Why slide film instead of print?

[ME Super]

I have not used transparency film many years. Negative film has better grain, better laditude in exposure and processing. Granted, if they for projection slides are the way to go but how often would you subject friends/family to slide shows?

Every chance I get!

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Yes

No.

Transparencies will rely more on the quality of the lens for "sharpness" (perceived or actual) in addition to the baseline characteristics of the film; "sharp" slide film is not the same as "sharp" negative film. This will be very evident during projection, and evident again during printing, which will determine the maximum enlargement before a loss of quality is observed, especially with smaller formats e.g. 35mm.

Grain structure for transparencies and negatives are not one and the same. Negatives (e.g. TMax, ADOX CMS 20; Portra and Ektar; Rollei...) provide for bigger, very sharp and clear enlargements with characteristically better tonal distribution and latitude irrespective of the quality of the lens (all things like technique being considered). Slide film has never benefited from ground breaking advances in grain technology — there is nothing particularly special about Fuji's films, for example. This is one of the prime reasons people do not like the idea of shooting transparencies, because there are so many perceived "failings" when in fact they are characteristics of the type of film. As with everything, a little knowledge goes a long, long way.

Transparencies also lose a small amount of their inherent sharpness during hybrid print processing.

 

[Bill Burk]

Back in the film days, a lot of art directors preferred transparencies ...

It used to be that magazines and such required slides...

These were the reasons I shot slides versus color negative print film. The idea was for the "print" to be in a magazine.

That's the kind of "printing" I had in mind when I started out...

 

[bvy]

I think RA-4 reversal still has possibilities. As it relates to printing slides, Stephen Frizza claimed here recently that there's not a printing problem that can't be solved using RA-4 reversal. I'm paraphrasing...

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[LAG]

Transparencies tend to be sharper. But color neg film has better latitude.

Yes

Yes, and both things play into the hands of Transparency film

No.

Transparencies will rely more on the quality of the lens for "sharpness" (perceived or actual) in addition to the baseline characteristics of the film; "sharp" slide film is not the same as "sharp" negative film. This will be very evident during projection, and evident again during printing, which will determine the maximum enlargement before a loss of quality is observed, especially with smaller formats e.g. 35mm.

No. While it's true that with resolution (B&W is the winner) you get better results with negative film (and you can use that lens you've mentioned) this is not the only factor involved when measuring sharpness (which is a subjetive point of view by the way). We all know that there are some other factors, such as acutance and contrast. Contrast or any other that you can put on the table could be arguable, but the final acutance is (a fact) much better with slide film.

Grain structure for transparencies and negatives are not one and the same. Negatives (e.g. TMax, ADOX CMS 20; Portra and Ektar; Rollei...) provide for bigger, very sharp and clear enlargements with characteristically better tonal distribution and latitude irrespective of the quality of the lens (all things like technique being considered). Slide film has never benefited from ground breaking advances in grain technology — there is nothing particularly special about Fuji's films, for example. This is one of the prime reasons people do not like the idea of shooting transparencies, because there are so many perceived "failings" when in fact they are characteristics of the type of film. As with everything, a little knowledge goes a long, long way.

No. Grain structure is a subjective perception as well and it is not the fundamental base to take into acount (Silver particles are the ones - in this case dye clouds with colour -). You cannot "focus on those particles" even with the loupe to make a comparison. However, the final emulsion has a better structure in transparency films than in negatives films based on exposure & development steps.

And with the latitude slides are the winning horses again, but in this case for having a smaller limit, this fact is what makes transparencies the best teachers for that knowledge.

Transparencies also lose a small amount of their inherent sharpness during hybrid print processing.

Not necessarily.

All in all, this debate is not what OP asked (I think)
Best

 

[Photo Engineer]

From Grant Haist's chapter on reversal processing:
Fineness of Grain
The largest grains are the most developable. Thus these large grains are developed in the FD and bleached away, so that they do not form part of the final image (or do not form large dye clouds if color film is used).

Sharpness of the Image
The FD is a contrasty developer which promotes beneficial edge effects. Additionally, any direct positive process avoids any sharpness loss from neg-pos systems.

Absence of Fog
The FD is very foggy, so all fog is bleached away, leaving a virtually fog-free positive image.

