as an active group of professionals printing from chromes.
Giclée though (I have seen it here on this forum mentioned as "StinkJet" !) is a far cry from the long lost halcyon days of Ilfochrome Classic prints. After that went belly-up like the proverbial brown snake run over by gran'dad's Massey Ferguson, I switched to RA4; then early last year, that too went the way of the dinosaurs (by way of receiving an SMS that stated... "get a gin ready and sit down while I break a bit of news to you..."). A bit of soul searching there (and more than a few gins and lamingtons!), a string of meetings, sampling, discussion, more meetings and networking.

Colour gamut is improving all the time with giclée; we do not use Epson, but Canon, and Ilford Galerie media (among others). Besides this, what matters most is if my work sells, not how it is printed; clients are not particularly picky or au fait about the print process or howsoever and whatnot — it is the quality of the image, the subject and overall, the 'first impression' that counts. A poor quality image that shows little to no artistic merit, understanding of composition and subject, lighting, technical capacity that is printing to e.g. (as a real-life example) Ilfochrome Classic, is going to go down like a lead-filled balloon. I produced IC prints up to a inscrutable standard, not down to an imagined, lofty, self-aggrandizing artistic standard.

Can't remember precisely but I think my last slideshow (of Kodachrome slides, but of course!) was on a Carousel way back in 1985 or 1986. I had my own dark room then (printing B&W and some colour before moving to IC) from 1989 to 1995 before moving house. Goodness me, where have those years, those wonderful years, gone...!?

pyr · Jan 9, 2025

Ivo Stunga said:
...and that rubs me all the wrong ways. Why shoot Slide Film if you're adding a limiting factor to the equation (lossy scan, lossy display)? Is your scanner capable to lift all there is to lift from emulsion, staying true to the grain and color fidelity without any iffy approximations and sharpness cheating, does it focuses properluy and does service or disservice?
Is your TV calibrated and does it display uncompromised color gamut? How are the black levels and contrast?

Slides are very bright at low magnifications. And if the projector can take it, there's always a brighter/hotter bulb available.

And there are screens with glass beads embedded, making the image brighter.

But why do that if room light can be controlled, making brightness issues moot? Do you ask for brighter image at cinema?

But to each his own.

How's your eyesight?

Thank you all for this interesting discussion.

Were you able to test recent 4K projectors with good blacks for photo projection ?

I know they cost much more than slide projectors and are bigger and less transportable, but I wonder if photos could look good or "as good as" slide projection..?

Personnally I have only projected on affordable 2K (full hd) projectors and the results are not that good. I am asking this because many of the slide film recorders recorded at 4K or 8K, which is often considered optimal for 35mm recording..

Ivo Stunga · Jan 9, 2025

Can't say I have - I like the analog workflow, no distracting and ADHD promoting notifications and no pixels on screen
AND the scanner limitations would still persist.

pyr · Jan 9, 2025

Yes Ivo

I ask because I shoot digital and for me it's fine for printing (hey, it's still paper after all) but slide projections are in a different league, they have a different materiality.. from what I have seen so far !

Ivo Stunga · Jan 9, 2025

In digital workflow projector would be nice if you don't have large plasma or OLED indeed
I like the warmth and glow of plasma screens, but sadly none ar made today - just a bunch of monochromatic LED's doing their boring thing.

Slides have a distinct look, yes. And cinematic impact if done well

Chan Tran · Jan 9, 2025

Shooting slides is expensive today. $22 or so for a roll of E100 and about another $10 for processing. But if I shoot film today I would want to do slides as I don't have my darkroom anymore. Shooting slides I can project them and the results are not influenced by the lab like prints.

Ivo Stunga · Jan 9, 2025

We have to eat and own that expense, love hurts

Slide film shooting and hopelessness

Alan Edward Klein

Ivo Stunga

DREW WILEY

koraks

Moderator

retina_restoration

Alan Edward Klein

DREW WILEY

koraks

Moderator

Milpool

retina_restoration

DREW WILEY

Alan Edward Klein

GregY

koraks

Moderator

Sirius Glass

Milpool

GregY

DREW WILEY

Taylor Nankervis

pyr

Ivo Stunga

pyr

Ivo Stunga

Chan Tran

Ivo Stunga

Slide film shooting and hopelessness

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency