The case for/against color slide film...

Photo Engineer · Apr 12, 2009

I hope no one thinks that I am against slide film.

I was answering the OP question the case for / against slide film. And, I based my arguments on technical details of reproduction not on the original material itself. I can make a case against slide films for making prints and duplicates. That is the end of my argument. I cannot make a case against the artistic use of it or the preferences some show or need in its use. Up until about 1980, about 80% of my work was done with slide films. It was only in the 80s that I began to change to negative films due to the family wanting to have prints to show friends, and the difficulty of setting up the projector.

Kids and non-photographers (non-professionals) want prints. I was also heavily involved in neg-pos systems since about 1965 and began to learn the advantages I have expressed in my posts here. Since the 80s about 90% of my work is neg-pos.

PE

sanking · Apr 12, 2009

I resolved this issue many years ago for my work. After using almost exclusively color slide films for all of my early work with color photography I switched to color negative film about 10-15 years ago. My only regret is that I did not do so earlier. I find the much greater dynamic range of color negative film a substantial advantage in terms of flexibility in exposing film in the field in the great majority of situations. Slide film exposed in conditions of low SBR gives very nice results, but I would rather not have to wait for those conditions.

Fundamentally it is a fairly simple proposition. Slide film was designed to be an end in itself, color negative film was designed to be a negative on the way to a positive. Although there may be some exceptions, my opinion is that technically the negative-positive approach is better if the final product is a print on paper.

Sandy

Paul Verizzo · Apr 12, 2009

I think another factor is prestige or snobbism. Since "in the day" pros shot slide, and it costs more, and is harder to find and to find a processor, it has an element of elitism.

OTOH color neg is so, so, so....amateur. It couldn't be any good, especially at the price, can it?

As has been pointed out, it's a matter of preference, mostly, with some technical rationale. No one will convert a true believer of one to the other.

StorminMatt · Apr 12, 2009

Paul Verizzo said:
If Dale is using the movie industry "print" material to make slides from C41, well, that is certainly a contrast mismatch. When I used to shoot that film and had it processed by Identicolor in North Hollywood, the slides were the good stuff, the prints suffering from low contrast. Once again, contrast mismatches.

I'm not sure what Dale's uses. But the slide mounts I got back from them say 'Kodak Vision'. It sounds like this is what they are using. But it is hard to say whether they are, or whether they are just using these mounts because they got a bunch of them cheap. In any case, contrast is a problem with these slides. Also, they tend to look somewhat on the overexposed side. And colors are quite unnatural. Simply put, even the ver worst reversal film out there looks better than these.

Paul Verizzo said:
If slide films become unavailable, it will happen well before C41. I can't think of a professional customer base for slide. NO one is using slide film except die hards. All of the markets accept digital as long as it is of high quality. When that last Kodachrome lab gives up, E6 won't be far behind. The last local E6 lab is considering giving it up, lack of use and EPA regs. But their C41 keeps humming, even if at a lesser rate than five years ago.

There's not much of a professional base for film, period. Remember that the pros are more likely to give up on film than anyone else, considering that they need fast turnaround and low cost more than anyone else. Yes, there may be a few wedding photographers out there who still shoot film (and, who will heavily favor C41). But I just can't see this going on much longer - especially as digital gets both cheaper and better (and full-frame and medium format DSLRs have been REALLY good for quite some time). So in the long run, C41 is just as doomed as E6.

HerrBremerhaven · Apr 12, 2009

I suggest you visit the website of Mats Cordt and click on the link "MAKING OF", then watch the little video about the AUDI TT location shoot. What Mats does is way beyond wedding photography, and he easily charges substantially more than your average weekender wedding guy. There is a world of professional photography beyond photojournalists and wedding photographers, so I thought it important to point that out. Here we have one of the top guys in the industry using a 4x5 and film, and such simple tools as cropping bars to frame a shot.