Absence of White Dust Spots
Any dust of dirt on the film will produce a black spot on the film, which is much more discrete than a white spot that occurs with neg-pos processes.

Of course, there are disadvantages, and as you asked about color prints, I should say that I think if prints are your primary concern, negative film is superior. I'm not sure what method you are considering when you talk about printing slides: RA-4 reversal, tricolor carbon from separation negatives, or some non-analog process. IMO, there's currently not a truly excellent way of producing prints from slides. Slide film is contrasty and is hard to print. Color slide film doesn't make use of the colored couplers as a mask to compensate for deficiencies in the couplers.

//Warning: begin shameless proselytization

Why do I use slides? Stereo photography. There's nothing that comes REMOTELY close to the look of properly exposed Medium format stereo pair in a backlit handheld viewer. You will think you are actually standing where the camera was. I don't need prints for my final output, so that's something I don't need to worry about. I cannot communicate what an incredible experience it is. To embark on an incredible adventure, buy yourself a Russian MF camera called the Sputnik. Find out more (and ask questions) here: https://groups.yahoo.com/.../MF3D.../conversations/messages

I can dissect part of this point by point.....

1. Large grains are LEAST developable. Either you misread Grant or there was a typo there in his book.

2. Contrast is NOT linked to edge effects. Edge effects vary and cause differences in micro and macro contrast though.

3. Direct positive systems use either core shell emulsions or other methods to achieve direct positive images. Generally, they are slow unless huge grain sizes are used.

4. Since the CD goes to completion, most color correction must be done in the FD and that is difficult resulting in errors.

5. Prints from positives to positives cause errors in slope in the shoulder and toe (shadows and highlights to those non techies out there). Printing this places the shoulder and toe on a similar position in the print giving it a "dupey" look with many contrast and color errors there. This has a very rigorous mathematical proof BTW.

PE

 

[iandvaag]

Thanks for your corrections, PE. Most appreciated. If I may follow-up on a few points:

1. The exact quote is:
"The large silver halide crystals in a photographic emulsion are often the most developable. These are exposed during the initial light exposure and form the silver image during the first development." (p313, V2)

I guess he meant that since the large crystals are most likely to be exposed, and since the FD is pretty active, it is likely that they will be developed during first development?

2. "Improved image sharpness results from the development of the residual fine-grained silver halide by a contrasty developer often exhibiting beneficial edge effects." (p314)

I can see how my post implied that there was a connection between a contrasty developer and a edge-enhancing effects. I guess the better way to put it is that the FD has both the independent attributes of 1) being contrasty and 2) producing edge effects.

3.

Additionally, any direct positive process avoids any sharpness loss from neg-pos systems.

I misspoke here. I didn't mean to say direct positive, what I meant to say was reversal process. Sorry for muddying the waters. Grant's point was that "Elimination of the printing of the negative image, a necessary step with the negative-positive process, avoids degradation of the image characteristics."

Thanks a lot for the information in your other points.

 

[Roger Cole]

I'm using Ilfochrome without masking. It's contrast is greatly lower than Ilford Direct Positive + it's possible to control it using dilution/temperature/using different developing agents.
But masking should work, of course.

Ilfochrome has been discontinued for years now. Any remaining stock is bound to be suffering by now, even if frozen, as the stuff never kept well.

DP paper is not really an option because it's not panchromatic. This distorts the gray scale though that may be acceptable depending on subject, just as orthochromatic film can give an acceptable or even preferable rendering.

I have some eagerly bought and frozen Panalure (which always worked great for me - I think the bad rep came from earlier generations) for printing color negatives to BW prints. While reversal processing of RA4 paper, as PE has discussed, can yield results acceptable for SOME images, there is just no longer any all around good way to make prints from color slides other than scanning and outputing the electronic file somehow, either hybrid RA4 or inkjet or similar.

It might be possible to reversal process regular BW paper to print BW slides. I've not heard of anyone trying that but it's an interesting idea.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Thanks for your corrections, PE. Most appreciated. If I may follow-up on a few points:

1. The exact quote is:
"The large silver halide crystals in a photographic emulsion are often the most developable. These are exposed during the initial light exposure and form the silver image during the first development." (p313, V2)

I guess he meant that since the large crystals are most likely to be exposed, and since the FD is pretty active, it is likely that they will be developed during first development?

2. "Improved image sharpness results from the development of the residual fine-grained silver halide by a contrasty developer often exhibiting beneficial edge effects." (p314)

I can see how my post implied that there was a connection between a contrasty developer and a edge-enhancing effects. I guess the better way to put it is that the FD has both the independent attributes of 1) being contrasty and 2) producing edge effects.

3.
I misspoke here. I didn't mean to say direct positive, what I meant to say was reversal process. Sorry for muddying the waters. Grant's point was that "Elimination of the printing of the negative image, a necessary step with the negative-positive process, avoids degradation of the image characteristics."

Thanks a lot for the information in your other points.

Then the correction would be that large crystals having more exposure can begin developing with less light and therefore first, but are often slower to develop.

And the Ektachrome developer is not actually high contrast. It is strong and high in solvent, but so are many B&W reversal first developers.

PE

 

[Gerald C Koch]

"Why slide film instead of print?"

I give up. Why?

 

[mshchem]

If you print your own negatives, optically, no one in their right mind would shoot slides to make prints.
Of course that didn't stop me! I have some beautiful Cibachrome prints to prove it.
Today a case could be made for control. Slide film is unforgiving. A third of a stop can ruin your day. But, that gives you control of the output.

If you shoot negative film and send it to a lab for processing, you can bracket 2 stops under and 3 stops over and get 6 identical looking prints back.
When I shoot 35mm slides with my F5 I use auto bracketing. 1/3 EV above and below what the meter says.. I have 3 images to choose from I mount the one I like best.
If I want a print I take it to University Camera in Iowa City and have a print made. They scan and tweet (just a bit ) and print on Fuji Crystal Archive.
Then I store it for all time in a Carousel slide tray.

Just making prints! If you can print RA 4 color prints, shoot Portra and Ektar.

Best Regards Mike

 

[Bill Burk]

"Why slide film instead of print?"

I give up. Why?

That's a rather short answer.

Do you mean "Why would anyone in their right mind shoot slide film with its inherent color inaccuracy, tight exposure tolerance, high contrast results"?

"When a satisfactory print at the very least requires difficult to obtain material, but even when that material was widely available you could sometimes get a satisfying print but most of the time you would find out that masking is needed to really create the print you imagined. And while masking is just a technique that you could learn and use, the whole idea of making another film copy and developing it, feels counter to your intense desire to see something come out of this darkroom session."

"A far better choice would be color negative film. When you want a print, you should use a film that was designed to be printed. Professional portrait photographers knew it all along, they always used color negative film because they knew the end result was going to be a print."

"And you don't have to be a professional to appreciate the wide range of exposures that you can give the film and still produce a print of nearly the same quality. Color correction is far more convenient when your original is a negative."

 

[AgX]

That publishers preferred slides was partially due to editors who wanted something seemingly easy to asess...

Then the print shop somehow had to turn the slide into a magazin/book print...
(Well their technical workflow was also different from that of a darkroom.)

 

[flavio81]

For all the lamentation of the very very few E6 slide films available right now (and I suffer as well), at least we should be happy that the C41 films available right now are the BEST EVER we could put into our cameras -- Ektar, Portra, and the Fuji 160 pro line.

Really great films.

 

[msage]

That's a rather short answer.

Do you mean "Why would anyone in their right mind shoot slide film with its inherent color inaccuracy, tight exposure tolerance, high contrast results"?

"When a satisfactory print at the very least requires difficult to obtain material, but even when that material was widely available you could sometimes get a satisfying print but most of the time you would find out that masking is needed to really create the print you imagined. And while masking is just a technique that you could learn and use, the whole idea of making another film copy and developing it, feels counter to your intense desire to see something come out of this darkroom session."

"A far better choice would be color negative film. When you want a print, you should use a film that was designed to be printed. Professional portrait photographers knew it all along, they always used color negative film because they knew the end result was going to be a print."

"And you don't have to be a professional to appreciate the wide range of exposures that you can give the film and still produce a print of nearly the same quality. Color correction is far more convenient when your original is a negative."

When I worked for a Commercial Photographer we shot BXW negative film if the end use was BXW, shot color negative if the end use was prints (C type prints) and color transparency film if was to be used for color publication (magazines mostly). If needed, we shot all three. There is always a comprise in quality if you depart from the main use of the materials (c type prints from transparencies, BxW prints from color negatives, and so on). Projection favors transparencies (slides) but few use slide projectors anymore! So to answer the question, no, there is little or no reason to shoot transparencies.

 

[Roger Cole]

If you print your own negatives, optically, no one in their right mind would shoot slides to make prints.
Of course that didn't stop me! I have some beautiful Cibachrome prints to prove it.
Today a case could be made for control. Slide film is unforgiving. A third of a stop can ruin your day. But, that gives you control of the output.

If you shoot negative film and send it to a lab for processing, you can bracket 2 stops under and 3 stops over and get 6 identical looking prints back.
When I shoot 35mm slides with my F5 I use auto bracketing. 1/3 EV above and below what the meter says.. I have 3 images to choose from I mount the one I like best.
If I want a print I take it to University Camera in Iowa City and have a print made. They scan and tweet (just a bit ) and print on Fuji Crystal Archive.
Then I store it for all time in a Carousel slide tray.

Just making prints! If you can print RA 4 color prints, shoot Portra and Ektar.

Best Regards Mike

I keep hearing that 2 stops under thing but it's not my experience. I prefer shooting most color neg film slightly below box speed. It's true it has amazing latitude for overexposure but I find the results from even one stop under to give a substantial reduction in print quality. Heck, even a half stop under makes a noticeable, if slight, difference. A full stop under, to me makes a very noticeable difference. This is why I will pay the extra money for Portra 800 rather than just underexpose Portra 400. I can tell the difference.

 

[Roger Cole]

That's a rather short answer.

Do you mean "Why would anyone in their right mind shoot slide film with its inherent color inaccuracy, tight exposure tolerance, high contrast results"?

"When a satisfactory print at the very least requires difficult to obtain material, but even when that material was widely available you could sometimes get a satisfying print but most of the time you would find out that masking is needed to really create the print you imagined. And while masking is just a technique that you could learn and use, the whole idea of making another film copy and developing it, feels counter to your intense desire to see something come out of this darkroom session."

"A far better choice would be color negative film. When you want a print, you should use a film that was designed to be printed. Professional portrait photographers knew it all along, they always used color negative film because they knew the end result was going to be a print."

"And you don't have to be a professional to appreciate the wide range of exposures that you can give the film and still produce a print of nearly the same quality. Color correction is far more convenient when your original is a negative."

I agree with all that, with one caveat. Namely, back in the stone ages of the 70s and at least the early 80s (and I'm nor sure when this changed as RA4 materials improved) if you wanted a print that would LAST there was a case to be made for what was then called Cibachrome (or dye transfer of course, but that's an entirely different level of expense and difficulty.) I have photos of myself shot by a professional studio my sernior year in high school, my cap and gown photo and my graduation walk across the stage. The originals are in pretty sad shape. I was in the high school class of 1981. The color is badly faded, and they look in places like they were shot with a fine mist of red dye - little spots. I scanned them for my mother some years ago, corrected the color digitally, rubber stamped the worst spots, and made ink jet prints which looked about a thousand times better than the original chromogenic prints. Of course no one knows about the longevity of those ink jet prints but I still have the files. I can make another one in about five minutes output time, on my little consumer printer that cost thirty bucks, and have something that will again look far better than those faded originals. I can send the file to some place for output to RA4 or even just a good quality ink jet and get another copy that looks even better.

This isn't relevant today of course as Ciba/Ilfochrome is gone anyway and RA4 materials have changed radically with greatly improved stability. But it was another reason it might have made sense to shoot slides for prints back then.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Good practice is that for small format film (35mm), ±0.5 steps over- and under compensation; MF and LF, to ±0.3 or ±0.5 steps. The greater spread of contrast and tone over the bigger size makes it much easier to discern where changes have taken place in either step compensation.

±0.6 in 35mm is way too much for most transparency films and going ±2.0 stops accounts for a huge number of balsed-up errors in exposure of the examples shown to me. It's not the film that is to blame, but the photographer! All of my MF transparency work (and very occasional 35mm) for A-to-D hybrid RA4 is in ±0.5 steps.

 

[Alan Klein]

...Projection favors transparencies (slides) but few use slide projectors anymore! So to answer the question, no, there is little or no reason to shoot transparencies.

I no longer use a slide projector. However, I scan transparencies and "project" slide shows on a HDTV (now UHDTV) as well as post on the web. I find negative color film harder to scan and adjust to get the colors right, but that might just be me. And I like the palette of Velvia 50 slide film. Although I don't print much, I could use the digital scan of a slide if I did. There are no fast rules. Do what you enjoy.

 

[LAG]

...color transparency film if was to be used for color publication (magazines mostly). ... Projection favors transparencies (slides) but few use slide projectors anymore! So to answer the question, no, there is little or no reason to shoot transparencies.

It sounds strange and curious that nowadays it is only useful for projection (for some) and yet years ago it was also useful for magazines ... Well, you speak for yourself of course and I deeply respect your opinion, but I see it in a more transparent and simple way: Slides are light

for ... transparency films ... It's not the film that is to blame, but the photographer!

Exactly!

 

[MattKing]

It sounds strange and curious that nowadays it is only useful for projection (for some) and yet years ago it was also useful for magazines

In the past, the process used by the magazine printing industry involved preparation of separation negatives. That process was keyed to transparencies, because the editors used transparencies in their editing workflow.
If negative film had been used, the editors would have needed prints for the editing process. Than the preparation of separation negatives would have required inter-positives before the preparation of final internegatives. In each case,
In essence, they wanted slides, because they preferred working with slides (visual reference) and their systems were set up for slides.
Now everything is done digitally.

 

[Luckless]

Transparency based hybrid processes were still a thing in magazine and commercial photo production last I heard. I can't image that they've all changed over in the year or two since I last heard a direct reference to it.

If you want full frame medium format or larger to work with for your source images, then you're still pretty much limited to film, or paying obscene prices and/or dealing with really wonky motion/tiled backs. I love a fully digital workflow, but the sensors aren't film, and film still wins by a hugely massive landslide if you want a big capture surface.

 

[Lachlan Young]

In the past, the process used by the magazine printing industry involved preparation of separation negatives. That process was keyed to transparencies, because the editors used transparencies in their editing workflow. If negative film had been used, the editors would have needed prints for the editing process. Than the preparation of separation negatives would have required inter-positives before the preparation of final internegatives. In each case, In essence, they wanted slides, because they preferred working with slides (visual reference) and their systems were set up for slides.
Now everything is done digitally.

It was still preferred even after drum scanners came in from the 80s onwards - easier to 'match the transparency' rather than have to try and make a colour inversion that was acceptable to the client - something that takes far more skill and time.

 

[LAG]

...In essence, they wanted slides, because they preferred working with slides (visual reference) and their systems were set up for slides.

In my first post in this thread I mentioned that "visual reference" Matt (thank you for your words)

On the other hand, I was aware of the selection criteria in the past, but my point in my previous comment (related to the implied quote) with the strangeness and curiosity (), suggested that precisely it seems that the transparency film is now subtracted from that great value (even related with a final paper) of that past period, and only remains the slide/protection relation argument, not leaving another space in the understanding or reasons - for some people - to use them.

Now everything is done digitally.

Exactly, now that everything is full of bits, again the light is the tool reference, not the paper. But in this last case, unfortunately the paper is not even an option as it was before.

Best

 

[Roger Cole]

Good practice is that for small format film (35mm), ±0.5 steps over- and under compensation; MF and LF, to ±0.3 or ±0.5 steps. The greater spread of contrast and tone over the bigger size makes it much easier to discern where changes have taken place in either step compensation.

±0.6 in 35mm is way too much for most transparency films and going ±2.0 stops accounts for a huge number of balsed-up errors in exposure of the examples shown to me. It's not the film that is to blame, but the photographer! All of my MF transparency work (and very occasional 35mm) for A-to-D hybrid RA4 is in ±0.5 steps.

Not sure who you are replying to as the other poster said he brackets +/- 1/3 stop on E6 which is consistent with what you are saying.

I was replying to the other part of his post about neg film when I said I just don't see the two stops (or even one) underexposure latitude most everyone seems to claim for neg film.