Think I've just shot my last E6 film!

[msage]

Slide film and transparencies are commonly called slide film I guess because most transparencies at least in 35mm used to be mounted for projection. They don't have to be mounted. It may be a colloquial presentation. But people use the word interchangeably especially for 35mm format.
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Fuji-Velvia-RVP-135-36-50ASA-Slide-Film/172289431
https://petapixel.com/2018/06/04/kodak-teases-first-test-photos-shot-on-new-ektachrome-film/

Yes you are correct many people make this mistake, it is still incorrect usage of the term.

 

[Agulliver]

Once inflation is taken into account, many things people complain about don't seem quite so expensive.

Sure...in 2004 I could buy Tura slide film for £4 a roll, and get it processed and mounted for £6 I think. But Tura is long gone, cheap generic film. Fuji Provia has never been cheap. Ektachrome has never been cheap. There are cheaper labs than the one you chose, however.

I do recommend simply buying online postage as a "large letter" rather than "small packet". In theory a 35mm cassette in a padded envelope is a couple of mm too thick for the letter designation and if you go to the post office they'll insist on "small packet"....in practice I send films frequently for processing as "large letter" £1.01 first class and have never had any issues. I've had suppliers mail 35mm films out "large letter" too. Seems a common ruse.

 

[ME Super]

I remember shooting Ektachrome in 35mm (24 exposure rolls) for about 32 cents/shot in 1988. Adjusted for inflation that works out to about 66 cents a shot now. I'm paying about 65 cents a shot now (using slightly expired Provia 100F that I paid $10/roll for). If I use in-date Provia 100F from B&H at $12.99/roll, it works out to 73 cents/shot, or about 8 cents more/shot than for using Provia 100F that expired in May 2018 and has been in my freezer since purchase.

If Kodak can release Ektachrome E100 for about the same price as Fuji is offering Provia 100F, I'm in. I'm really not paying any more in terms of real dollars now than I did back when I was in High School in 1988. Heck, I may be in even if it costs a buck or two more per roll. Especially if it's a less contrasty emulsion like Astia/Sensia was.

 

[JWMster]

I agree with the counterpoint that film was always an expensive engagement - even way back when (1970's). Of course, I was a youngster than and didn't have any dough... and relative to the dough I had.... it was expense saved for travel or important occasions and not an everyday thing. Now that I do have dough, it seems odd to complain of the expense. And as a hobby relative to golf (yes, not a sport but an avocation for some) or yachting or skiing...still cheap. Relative to the cost of divorce - whether from photography or from a spouse.... cheap. So as I see it.... expensive is not an absolute but always a relative term. It's like performance and implies value judgments. Relative to historic prices? Sure, if we're comparing nominal prices. But then my grandmother used to complain that a loaf of bread used to be 3 cents, and didn't know how to compare against inflated prices. And yet as much as economists might wonder whether comparison of bread in 1930 to 1970's might involve completely different types of bread, it's probably fair to suggest that E6 film in 1970 versus E6 in 2018 is probably a lot closer as a product. Inflation has never been uniform across ALL products but varied according to the degree of competition, the raw materials content, the labor content, and distribution/marketing costs.... as well as just brand power.

Today we always look at these things relative to the variable cost of digital, and sure, E6 is more expensive. Relative Total Cost of E6 film (film and camera) versus the same for digital is a comparison I no longer make as both involve too many assumptions about shooting both.... and I find almost none of them hold up. I can't even estimate the "relative environmental impact" other than to quote others - and I'm not sure they know what they're talking about anyway. Relative to the cost of shooting B&W film? Not today. B&W and C41 using a local lab are roughly about the same for both in my case.... but if you process yourself, C41 chemistry seems a bit more expensive per roll.I haven't tried E6 and have sent it out mostly.... but relative to the thrill I get when looking at a 120 transparency when it comes back from the lab? Wow! Worth it! Would I want to make it a regular thing? No. Fact is, I find Portra 400 suits me just fine and costs less. So I guess I can agree with the OP... in a general way as well.

 

[Sirius Glass]

While some think E6 is expensive, not being about to recall a scene from memory is much more expensive.

 

[RattyMouse]

While some think E6 is expensive, not being about to recall a scene from memory is much more expensive.

You don't need E6 to do this. It's not exclusive.