When sports photographers and news shooters switched away from film, the impact was mostly on 35mm. Large format and medium format are not strictly for enthusiasts and amateurs. There are commercial shoots that do not require the immediacy of news, nor the spray and pray approach of some wedding photographers. Definitely many commercial shooters have abandoned film, but there are some notable photographers still using it.

The point of all this is that when time and deadlines allow, then film can tell the story or meet the concept just as easily as digital capture. Obviously if photographers stop purchasing film, then the market will collapse, but going by the numbers in the last Fitch Ratings report of Eastman Kodak, they are losing money on consumer digital, while they are profiting greatly from film. When the profits disappear, that's when they quit, and not because they replace those profits with digital. The SEC reports and ratings reports show the reality that Kodak needs film revenues.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

Paul Verizzo · Apr 12, 2009

Matt, just take a slide apart. The product number will be above the sprocket hoes, and "Kodak" or "Fuji" or whatever.

As to the pending demise of E6 and C41, I'm saying the former will disappear a lot faster than the latter. Not arguing that C41 won't disappear.

StorminMatt · Apr 12, 2009

HerrBremerhaven said:
I suggest you visit the website of Mats Cordt and click on the link "MAKING OF", then watch the little video about the AUDI TT location shoot. What Mats does is way beyond wedding photography, and he easily charges substantially more than your average weekender wedding guy. There is a world of professional photography beyond photojournalists and wedding photographers, so I thought it important to point that out. Here we have one of the top guys in the industry using a 4x5 and film, and such simple tools as cropping bars to frame a shot.

When sports photographers and news shooters switched away from film, the impact was mostly on 35mm. Large format and medium format are not strictly for enthusiasts and amateurs. There are commercial shoots that do not require the immediacy of news, nor the spray and pray approach of some wedding photographers. Definitely many commercial shooters have abandoned film, but there are some notable photographers still using it.

The point of all this is that when time and deadlines allow, then film can tell the story or meet the concept just as easily as digital capture. Obviously if photographers stop purchasing film, then the market will collapse, but going by the numbers in the last Fitch Ratings report of Eastman Kodak, they are losing money on consumer digital, while they are profiting greatly from film. When the profits disappear, that's when they quit, and not because they replace those profits with digital. The SEC reports and ratings reports show the reality that Kodak needs film revenues.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

Why does Kodak need film revenues? Because they can't make a digital camera worth crap. Then again, they never really could make a good camera. So that's nothing new. As for the switch to digital being strictly a 35mm thing, this is not true. When it comes to medium and large format, one thing is VERY obvious to me - used gear is DIRT CHEAP. I can now go out and buy equipment that I could NEVER have afforded to buy several years ago. And I can get ALOT of it for next to nothing. Why? Because SO many people who used it in the past are going digital. Digital backs may not yet be truly cheap. But they have come down ALOT in price, and will continue to do so.

In any case, the bottom line for me is that if I am going to shoot film, I have to ask myself one question: What can film do that my 5D can't? When it comes to shooting slides, the answer is that it can produce brilliant and accurate colors without all that post-processing work AND it can be projected with better quality and without having to by an expensive (but low resolution) digital projector. But when it comes to shooting C41 vs the 5D, well, I guess C41 costs money to shoot but the 5D doesn't. Wait a minute! THAT'S not a good reason to shoot C41. In other words, when it comes to film, slide film is the only thing that keeps me from going 100% digital.

HerrBremerhaven · Apr 12, 2009

"Mostly" is not the same as "Strictly", meaning you are attempting to invalidate what I stated by changing what I wrote. Show me when sports and news photography was not mostly 35mm, and I would bet it has been more than 20 years. Anyway, I agree with your 5D to film comparison.

As far as "free" digital photography, I know several pros who recently sold their 1Ds Mark II cameras to get the Mark III. On average, when counting the number of frames shot, original purchase price, and final used sales price, they are averaging about 0.70¢ a shot, not counting battery charging, computer gear, nor any expenses for servicing. Maybe the cheaper D-SLRs lower that expense, though it might be better to throw out a used body than attempt to sell it. Compare that to used medium and large format ... Sure, lots of deals, but certainly not free. If the used market has done one thing, it has decimated new film camera sales, but that's just my opinion.

