Unmounted 35mm chrome film

[Graham_Martin]

Wasn't sure whether to post this here or in the film forum. I recently ran some 35mm Fujichrome through my Nikon FM2. A sample image is attached. My local lab told me that to mount them as slides was very expensive. Since I don't have a projector I just had them develop the film and give me a CD. It's been many years since I used chrome. I really liked the color qualities.

My question is this. Am I likely on a consistent basis to get superior color from chrome compared to negatives? Any other thoughts on just having the film processed and scanned while not getting mounted slides?

 

[ambaker]

Depends on what you consider superior color... Some would argue that current color negative film is more capable of an accurate rendition of color.

Personally, I am partial to chromes. They are closer to what I remember, or at least the way I wanted it to be, when I took the picture.

Then again, I also remember when prints were more expensive than slides, so I shot slides as a way of saving money.

 

[brucemuir]

It will boil down to the skill of the scanning operator or if they use some auto scan type deal which is highly possible.
I do prefer the contrast and colors of E6 materials myself but some really like the newish C41 Kodak Ektar for punchiness and saturation.
You might give that stuff a try.

If you are not scanning yourself I'm not sure of any huge benefits you will notice using E6 these days.
Can't believe I said that because I always preferred E6 even if it was I was only looking at them on a lightbox.

 

[BrianL]

You can probably order the mounts and do the mounting yourself. Been there and done that with my 6x4.5 transparencies. Not hard to do once you make the cutting jig or just have a sharp cutter and steady hand. I made a jig to cut a strip of 5 frames as my 645 shot 15 frames so I hand cut into 3 strips and then used the jig for cut the 5 frames. I used plastic snap together mounts, theough I could have save a few dollars by going with cardboard but that was messier and took longer. I do have a 6x6 projector and the 645 mounts have the same outer dimensions. I also have a 35mm projecter but let the lab mount the slides. As for scanning, sorry but, to me it is like taking a vintage mint Rolls Royce in perfect condition and ripping out the heart and dumping in a Smartcar drivetrain. Just will never be as good as the 1st generation image. Eventually, a digital image may get there but a 2nd gen image whether a scan or a prnt is not as close as a 1st gen to the original

 

[Sirius Glass]

Check out:
FreeStyle http://www.freestylephoto.biz/sc_search.php
Adorama Dead Link Removed
B&H [skip the first three] http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=35mm+slide+mounts&N=0&InitialSearch=yes

 

[Klainmeister]

Some slide films, Velvia for example, have a very saturated and contrasty look that appeals to many when shooting brightly colored scenes. You can achieve similar results with films like Ektar, but I think the ability to hold it to a light source and see the image as is helps people like myself in reaching the final print.

 

[Alan Klein]

I use both but find negative film, like Portra easier to scan and provide greater range. While less "colorful" than let's say when I shoot Velvia, you can always saturate it a little in Post. Why don't you try it both ways and see what you like? Good luck on whatever you decide.

 

[Hatchetman]

I see no need to mount them unless you have a slide projector to view them with. Chromes give you a different look. Not better or worse, just different.

 

[Graham_Martin]

Yes, I don't have any real need to mount them.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Chrome film has traditionally had an enriched palette, far and above that offered by any C41 film. You can take Velvia, Provia, Astia as a few examples with variations in contrast and tonal quality amongst them but still set off from C41 for their vibrancy alone.

Scanning will result in a loss of colour from the palette of the chrome as it will never be 100% faithful, but it is very, very close. It's what most of us have to make-do with now.

Labs uncommonly mount slides; it is time consuming and expensive and with today's lack of slide projectors, not a good idea. Just cut chromes into strips of 6 and sleeve in archival-quality acetate sleeves. They'll keep. Invest in a lightbox and skill-up on printing from the very best. It can be a long learning curve but you have to continue the love of photography somehow without selling out to you-know-what.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

I shoot a lot of slide film and never get it mounted because I do not project them. If you're going to print them in an enlarger, or if you intend to scan them yourself or at a lab later on, you'll get better results with unmounted film. This is because mounted slides are rarely perfectly flat, and you need the film to be flat in the enlarger or scanner for highest sharpness.

 

[Diapositivo]

In theory modern colour negatives could be more accurate than reversal films. In practice you start from an awful brownish-orangish inverted and perverted mess and you have to arrive to the correct positive colours and as it often happens in life in practice you can find problems that the theory does not consider.

With a slide you start with very good colours since the first step. It's the difference between fishing a tuna, killing it, cleaning it, cooking it and fishing directly a tuna can

If you want perfection with slides you should filter a bit in conditions such as shade under blue sky but, generally speaking, also when not filtering at all you can be assured that the final result is chromatically pleasant and basically correct.

So if you plan for hybrid use and don't want to print, only scan, slides will make life easier and you'll have the slide in any case for a future projection if and when needed.

If you plan to print in any case, and if you want utmost colour precision such as for a professional tissues catalogue, negative is probably your best bet.

The real advantage of negative, as opposed to slides, is the greater dynamic range, the much more pronounced "shoulder" of the characteristic curve which makes life much easier in high contrast situations. The real disadvantage is that they are not nice when projected on a screen and if scanned they can disappoint for noise and difficulty in filtering.

Fabrizio

 

[Tony-S]

Man, I can't imagine shooting slide film without the intent of projecting it.

 

[Diapositivo]

Man, I can't imagine shooting slide film without the intent of projecting it.

I myself cannot on this site

 

[LJSLATER]

I wish slide mount makers would indicate exactly how large the image area is per mount, like 23.75mm x 35.75mm or whatever. I compose my photos based on what I see through the viewfinder (usually 100%), and I don't like it when the frame is "tighter" that I want.

For B&W enlarging, I like extra large negative carriers that show the whole image and create a black border, HCB style.

 

[benjiboy]

I wish slide mount makers would indicate exactly how large the image area is per mount, like 23.75mm x 35.75mm or whatever. I compose my photos based on what I see through the viewfinder (usually 100%), and I don't like it when the frame is "tighter" that I want.

For B&W enlarging, I like extra large negative carriers that show the whole image and create a black border, HCB style.

That's why most viewfinders only show 90 odd % of the image to allow for masking.

 

[drkhalsa]

I'm surprised that mounting is that much more expensive. At the lab I use, mounting is only $1.15 more per roll. Much less than their scanning fee.

 

[BetterSense]

Samys doesn't even charge extra for mounting. I get mine mounted, figuring I can always take them out of the mounts for scanning or enlarging if that's ever necessary.

 

[thuggins]

My local lab told me that to mount them as slides was very expensive.

You need to find another lab. As others have pointed out, it shouldn't cost more than about a buck to have the roll mounted.

Apart from that, it isn't a matter of projecting them or not. I have thousands of slides and have shot slide film exclusively for at least the past decade. Mounted slides are much easier to handle, annotate and archive. You also need to mount them to use a slide viewer, and they lay flat on a light table.

Any comparison between positives and negatives is just odd. With a positive you see exactly what came out of the camera and you get direct feedback on your skills. Looking at them thru a good viewer is like looking out a window to the real scene. If you wanted to look at a picture on paper or a computer screen, you could use that other technology that is incapable of making slides.