 

[ME Super]

You don't need E6 to do this. It's not exclusive.

True, but I don't need film to do it either. If I really wanted to, I could just do it with my phone. Thing is, I like the results I get from slide film, so since it's still available and can be processed, and I can afford the processing, I'm gonna use it.

 

[abruzzi]

If you buy a semi-pro grade DSLR for a $1000 for a camera with a mirror rated to 100000 shots, your cost per picture comes to around one penny for each digital shot. I don't know what the lifespan of a mirrorless setup is, so that may have a very different cost. Anyway, that is a 65 to 1 ratio compared to ME Super's cost per shot. However, this summer I visited the Great Sand Dunes in Colorado. I witnessed someone taking photos of the dunes in burst mode. There were no people, family, or friends in this individuals shot, no wildlife, just towering sand dunes that move at a glacial pace and background mountains that don't move. Nonetheless every shot was about 5 seconds of burst at 5-7 shots per second. That person's cost per shot was much higher than I would normally associate with digital, but it was definitely not nothing (plus the cost of the time spent culling...)

 

[faberryman]

I witnessed someone taking photos of the dunes in burst mode. There were no people, family, or friends in this individuals shot, no wildlife, just towering sand dunes that move at a glacial pace and background mountains that don't move. Nonetheless every shot was about 5 seconds of burst at 5-7 shots per second. That person's cost per shot was much higher than I would normally associate with digital, but it was definitely not nothing (plus the cost of the time spent culling...)

Hilarious!

 

[AgX]

Sure...in 2004 I could buy Tura slide film for £4 a roll, and get it processed and mounted for £6 I think. But Tura is long gone, cheap generic film.

Tura once was very innovative with their papers, then they retracted on converting and rebranding papers and films from major manufacturers. Then they went under. But that converting business and the Tura brand had been taken over by a new entity. They still are on Photokina.

 

[Sirius Glass]

If you buy a semi-pro grade DSLR for a $1000 for a camera with a mirror rated to 100000 shots, your cost per picture comes to around one penny for each digital shot. I don't know what the lifespan of a mirrorless setup is, so that may have a very different cost. Anyway, that is a 65 to 1 ratio compared to ME Super's cost per shot. However, this summer I visited the Great Sand Dunes in Colorado. I witnessed someone taking photos of the dunes in burst mode. There were no people, family, or friends in this individuals shot, no wildlife, just towering sand dunes that move at a glacial pace and background mountains that don't move. Nonetheless every shot was about 5 seconds of burst at 5-7 shots per second. That person's cost per shot was much higher than I would normally associate with digital, but it was definitely not nothing (plus the cost of the time spent culling...)

Oh, it has a no brains required mode.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

If you buy a semi-pro grade DSLR for a $1000 for a camera with a mirror rated to 100000 shots, your cost per picture comes to around one penny for each digital shot. I don't know what the lifespan of a mirrorless setup is, so that may have a very different cost. Anyway, that is a 65 to 1 ratio compared to ME Super's cost per shot. However, this summer I visited the Great Sand Dunes in Colorado. I witnessed someone taking photos of the dunes in burst mode. There were no people, family, or friends in this individuals shot, no wildlife, just towering sand dunes that move at a glacial pace and background mountains that don't move. Nonetheless every shot was about 5 seconds of burst at 5-7 shots per second. That person's cost per shot was much higher than I would normally associate with digital, but it was definitely not nothing (plus the cost of the time spent culling...)

He should have at least one keeper from those action shots...

 

[CMoore]

It is a lot of money . If I look at what my Dad spent for Kodachrome and 25B flashbulbs in the 50's probably pretty close to today. Flashbulbs were 10 cents a piece,90% silver dime, worth about a dollar and a quarter today. We were spoiled by mass production and cheap processing.
Prices are lower in the US. Our central bank just prints more money and we go deeper in debt, thus no VAT. I have a Fuji kit that will process film for about 3 bucks a roll but then there's the mounting. I love 6x6 slides for projection.

I am "new" to photography, but i was born in 1960.
So it dawns on me.......i have only seen slides projected 5-6-7 times in my life, and Only 35mm.
6x6 MUST Be Glorious.

 

[JWMster]

"6x6 MUST Be Glorious"

Ditto in many ways, but who can find a 6x6 slide projector? And if you find it... what shape is it in, and how long will it last? Cost? Scarcity value alone....

 

[warden]

"6x6 MUST Be Glorious"

Ditto in many ways, but who can find a 6x6 slide projector? And if you find it... what shape is it in, and how long will it last? Cost? Scarcity value alone....

Projecting medium format is a non-starter for me because of those reasons but I still enjoy 6x7 positives by holding them up to the sky or looking at them on my light table. It would be great fun to project them too, but It's not worth the effort for me.

E6 is just about the cheapest entertainment I know. And it's full stop amazing that I can push a button and with a half hour and some simple chemistry in my basement make a beautiful little stained glass window to enjoy. It's magic. I'll do it until there is no film remaining on the market.

 

[Hatchetman]

I found a nice 6x6 projector on eBay for $40.

 

[JWMster]

I looked, and the one I saw was in the UK for about 50 pounds, but I do pretty much like jawarden above... and simply look at them on a light table and scan the good ones. The bother of slides is what to do with them - given their mounts.

For my part, I'm trying to see whether Portra 400 does a good enough job that I don't miss E6. Saturation may be a bit lean, but color accuracy seems pretty good so far.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I am "new" to photography, but i was born in 1960.
So it dawns on me.......i have only seen slides projected 5-6-7 times in my life, and Only 35mm.
6x6 MUST Be Glorious.

They are.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

"6x6 MUST Be Glorious"

Ditto in many ways, but who can find a 6x6 slide projector? And if you find it... what shape is it in, and how long will it last? Cost? Scarcity value alone....

Well... I didn't come down in the last downpour, and like CMoore, was born a year later. And really, I have never seen a 6x6 projector (or a 6x7 or a 4x5). It has long led me to be skeptical of their existence at all.

Trannies all lit up and glowing on the light box are a conversation starter for anybody coming in. Only the cat and the dog ignore them.

 

[Sirius Glass]

My father took 6x6 slides for many decades. He showed them to friends with slide shows and monthly submitted them to his camera club slide competition. He admitted that the larger slides gave him a big edge over the 35mm slides.

 

[MattKing]

Until recently I had two 6x6/6x4.5 projectors.
I kept the Rollei, and sold the Kindermann.
They are very nice to have and use.
There are several people in my Darkroom group who have them.

 

[destroya]

have a 6x6 projector with a top flight lens. on my 90x90 screen the images are awesome! I'd love to go larger, just gotta find an empty movie theater or something. Evn 35mm slides projected can be amazing. while size matters, sometimes it doesn't.

 

[Sirius Glass]

My father used a Bosch & Lomb slide projector that gave him good trouble free service. When I first got his Mamiya C330 we could not locate the projector. I was not able to find a working one at a price less than a new Porsche, so I decided to continue with color and black & white negative film rather than go back to slides.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

... However, this summer I visited the Great Sand Dunes in Colorado. I witnessed someone taking photos of the dunes in burst mode. There were no people, family, or friends in this individuals shot, no wildlife, just towering sand dunes that move at a glacial pace and background mountains that don't move. Nonetheless every shot was about 5 seconds of burst at 5-7 shots per second. That person's cost per shot was much higher than I would normally associate with digital, but it was definitely not nothing (plus the cost of the time spent culling...)

He may have been shooting in auto-bracketing exposure mode. I've done that with a burst of 9 bracketed shots of the same image.

 

[AgX]

I am "new" to photography, but i was born in 1960.
So it dawns on me.......i have only seen slides projected 5-6-7 times in my life, and Only 35mm.

I grew up with 35mm slide shows.
But back then I never saw a MF projection.

"6x6 MUST Be Glorious"
Ditto in many ways, but who can find a 6x6 slide projector? And if you find it... what shape is it in, and how long will it last? Cost? Scarcity value alone....

I only buy local. And whereas I'm thrown at with 35mm slide projectors, 6x6 ones are very scarce. So far I only came across two cheap samples. A Liesegang tray-projector for 5€ (lacking the tray!) and a Zett sliding-stage one for 15€. The latter should run forever as long as I feed it with new lamps.

Likely the majority of 6x6 projectors have lesser optics, triplets/advanced triplets, whereas at 35mm I now and then see double-Gauss lenses.