Why do you shoot colour reversal film?

I'm curious to know why people shoot colour reversal film. After all, it's more expensive than colour negative film, less latitude perhaps, there's very little choice (3-4 options, ISO100 or ISO50) and it is not as easy to get hold of (especially Fuji).

Are you viewing the slides in an optical viewer or projector? (The best viewing experience in my opinion, but "selfish" as you can only show others in person.)
Are you darkroom printing them (surely not ... Cibachrome is long gone)?
Are you scanning them, and if so, what's the advantage over scanning CN film?
If you are home processing, do you prefer transparency film because of the pleasure of unwinding the film at the end and seeing those beautiful jewels? (I never tire of this, it's so rewarding!)
Or is it just for the fun of taking slides, after all, this is a hobby isn't it?

To be clear, nearly all of my colour analogue photos are transparencies (Provia 100f, 6x6cm). I take medium format stereo photos and view them in an LED-illuminated high-quality optical viewer ... the realism is amazing. Even the latest digital OLED displays (e.g. in Apple's Vision One) do not match the combination of dynamic range, colour fidelity and resolution of a properly exposed and processed medium format colour transparency. So I use transparency film for it's "display" properties ... as regards its "taking" properties I wish it had a higher ISO speed, ISO100 is a bit limiting (although Provia easily pushes to ISO200 with little obvious degradation).

It's only my curiosity!

Well... pretty much what you already said. Scanning slides is 100% pointless, but every once in a while I want that raw slide viewing experience you've described. It's like consuming extremely spicy food. Don't want to do it daily, but the cravings come every once in a while. For me it's one 5-roll pack of 6x6 per year.

I love E6, I shoot medium format 6x6 for slides, 35mm for slides, 6x17 for the joy. E6 is way easier for me to scan as the software I use recognizes the colors.

I shoot color negative film to print in the dark.

I’d disagree that scanning slides is pointless. Maybe it’s just me, but I’ve found that slides scan much more easily than C-41, and the results typically look better. With more time invested I might get the hang of correcting for the different C-41 stocks out there, but I’d rather spend that time shooting and printing instead of messing with the scanner.

-NT

Because 8x10.

I don't, anymore...but back when I did, I did so because (1) slides are really magic, (2) the colors were pretty much always awesome and (3) pretty much nothing beats a projected slide. Just beautiful.
But the combination of exposure latitude, lack of darkroom printing options, cost of the material and the somewhat complex processing turned me away from the whole thing.

I love Velvia 50 color palette. Unfortunately, it's been discontinued in large format for 4x5" and greater. I find that color negative film is harder to scan. Also, I like to bracket, especially when shooting 6x7 medium format film in difficult lighting situations. So slide film tells me immediately which was exposed the best. I do scan and enjoy posting on the web or making slide shows to display on my 75" 4K-HDR color TV or desktop computer monitor. Or to be downloaded to YouTube so others can watch the slide shows. Regarding slower ISO speeds, since most of my shots are landscapes, I use a tripod that allows long exposures.

ChrisGalway said:

I take medium format stereo photos and view them in an LED-illuminated high-quality optical viewer

Click to expand...

I would be very interested in learning more about exactly how you take medium format stereo slides and also interested in learning more about your mediium format stereo viewer.

I shoot 35mm slides because:
- I have some valuable slides left from my father from a significant event. To view them I used to make a simple paper projector when I was a kid - a DIY book informed me that it can be done. Hooked ever since. To see my late mother so vividly and just there - in lifelike size! Not remembering myself how she looked like... It's just something else. A proper artifact;
- teachers in sanatoriums used to show half-frame format still cartoons, containing image as an illustration and text to carry the story. I loved the dimmed classroom, the atmosphere and the smell of those small, hot amateur projectors;
- decades later I acquired/found some old/historic slides and finally bought a used projector to view what I had. After that I started to shoot E-6 myself when I found out it's still possible to do so. Instantly I switched from tiny pictures in a physical album to slides for projection, it was a no-brainer to me. The quality is insane. And I still love my physical album, it can be operated without electricity lol;
- then I got some of those cartoon-type slides, and bought a professional projector for those. Not only cartoons, but Soviet Civil Defense/Nuclear fallout instructionals too, lovely!
- slides bring awesome projected image with very vivid colors - the image size alone brings you right to the place and time;
- when Slide Film started to get expensive, I taught myself BW Reversal - I shoot BW now the most, rarely E-6.
- easier to scan and nail the color balance as you have your slide in front of you;
- huge size, although somewhat ethereal by nature;
- I can impress fellow hobbyists and digital shooters with the sheer power of a decent slide projection setup. I love to see some jaws dropping from time to time, doesn't get boring;
- latitude isn't a problem for me, my taste. With BW reversal you can have all the latitude you like;
- I like to keep this activity alive and well, throwing a projection event now and then - both private and public.

ChrisGalway said:

Are you scanning them, and if so, what's the advantage over scanning CN film?

Click to expand...

The advantage is you then have a scan and a slide for projection. Easy peasy.

(I hardly shoot E6 anymore due to cost, but need to work through a backlog of frozen Provia.)

ntenny said:

I’d disagree that scanning slides is pointless. Maybe it’s just me, but I’ve found that slides scan much more easily than C-41, and the results typically look better. With more time invested I might get the hang of correcting for the different C-41 stocks out there, but I’d rather spend that time shooting and printing instead of messing with the scanner.

-NT

Click to expand...

With slides you also have a color reference to judge the scan. Not pointless.

For me, it was pretty much a "its there, so why not?" Even though all the 35mm & 120 rolls I got online are "expired"/discontinued film stocks, I got those ones mainly cuz it was all stuff I never shot before

When I started out I shot color negatives for a very short time because I learned that my result depending on the labs. So I switched to slide film because the result is not dependent on the lab (unless they screwed up). That for a couple of years then I have my own color darkroom so I can make prints the way I wanted so I switched to color negative again. Since 2013 my wife made me got rid of my darkroom so when I shoot film I shoot slide films again. As I only shoot 35mm and I have found that I don't want anything above ISO 160. ISO400 film and up just too grainy for me. So if I shoot color negatives I still only shoot Kodak Ektar 100 or Portra 160. With slide it's Ektachrome E100. So I don't need choices. I project my slides. I still have 1 carousel projector and 2 Ektagraphic projector. If I find one at reasonable price I would want to get an Ektapro projector.

warden said:

With slides you also have a color reference to judge the scan. Not pointless.

Click to expand...

It is pointless in the sense that if you took Provia, and I took 400H Pro, and we stood next to each other exposing the same scene on the same format, I will end up with a far better scan.

I understand the argument that scanning slides is "easy", this argument is easy to make and agree with. And yet, with a negative I will always end up with a better scan than any other human (not singling you out) with a slide.

I would much rather shoot slide film than color neg. I was going to buy a bulk roll of Ektachrome and start shooting it again right around the time that Kodak stopped selling movie film to Joe Blows....

Steven Lee said:

It is pointless in the sense that if you took Provia, and I took 400H Pro, and we stood next to each other exposing the same scene on the same format, I will end up with a far better scan.

I understand the argument that scanning slides is "easy", this argument is easy to make and agree with. And yet, with a negative I will always end up with a better scan than any other human (not singling you out) with a slide.

Click to expand...

Those are some crazy words right there....

Steven Lee said:

It is pointless in the sense that if you took Provia, and I took 400H Pro, and we stood next to each other exposing the same scene on the same format, I will end up with a far better scan.

Click to expand...

OTOH if I took 400H and you took Provia, you'd end up with a far better scan, because try as I might I can't make scans of C41 film look remotely palatable. With CN I don't have tools or a workflow that can properly eliminate the orange mask and get the colors looking natural.

I don't buy C41 film any more, and I haven't for several years. I still have maybe 20 rolls of 400H, 10 of Portra 160 and 5 of Portra 800. When those are shot my dalliance with C41 will be over. I'm already 98% B&W and that last 2% will be E6 (Ektachrome or Provia) because if the shot works (i.e. 4 stops of dynamic range) I can shoot and scan with minimal effort, and it scratches the very small itch that is shooting color, but for the most part if I want to shoot color, I shoot digital (even though I dislike shooing digital.)

Patrick Robert James said:

Those are some crazy words right there....

Click to expand...

LOL not really. What this means is that both tools and humans don't change the equation in favor of transparencies. It's simple physics. There's a lot more data on a negative than on a same-sized slide, so any determined human will always get a better scan from a CN material.

@abruzzi tooling sucks, you are right.

Steven Lee said:

There's a lot more data on a negative than on a same-sized slide

Click to expand...

Can you elaborate this further?

Steven Lee said:

It is pointless in the sense that if you took Provia, and I took 400H Pro, and we stood next to each other exposing the same scene on the same format, I will end up with a far better scan.

Click to expand...

I understand what you mean here but wouldn't the above depend a lot on dynamic range of the scene?

If the scene had low dynamic range (eg lush forest undergrowth on a rainy overcast day) would negative film really be better than a roll of Provia?

I've always found that with certain types of scenes good slide film looks incredible, even when scanned, even when compared to C41 or digital.

Steven Lee said:

It is pointless in the sense that if you took Provia, and I took 400H Pro, and we stood next to each other exposing the same scene on the same format, I will end up with a far better scan.

I understand the argument that scanning slides is "easy", this argument is easy to make and agree with. And yet, with a negative I will always end up with a better scan than any other human (not singling you out) with a slide.

Click to expand...

I’m not sure what any of that has to do with what I posted. Here’s what I said:

“With slides you also have a color reference to judge the scan.”

albireo said:

I understand what you mean here but wouldn't the above depend a lot on dynamic range of the scene?

If the scene had low dynamic range (eg lush forest undergrowth on a rainy overcast day) would negative film really be better than a roll of Provia?

I've always found that with certain types of scenes good slide film looks incredible, even when scanned, even when compared to C41 or digital.

Click to expand...

Good point. I will admit that for some scenes my statement above would be inaccurate.

koraks said:

I don't, anymore...but back when I did, I did so because (1) slides are really magic, (2) the colors were pretty much always awesome and (3) pretty much nothing beats a projected slide. Just beautiful.
But the combination of exposure latitude, lack of darkroom printing options, cost of the material and the somewhat complex processing turned me away from the whole thing.

Click to expand...

These are exactly my reasons. Except I still shoot it, mostly Provia, mostly 35mm and 120, with occasional 4x5. Photography in general and film photography more specifically is something I do because I fundamentally enjoy it, not because I have any objectively rational reason to. (I’m not a professional photographer nor do I have any intention of ever being one. My actual career is lucrative and satisfying, but I like hobbies that are just that.)

When I began photography in 1977, all I shot at the time was Ektachrome and Kodachrome (25, 64 and 100).
For a short time in the early 1980s I switched to negative film but, submitting landscape photography to magazines at the time, the preference was very strongly for transparencies. The editor of the day explained it was a very fast process to slap the submissions on the lightbox and quickly vet the pics — much faster than trying to extrapolate negatives!

Late, I began printing to Cibachrome (latterly Ilfochrome Classic) and again, the preference, both privately and professionally, was for using chromes to get the best results. By and by, professionals we dealt with in the lab were using anything from 35mm up to 6x17cm Linhof-exposed chromes (Peter Lik, among). We rarely to my memory saw any negatives, and probably would have rejected these for printing due to their requiring more time to assess.
Fast forward four decades and I am still using chromes. I now expose 35mm, 4x5, 6x6 and 6x7, selectively vetted and submitted for scanning and printing (not to Ilfochrome Classic, which is long-defunct now, but to giclée aka StinkJet!).

Chrome use is falling globally unfortunately, and Kodak's wonderchild, Ektachrome 100, hasn't really stoked the coffers with cash. Part of the reason is that, beside the cost of a roll of film, processing costs, for people who do not have their own processing facility at home, has skyrocketed (for any number of wondrous, bizarre and/or improbable reasons/excuses!!). I don't think this uncomfortable situation will change in the future.

I think though we should buy what we have, for as long as we are able to, before either/both Fuji and/or Kodak pull the plug.

Steven Lee said:

It is pointless in the sense that if you took Provia, and I took 400H Pro, and we stood next to each other exposing the same scene on the same format, I will end up with a far better scan.

Click to expand...

I doubt this very, very much, based on broad experience alone! Negatives weren't particularly fun to print from to the Ilfochrome Classic process when compared to chromes — of any format.

I believe I have read very similar, if not identical arguments elsewhere and too often enough, about how negatives trump chromes.

albireo said:

If the scene had low dynamic range (eg lush forest undergrowth on a rainy overcast day) would negative film really be better than a roll of Provia?

Click to expand...

Negative film would not really do better in such an environment (which is mine; rainforest/tropic photography has been my bread-and-butter for 30+ years now). Matching the light and the subject is key to getting the ideal result on any film, and that takes professional practice, knowledge of the light and subject. Ektar comes to mind as a notable exception that works well in low dynamics environments where a bump in saturation is desired. Trouble begins with the printing however; Ektar requires a specific colour profile — not the same as the ordinary, everyday sRGB or AdobeRGB profiles that are so very commonly assigned. For low dynamic range scenes, a separate, handheld exposure meter (e.g. multispot/averaging) will allow you much more control than a TTL meter will, with multiple opportunities to expand the dynamic range of the film e.g. commonly 6+ stops with RVP50, up to 8+ with RDPIII). This same meter can also get you out of a bit of strife if you really must shoot a scene that has changed from benign low to moderate contrast to extreme bright sun, but shadows are not going to report home nicely.

The importance of accuracy in metering cannot be overemphasised if your destination use is not slide projection, b ut printing. The scan-step and print-step both lose a tiny amount of native illumination — it is most noticeably if chromes have been shot in contrasty situations (which they were not designed for). All said and done, diffuse, soft (overcast) illumination will provide for the best results using chrome film.

Taylor Nankervis said:

Chrome use is falling globally unfortunately, and Kodak's wonderchild, Ektachrome 100, hasn't really stoked the coffers with cash.

Click to expand...

And the only way to really fix this is to bring back Kodachrome.