Slides or print film ?

[digiconvert]

Debating this one with myself (again !) I can never really decide which makes most sense.
- Slides = easy view of output . Stunning visual impact. Choice from Astia to Velvia and Kodak equivalents. Easy to scan to get prints.

- Print film = Quick turnaround of negs at local lab .£3 for negs and CD to check. Scan OR RA4 print from negs. Again there is a wide choice of film colour palettes.

Decisions , decisions. Anyone like to say what they prefer and why ? I really love Kodachrome but that's becoming less of a viable alternative esp in Europe.

 

[Bruce Watson]

I use color negative film, mostly 5x4 160PortraNC and 400PortraNC. I use these films because I like the color palates, and I like the long straight line response curves. These films can capture a huge subject brightness range (SBR), nearly as much as B&W film. I got tired of having to sacrifice some shadow detail with tranny films when the SBR wasn't just right for them.

But just because I like negs doesn't mean that anyone else has to. It's clearly a matter of person choice. One should use the tools with which one is most comfortable. And for me, that's negatives, both color and B&W.

 

[Thanasis]

Slide film and a good ilfochrome print produces the best quality colour prints. i don't think that many could argue with this. Plus the whole process is analog.

 

[Trond]

I use positive film mostly because the result after development is the final product: a positive image which I can enjoy on the lightbox. I don't print much, but scan some of them for display on the internet.

 

[Soeren]

I shoot mostly 35mm slides for projektion. The best colorprints I have seen I shot on 120 printfilm with my
Pentax 6X7 though.
kind regards

 

[2F/2F]

It depends on the desired output, and on what kind of special processing I might need to do. If I am shooting where I might need to do one or two stop pulls, I shoot transparencies. They are way way way more versatile than print film as far as what you can do with processing to alter contrast. Try pulling a neg film 2 stops and see what happens! Slide films just get a slight cast that is correctable, and otherwise act just like a pulled black and white film.

If I want the finest possible grain, and will likely be pushing instead of pulling, I'll use a neg film.

If you want to scan, it doesn't matter that much. I suppose pos. films are technically better, but neg films do scan very well nowadays as well.

You really have to think of your desired output. For photographic prints, you might as well use print film unless you specifically want the Ilfochrome look, which is great for some things, and bad for others. For publication/printing, nothing beats giving the printer a transparency. (I'm talking traditional litho printers.) Otherwise, you'd have to print first, and they would have to do their color separations off of the print instead of straight from the original transparency. That means a more tedious process for the printer with less raw material for them to work with, and more generation loss. If I were shooting for a book, I would absolutely shoot transparencies. Otherwise, probably negs. for a series of prints.

 

[B&Wpositive]

I've been using slide film and scanning it myself (Velvia and others). I also use color negative and black and white film and scan those. All my prints are on a digital minilab.

I'm still scanning the black and white film, mostly because I don't have my wet black and white printing area set up yet.

Very recently I took a course in which we wet printed color negative using an enlarger with a color head. We developed using a Colex paper processing machine. The teacher said the course will be offered one more year and then the school is switching to digital for color printing. The tonal range quality achievable in the color darkroom sometimes exceeds the quality of my scanner (a Minolta Dual Scan III).

I voted "I use them both for different reasons."

 

[tim elder]

I love the look of an Ilfochrome printed by an excellent printer, but it simply wasn't feasible to me to have them printed with any regularity. I now shoot color negative and print them myself; although I miss the look of Ilfochrome, I love printing color.

Tim

 

[nworth]

I use negative film, largely because of its dynamic range and versatility. I also like the color and lower contrast. I often scan it to make prints, an option you did not include in the poll. I also often process it myself, another option you did not quite include.

 

[pentaxuser]

I have done some slides a number of years ago when ignorance was bliss i.e. I had no idea that slide exposure was so much more difficult than colour neg and surprise, surprise all except one slide looked fine! I have a small viewer but I decided that a projector and screen was too much trouble and then when I really got into DIY photography, I realised how expensive Ilfochrome prints would be compared to negs and RA4 so settled for the latter.

However in terms of viewing there's no doubt that you get a vibrancy and 3D effect with slides and a viewer that cannot be replicated with RA4 prints, good as they are these days. In terms of RA4 prints compared to Ilfochrome prints, I am not so sure. If, as it seems, you have to make contrast masks before the expense of materials and chemicals then it just seemed all too complicated. I felt the whole experience would be made worse for me if I could only see a marginal difference and my viewers weren't to say "Wow these are in another class"

Call it a combo of miserliness and cowardice

pentaxuser

 

[gr82bart]

Kinda none of the above. I use slide film and if I want prints, I send them to a lab that uses a Lambda or LightJet printer - wet process for prints from scans. I don't scan them myself. Option 1 is the closest.

Regards, Art.

 

[mooseontheloose]

For colour work I mostly shoot slides, and scan them myself, but I have yet to get any of them printed (I need to work on my hybrid techniques).

Every once in a while I try to convince myself to shoot colour neg but I am rarely satisfied with the results. I don't know if it's due to technique, or poor processing, or too much exposure to the vibrancy of transparencies That being said, I'm starting to use colour negs for my lith work, and I'm thinking about experimenting with it for Holga shooting. We'll see how it goes. Since I've really gotten into my own black and white processing I think I'd like to get into processing my own colour film as well, as I'm getting tired of scratched negs from the photo lab -- I just have to get myself set up to do it properly.

 

[benjiboy]

I shoot 6x6 and 35mm slides and prints I have them processed at a local pro. lab, where I can drop it off and collect it myself, I've had one or two bad experiences with the post over the years.

 

[davetravis]

What can I say?
See below.

 

[naknak]

Involved in color and BW printing.I myself develop my BW films only.
Kyprianos

 

[stevewillard]

I use color negative film, develop my own film, and print my own prints with an 8x10 optical enlarger.

 

[wildbill]

I shoot 8x10, 4x5, and meduim format velvia, sometimes 8x10 E100vs because i got a bunch for next to nothing. If i didn't live in an apartment i think i'd try processing my own tranparencies and print ilfochromes but i just don't have the room or time. The way i get the most control over the final product is with a drum sca**er and output to lightjet.
I take snapshots with 35mm color neg on vacations.

 

[Aurum]

I love the punch and power of a good old fashioned slide. Especially a 6x6, which even with my aged eyesight I can appreciate unaided.
35mm is almost as good, but I need to use a viewer to do this, be it a simple handheld or a projector.
I'm not, however, wedded to the format, as I also appeciate the convenience and utility of prints. A bunch of 6x4 prints from a minilab might not be exhibition material, but they certainly are a lot easier to sort than a box of slides, for that one image that is WOW! rather than merely just ok.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

* I use C-41 films in 35mm and 120 to create prints the ol' analog way in drums etc.
* I use 35mm E6 films to project on a screen. I love a slideshow.
* I might use 120 E6 film cut down to a super slide size (4x4 cm) for projection as well one of these days
* I plan on doing http://www.hybridphoto.com prints out of 120 E6 film when I get my new MF camera. I also want to try other hybrid possibilities like C-41 printed on Ilfochrome, etc.

 

[IloveTLRs]

I use both color negative and slide film.
For everyday, run-of-the-mill color photos I use color negative film. Color negative film is cheap to buy (around $20 for 10 rolls of Kodak Gold 100 ) and developing is less than $5 a roll. Currently I use Kodak Gold 100 and Super Gold 400 since they're stupidly cheap.
I use slide film mostly on vacation and for serious work (weekend walks, sunsets, etc.) Slide film picks up all the color detail my eyes see, especially late afternoon skies and sunsets. Unfortunately I scan all my work and the on-screen results are never the same a real slide (that's digital for you :rolleyes: )
If I could do my own E-6 at home I'd shoot a lot more slide film but as it is I still feel vindicated giving business to local labs.

 

[Evgeny]

I shoot color slides and b&w negatives. I rarely shoot color negatives, use color negatives mostly for tests, slides produce much better results when properly exposed.

 

[kevinbell]

Slides vs. Prints

Generally slide (transparency) film is considered pro whereas print is considered amateur. I'd say you could do more with slides because you can project them, have prints made from them, have a CD made with them on it, etc, etc. Consider this. Most of the photography done in the worlds magazines are done on slides. Slide film is also usually used to photograph models. All this aside prints can still be made if that is the final intended result. If you desire to do landscape i'd say shoot on Kodachrome 64. It has great color rendition, fine grain, and great archival properties. Well thats my two cents!

-Kevin

 

[Paul.]

For me it's slide film for colour work, self prosses so no delays and any cock ups are mine.

Most of my work is B&W self prosses and print again all the cock ups are mine.

My photography is indifferent, my cock ups are spectacular.

Regards Paul.

 

[kodachrome64]

The only negs I like are B&W. If there were (still) B&W slides that were easy to get processed (I know about dr5), I would probably shoot those instead so they could be projected.

I love the colors of slides much better than negs, especially KR64 (obviously). I do like Velvia for some things but certainly not for general use. To me nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing beats seeing my work projected on the big screen, with those Kodachrome greens or Velvia reds. I will shoot C41 if I need color at more than 400ASA, or if I want to drop off at a minilab (things I don't really care about and don't want to project). I get everything scanned at the lab and get prints on the Frontier, using Fuji Crystal Archive paper. It can't be beaten. Even if my end result is prints, I still use slide film unless I need speed.

I do most of my slide processing with my home K-14 kit.

 

[geoferrell]

I like slide film to digital print using a scanner. That way I can see the color on the slide to match vs. scanning a negative and then trying to match a proof. I think digital has the advantage of being faster without the scan, but more costly vs. film cameras and slide film. I've used both slide and negative for years, but for some subjects such as nature photography I prefer the slide/positive films.