Slide Film

[trendland]

If you want to get a sense of how important slide film was to my early life, here is a (digital) photo of the discarded slides after the first half of my current project of organizing and editing my late father's slides.
The "keepers" currently total to more than 1400 slides, and the discards weigh about 7 pounds:
View attachment 200797

But Matt you would not say that you have given the original slides into scratch? Notice (just in case I understand you correct ) if digital techniques will change - you might scan your slides again (in better or in other resolution/quality)
Not possible from scratch......


with regards
PS : Or is it more that case : Such masses of Kodachromes are scratch
(under - /overexposed, unscharp a.s.o.) ......We all don't think so

 

[trendland]

While a professional can handle slide film with no problem, and the results are fairly accurate, color negative film allows for more leeway in exposure and with better latitude. Color correction is superb. That is why Hollywood uses a neg-pos system.

PE

If one is able to expose slide material correct (also in case of difficult lighted scenes) - it is ALLWAYS possible to handle difficultys with color negative material. We might not talk about bw (easiest way in comparison).
So I started long time behind at first a try with Arri camera on 16mm motion film 7239 - some did not like it so much (bad quality).

But I wanted explicit handle exposuring positive film. It has gone good just one scene after I shot in a dark tunnel wasn't so nice. I forget to change from F2.8 to F8 after tunnel shot. So I also made experience with overexposure of 3 full stops on 16mm positive film...(Arri St was with no exposure automatic / full manual exposure with seconic). Much later I realized what a great job I done with 7239. On negative film most do not care about one or two stops failed exposure with motion picture film. AND I remember one guy who failed with 16mm bw during comercial shooting for tv (studio work under 3200kelvin condition).....

Never happened to me (how does it go - total wrong exposure with bw?)

with regards

 

[MattKing]

But Matt you would not say that you have given the original slides into scratch? Notice (just in case I understand you correct ) if digital techniques will change - you might scan your slides again (in better or in other resolution/quality)
Not possible from scratch......


with regards
PS : Or is it more that case : Such masses of Kodachromes are scratch
(under - /overexposed, unscharp a.s.o.) ......We all don't think so

I'm having trouble understanding you, but for clarity, the editing process is primarily a subject based process, not a technical based project.
I am mostly making decisions based on what is pictured in the slides, not how well they might be exposed or focused.
When there are similar options, exposure and focus certainly enter into the choices.
And of course at least some of the "keepers" are there just because of how good the photograph is.

 

[trendland]

Ok...... that might solve the missunderstanding. I personaly did it in other direction. (untill today).I never gave slides into scratch. Mostly I archive ALL frames of a shooting (sometimes also technical failed shots : unsharp, overexposed a.s.o.) But I understand - not every sharp shot is a good result. Years ago I shot 4 - 5 films - noticed just two single shots (out of 160) are real nice. But suddenly I got a further film from finished developing and there (absolutely not expected) is the real one "good" shot.But everything is relative.

The intention of a good shot is also changing after some years. I found shots (out of 30 years old (archived) slide scratch) wich I possible would have thrown away 1982 - today these shots are superb.
wich regards

 

[faberryman]

I'm having trouble understanding you, but for clarity, the editing process is primarily a subject based process, not a technical based project.

It is dual pronged for me. I may reject an image on aesthetic or technical grounds or both.

 

[MattKing]

It is dual pronged for me. I may reject an image on aesthetic or technical grounds or both.

Most likely you are speaking generally about your own work here.
My comment was in relation to my editing process in respect to the thousands and thousands of slides I inherited from my father. For those slides, I've concentrated more on what is actually depicted on the slides.

 

[trendland]

It is dual pronged for me. I may reject an image on aesthetic or technical grounds or both.

I noticed scanning processes since 1992. The first services offered "high resolution" = 20 pictures on a floppy disc with 1.44 Mbyte. (1.44 Mbyte not to each frame , 20 pictures on 1.44 Mb space Years later some say : "It is time to scan all family shots because digital is a safer medium." Later Kodak Photo CD came as extreme cheap dtp (desc top publishing ?) medium. Kodak Photo CD "Pro" was cheap in comparison to professional drum scanning = 4000 x 6000 resolution. Later scanning machines became affordable to scan at home.But the technical advance is comming netter and better. First I personaly know gave there family negatives away - as copys were finished on floppy disc.....with regards

PS : " The world press photo of the year isn't that because of extraordinary sharpness or superb lighting a.s.o. - of course it has other qualitys. But it is mostly bad if you have the shot of the year and it is just in small resolution.