Paul Verizzo · Apr 12, 2009

"Why does Kodak need film revenues? Because they can't make a digital camera worth crap. "

Kodak has a long history of making perfectly good consumer level cameras. Their latest digital offerings have been well received by the public because they were designed to work seamlessly with one's computer, docking stations and all that.

Nikon, Canon, and the others have their market, Kodak finds their own. While you or I would not be caught dead with one, don't diss them for doing what they do. IIRC, Kodak had some of the first digital cameras on the market. Further IIRC, 640x480 and tethered to the computer.

markbarendt · Apr 12, 2009

HerrBremerhaven said:
As far as "free" digital photography, I know several pros who recently sold their 1Ds Mark II cameras to get the Mark III. On average, when counting the number of frames shot, original purchase price, and final used sales price, they are averaging about 0.70¢ a shot, not counting battery charging, computer gear, nor any expenses for servicing. Maybe the cheaper D-SLRs lower that expense, though it might be better to throw out a used body than attempt to sell it. Compare that to used medium and large format ... Sure, lots of deals, but certainly not free. If the used market has done one thing, it has decimated new film camera sales, but that's just my opinion.

I actually did the math for my own work at the end of my digital run.

My normal yearly digital costs could pay for about 17,000 35mm shots with Provia 400x commercially developed.

Paul Verizzo · Apr 13, 2009

Yeah, digital ain't cheap if you count upgrading cameras and failed ones.

My first digital camera was a used Oly, 2mp, that cost me about $550 plus memory cards in 2000. I have had later Minoltas needing factory repairs, and one that suffered the dreaded Sony 5mp death that I dumped on eBay.

Add the memory cards that I bought when expensive and now cheap, and it has been a rather expensive hobby. I have been using my current Konica/Minolta A2 for, what, three years or more now. I have no intention to upgrade unless and until it dies. It's all I need.

BradS · Apr 13, 2009

Looks like this thread has pretty much...eh, gone to hell. Maybe, it'll just die quietly.

keithwms · Apr 13, 2009

No, see, every thread has to go digital before it peters out

Paul Verizzo · Apr 13, 2009

keithwms said:
No, see, every thread has to go digital before it peters out

LOL!

No, it's the 800 pound gorilla in the photographic room.

gr82bart · Apr 13, 2009

I only shoot colour transparencies. I don't see any negatives to it (pun intended) - seriously. Except for one small, minor, insignificant digital step, the entire process from capture to printing is analog.

Regards, Art.

Heinz_Anderle · Apr 13, 2009

Color slide film is challenging to handle, but delivers (in theory) either accurate or emphasized colors, just as preferred.

In the Pre-Press workflow, slide film has always provided the best source material possible, already in the time of traditional lithographic color separations.

nyoung · Apr 13, 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...

Like the OP I've gone back and forth over the years but this thread is pushing me to go strictly C41 and B&W for the costs and the fact that really, the print's the thing.

I have a lot of transparency film in my files. Why is it there? - waiting to get printed of course. (BTW 30-year-old E6 slides in dark storage still look cool)

Projection is for the birds - no one except my slightly crazy uncle FL - bothers to haul out the projector and screen for visitors unless he wants them not to come back. Its just too much trouble. Prints are happy lying around in a book and are instantly available when you chose to open the book. There never was an economical way to project 120 slides.

In the 80s I printed Cibachrome 8x10s with my Phillips 130/150. Results were excellent and I thought it was easier than doing RA4 from color neg. It was more expensive then BUT now the Ilfochrome is just too crazy expensive to use. Any of the slides in the files that get printed from here on out get scanned and digi printed.

That said, I'm happily shooting up a Pro Pack of Velvia 100 (120) I bought last month to check out a couple of not-so-new lenses I picked up for my RB. Already there are two frames that may get scanned and printed to 16 x 20.

Haven't ever shot E6 at 4x5 and I don't think I'm going to. The allure of the 120 on the light table is bad enough and I have enough addictions as it is.

StorminMatt · Apr 13, 2009

keithwms said:
No, see, every thread has to go digital before it peters out

Because digital is generally preferable to a film (or type of film) you don't like. Also, if you like slide film, digital generally looks more like slides than C41 does. Maybe this is why C41 shooters are generally less accepting of digital than slide shooters.

markbarendt · Apr 13, 2009

StorminMatt said:
Because digital is generally preferable to a film (or type of film) you don't like. Also, if you like slide film, digital generally looks more like slides than C41 does. Maybe this is why C41 shooters are generally less accepting of digital than slide shooters.

Matt,

At least for me, it's the latitude and flexibility, not any difference in the look that makes C-41 and B&W negs preferable for most work.

That does not mean that I prefer digital over E-6, far from it.

sanking · Apr 13, 2009

" . ..C41 shooters are generally less accepting of digital than slide shooters."

Are you stating this as opinion or fact? If it is stated as fact, care to share with us the data or research to prove the point?

Sandy King

StorminMatt said:
Because digital is generally preferable to a film (or type of film) you don't like. Also, if you like slide film, digital generally looks more like slides than C41 does. Maybe this is why C41 shooters are generally less accepting of digital than slide shooters.

2F/2F · Apr 13, 2009

I like 'em, plain and simple, and for some projects, a positive piece of film makes the process much easier. If I want a transparent positive, I shoot E-6. If I want to make color separation negatives for litho printing or alternative processes, I like E-6. If I want to make an RA print, I will shoot a C-41 film, unless the situation will require manipulation in printing that is beyond my ability; that is, if I need to burn some complex edge in more than a stop or so. I find shooting and pulling a transparency much more simple than masking the area. If I need to show someone what I have shot without having to print it, I shoot E-6, then scan for litho printing. Personally, I prefer pulling a transparency as opposed to attempting to perfectly burn in bright areas while making an RA print. I also enjoy the E-6 films that are available now, and the ones that have been discontinued but can still be used. There is a huge selection of "flavors" of E-6 films that are still perfectly usable. Oh, yeah. As for E-6 vs. digital, why would I buy a bunch of godawfully expensive new equipment that I can't afford when all of my old stuff that I already have provides better results for far less investment on my part? Besides, I already know how to use the stuff to get what I want, and I don't have to buy a bunch of computer crap either, nor do I have to work on pix on a computer, which simply drives me nuts! The only thing that digital gives me over E-6 is the ability to quickly deliver a large quantity of photos. Very rarely do I EVER need to do this outside of my "day job". Basically, I find E-6 films to be a very user-friendly and flexible tool for a lot of situations. It is a lot like using b/w, with its great control of the image via processing.

tim_walls · Apr 14, 2009

2F/2F said:
I like 'em, plain and simple

The best reason .

I also enjoy the E-6 films that are available now, and the ones that have been discontinued but can still be used. There is a huge selection of "flavors" of E-6 films that are still perfectly usable.

Absolutely; and funnily enough, despite the people who seem to think E6 is actually some kind of giant anti-Kodak conspiracy exclusively funded by Fuji, my favourite current slide films all come in a yellow box... To my tastes there isn't a better colour film out there of any type than Ektachrome E100VS.

(And yes, before anyone starts, I have tried Portra VC, and I didn't get on with it. I don't have any graphs to prove that of course, you'll just have to take my word for it that I know my own tastes...)

One advantage of E6 that is on my to-do list to exploit is that it saves making an interneg if you want create a (say) 8x10 neg for alternative-process contact printing... (I intend to take a look at B&W reversal processes for just this reason, but in the meantime I'm going to experiment with some regular E6 slides.)

The case for/against color slide film...

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency