The case for/against color slide film...

BradS · Apr 11, 2009

I go back and forth...I say I'm through with color slides film and after a few months I buy more....repeat...

Here's what I like about color transparency film (I'm relating to 4x5 but, it probably applies to smaller formats as well)

1) Great color.
2) no guilty feeling because you still haven't printed it.
3) When its developed, its done.

what I don't like:
1) ruthlessly unforgiving about exposure errrors
2) expensive
3) I have to send it out for processing and...(see #2 )
4) did I mention that it is expensive!

L Gebhardt · Apr 11, 2009

I agree with you, except I don't think it's done until it's printed.

My additions:

What I don't like:
1) More need to color balance at the time of exposure.
2) Can't easily print analog as easily.

What I like:
1) Scans better than negatives. Not applicable to APUG.
2) Looks great on light table
3) Has higher resolution.

BradS · Apr 11, 2009

Oh, yeah...I agree with all those especially "Looks great on the light table"

Can't tell you how I felt the first time I looked at a 4x5 color transparency! WOW!

Paul Verizzo · Apr 11, 2009

And if it's in 35mm, your pics are really, really tiny and hard to share, so then it's projectors, trays, screens.

Granted, it is so cool to look at even MF in full living color, let along LF. But what a price, literally and figuratively.

Digital - there, I said the D word - is "slide" film in it's characteristics. Before you go and say "But you can't get the detail or resolution", either check out the latest or wait another year. MF and LF backs are now available for studio work. One thing I love about my Minolta digital is that I can set the contrast low, get every bit of brightness in a hard scene, and then recoup the curve I want in the computer.

Something I've come to realize in the grain/resolution wars is, "What is it I will be doing with this image?" If it's an 8x10 max, Tri-X or a 3mp digital is all you need.

I used to get slides made from color negative film onto that Verichrome product by RGB color in Hollywood. I loved the results, and unlike those movie film reloads, prints were of regular contrast.

I suspect that slide films will be history in some few years.

tim_walls · Apr 11, 2009

BradS said:
I go back and forth...I say I'm through with color slides film and after a few months I buy more....repeat...

Here's what I like about color transparency film (I'm relating to 4x5 but, it probably applies to smaller formats as well)

1) Great color.
2) no guilty feeling because you still haven't printed it.
3) When its developed, its done.

what I don't like:
1) ruthlessly unforgiving about exposure errrors
2) expensive
3) I have to send it out for processing and...(see #2 )
4) did I mention that it is expensive!

Point 3 on your dislikes is really very simple to solve, just do it yourself. That solves 2 and 4 as well - I'd estimate under 2 quid is the cost of processing half a dozen sheets of 4x5 E6.

Paul Verizzo · Apr 11, 2009

tim_walls said:
Point 3 on your dislikes is really very simple to solve, just do it yourself. That solves 2 and 4 as well - I'd estimate under 2 quid is the cost of processing half a dozen sheets of 4x5 E6.

No quids in CA where the OP lives, only squids.

Most color developer kits incur extra Hazmat shipping fees here. And then there's the dedication in equipment and technique and the short life span of solutions......

BradS · Apr 11, 2009

tim_walls said:
Point 3 on your dislikes is really very simple to solve, just do it yourself. That solves 2 and 4 as well - I'd estimate under 2 quid is the cost of processing half a dozen sheets of 4x5 E6.

indeeed...but what is the cost of entry? Does one need a Jobo to do E-6?

I've thought about it but, never got much beyond that. I do realize that Ektachrome was originally marketed to amateurs - with the idea that they could process it themselves.

Photo Engineer · Apr 11, 2009

Loss in detail and color fidelity when printing. The loss in detail is always true, but color fidelity can be maintined to some extent through manipulaiton if digital printing is done.

PE

David Brown · Apr 11, 2009

BradS said:
Does one need a Jobo to do E-6?

No. You need a temperature controlled water bath, but that's not too complex.

nickandre · Apr 11, 2009

I process E6 and C41 ala sink with plastic tub and hokey thermometer. You save buckets of money, 80-90% depending on where you process. You can also find cheap chrome film that's been cold stored but outdated.

I personally like ektar. Slides are cool, but 11x14 prints from 35mm ektar negatives are cooler.

Bruce Watson · Apr 11, 2009

The current crop of C-41 films is just outstanding. I don't see any reason to use E-6 films any more, and haven't for at least six or seven years now.

If nothing else, the vastly better exposure latitude makes C-41 worth it all by itself. No more being restricted to heavy overcast or just the "golden" hours. It's liberating to not have to constantly balance blown out highlights against empty shadows.

nickandre · Apr 11, 2009

I just printed an image from an ektar negative in the darkroom where the foreground (me in a golfcart) was pretty much correctly exposed but the sky above me (overcast clouds with god rays of light shooting through) was blown to hell. Using a 125% burn I got great detail (albeit at lower contrast) in that area. Try doing that with slide film. You'd need an ND grad in the hands of my brother (not wise )

tim_walls · Apr 11, 2009

BradS said:
indeeed...but what is the cost of entry? Does one need a Jobo to do E-6?

I've thought about it but, never got much beyond that. I do realize that Ektachrome was originally marketed to amateurs - with the idea that they could process it themselves.

Absolutely you don't need a Jobo - although I confess that these days I do use one . When I started out though I wrote a guide to how I was doing it on the cheap. (Needs a bit of updating that, but still might be proof at least that it's doable.) Obviously back then I was only doing 35mm, but I regularly do 120 and 4x5 as well these days.

tim_walls · Apr 11, 2009

tiberiustibz said:
I personally like ektar. Slides are cool, but 11x14 prints from 35mm ektar negatives are cooler.

Of course, 11x14 Ilfochromes are cooler still... And Ilfochrome is stupidly easy to do yourself with even a B&W enlarger and a few filters.

Of course, it's also stupidly expensive .

tim_walls · Apr 11, 2009

Bruce Watson said:
If nothing else, the vastly better exposure latitude makes C-41 worth it all by itself. No more being restricted to heavy overcast or just the "golden" hours. It's liberating to not have to constantly balance blown out highlights against empty shadows.

On the other hand, one man's liberation is another man's tedium in the darkroom (or at the computer, although of course we don't mention that) trying to turn an orange mess into something which you think looks like the scene when you took the photo (but will never really be sure.)

My memory isn't good enough for colour negative - I like being able to make all the decisions with the camera in my hand, and once I hit the shutter the job is done .

StorminMatt · Apr 11, 2009

BradS said:
2) expensive
3) I have to send it out for processing and...(see #2 )
4) did I mention that it is expensive!

Expensive? That all depends. If you are willing to make due with lower quality drugstore processing, then E6/K14 IS expensive. But E6/K14 processing is still ALOT cheaper than having quality prints made at a pro lab.

One more thing. When it comes to getting prints made from C41, how often can you get true optical, analog prints made these days (unless you DIY)? In this respect, C41 really holds no advantage over E6/K14.

nickandre · Apr 11, 2009

tim_walls said:
Of course, 11x14 Ilfochromes are cooler still... And Ilfochrome is stupidly easy to do yourself with even a B&W enlarger and a few filters.

Of course, it's also stupidly expensive .

Being that I'm a highschool student, Ilfochromes are out of the question.

Unless you have to do contrast masking.

Paul Verizzo · Apr 11, 2009

StorminMatt said:
Expensive? That all depends. If you are willing to make due with lower quality drugstore processing, then E6/K14 IS expensive. But E6/K14 processing is still ALOT cheaper than having quality prints made at a pro lab. Apples to oranges. Even drugstore prints nowadays are top notch with a reasonable negative. See below.

how often can you get true optical, analog prints made these days?

But why? So what? Truly one of the miracles of modern photo technologies is digital printing and its related controls. That's how so-so negatives wind up with full brightness range prints. My photo printer has not been used in three years. (Want to buy some Canon bulk inks?) I manipulate on my computer, shoot it to Walgreen's and pick up an 8x10 with perfect colors and scale in an hour for $2.99. Sometimes I cheat on B&W by turning a color image into B&W and having it printed. Beats spending hours, dollars, and head banging. The B&W darkroom is a whole 'nudder story, of course.

Bruce Watson · Apr 11, 2009

tim_walls said:
My memory isn't good enough for colour negative - I like being able to make all the decisions with the camera in my hand, and once I hit the shutter the job is done .

If you have control of your lighting (as in the studio) and can hit the color temperature on the mark, then yes. If you are on location and have to accept some ambient light, then no. The problem here is that color temperature varies wildly outside (time of year, time of day, latitude/longitude, altitude, relative humidity, degree of cloud cover, etc...), and it often varies wildly across a given scene. It's not at all uncommon to have very blue shadows when everything else looks fine for example. And tranny film is at least as bad if not considerably worse about this than negative film. Negative films typically do much better with mixed lighting.

Like most things, it depends on where your tolerance for error lies. Many people like tranny film, and the errors from tranny film don't bother them. Nothing wrong with that. OTOH, many others like negative films, and the fact that negative films aren't WYSIWYG doesn't bother them. Nothing wrong with that either.

If you are after a print, either path requires some color correction. At least it always has for me. But maybe it's just because I've got a nasty perfectionist streak. But if I'm going to color correct it anyway, I at least want the double or triple dynamic range negative films give over tranny films.

BradS · Apr 11, 2009

StorminMatt said:
Expensive? That all depends. If you are willing to make due with lower quality drugstore processing, then E6/K14 IS expensive. But E6/K14 processing is still ALOT cheaper than having quality prints made at a pro lab.

One more thing. When it comes to getting prints made from C41, how often can you get true optical, analog prints made these days (unless you DIY)? In this respect, C41 really holds no advantage over E6/K14.

Well, I guess when I said expensive, I was comparing lab processed 4x5 Ektachrome to home processed and printed B&W. E6 film is now $2 per sheet and it cost anywhere from $2.00 - 3.00 per sheet plus postage both ways to have it processed...C-41 is even more expensive in 4x5 because so few labs will process it anymore.

keithwms · Apr 11, 2009

There is no case against slide film.

HerrBremerhaven · Apr 11, 2009

Basically, I have never used any C-41 film with the combination of colour balance and contrast available in the E-6 films I use, with the same or less apparent grain. I have used a ton of C-41 films looking for substitutes, but they just don't come close enough. That is enough reason for me to stick with the E-6 films I want to use.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

tim_walls · Apr 11, 2009

Bruce Watson said:
If you have control of your lighting (as in the studio) and can hit the color temperature on the mark, then yes. If you are on location and have to accept some ambient light, then no.

Of course, you could pick your film and filtering to suit the conditions. Just a thought!

Like most things, it depends on where your tolerance for error lies. Many people like tranny film, and the errors from tranny film don't bother them. Nothing wrong with that. OTOH, many others like negative films, and the fact that negative films aren't WYSIWYG doesn't bother them. Nothing wrong with that either.

Ouch, that was a backhanded comment - good job I'm not thin skinned .

Quite right though - I've nothing against anyone liking colour negative; it's just not for me personally. I don't try and justify my preferences on the basis of their perceived superiority, though - I just prefer 'em because I prefer 'em.

To be honest, the anti-slide-film minority here on APUG are really starting to bore me witless (not you Bruce, and not even this thread particularly, but this is just the most recent of many threads around the subject in which the same old arguments and the same old suspects crop up, and I'm getting sick of it.) The arguments sound exactly, almost word for word like the arguments trotted out in dozens of other fora across the Internet for why we should shoot digital instead of film.

It's not what I come to APUG for to be honest, and it's getting dull enough for me to want to leave the bloody place. I honestly can't understand why we have to have thread after thread on "why slide film is an anachronism that we should all celebrate when it's gone" when we apparently don't seem to need to rinse and repeat "cyanotype printing is idiotic in this day and age when you could achieve the same aesthetic digitally", "colour enlarging is ridiculous digital is much better" or "why waste your time hand colouring when you could use Photoshop."

Doubtless once slide film is gone, give it two years, someone will come up with a half-assed homebrew slide process that doesn't come within 100 miles of a regular consumer E6 film today, and then we'll be able to have a big ol' APUG circle jerk on how bloody marvellous it is that we're keeping analogue techniques alive...

Photo Engineer · Apr 11, 2009

keithwms said:
There is no case against slide film.

Keith;

See my original post then!

There are reasonable arguments based on scientific fact that duplication or printing color slides seriously degrades quality. They are therefore best used when viewed as the original or only duplicated using extensive methods of masking and other corrective methods (this can be best done digitally). And, even then only the first generation duplicate is really useful. Prints of duplicates have that "dupey" look as we used to call it.

PE

IloveTLRs · Apr 11, 2009

Since slide film is expensive ($10 for a roll of Provia 400X 24 - ouch!!) I usually only use it when on vacation. For day-to-day picture taking I use negative film. Also I've been Sunny 16-ing it recently and usually don't feel like fooling with a meter.

However, the $1 shop near my house does slide film developing I think, so I may start shooting slides again

The case for/against color slide film...

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency