Why slide film instead of print?

[AgX]

...,but my point in my previous comment ..., suggested that precisely it seems that the transparency film is now subtracted from that great value ... 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.

I already hinted at that point, but showing a slide/transparency on a light table, if actually a print is the final aim, is technically not sound.
But is likely a means to persuade a less initiated person.

 

[perkeleellinen]

When I'm shooting a negative film I'm thinking of the darkroom; I'm thinking how can I shoot this in a way that will make my life easy when printing. When I'm shooting slides I'm not thinking at all of life after the shot because I can't burn the sky, I can't crop, I can't make the picture warmer or cooler. So I'm thinking of photography as one step rather than two. I think that changes how I see the picture before I take a photo. What I really like with slides is underexposure - Velvia 50 @ 64 then metering on the highlights. I really like that look. I really like getting the slides back and holding them up to the light, the wait before I've got time to project. I really like getting a great slide and projecting it huge in a room, then going to get people to walk into the room with the photo already projected. There's a wow factor with that which differs from passing around prints. It's something very similar to me with Super8; the hum of the projector, these large images on the wall, and then, with a switch they're gone. 3 and a half minutes of magic.

 

[railwayman3]

My Dad was a very active photographer, taking dozens of films both slide and negative and cine. He used to say that every shot on slide film, good, poor or hopeless, at least produced a finished image which could be sorted, projected, printed or thrown out! Whereas he had hundreds of negatives that he knew he'd never have time to print, even the best ones !

 

[LAG]

My Dad was a very active photographer, taking dozens of films both slide and negative and cine. He used to say that every shot on slide film, good, poor or hopeless, at least produced a finished image which could be sorted, projected, printed or thrown out! Whereas he had hundreds of negatives that he knew he'd never have time to print, even the best ones !

Wise words

 

[dhkirby]

I happen to shoot and print slide film because I want the look of Velvia -- the really rich colors, fine grain, etc. make it the perfect film for color landscapes IMO. So I'm not shooting it because it's slide, I'm shooting it for the way it looks. The fact that it's reversal is incidental. If a negative gave me the look instead I would shoot the negative, since printing, which is my end goal, would be much easier.

 

[xtolsniffer]

When I first got into photography, I was interested in macro and wildlife, such as that shot by John Shaw (still marvelous books and still read regularly), so I did what he did - used 35mm transparency film. First kodachrome 25, then when that disappeared Kodachrome 64 and Velvia. When I built my first darkroom, I turned to monochrome, and then when my family came along, also used C41 for prints. That worked for me, prints of the family events, holidays and so on, and monochrome prints that I could make in the darkroom. So I lost touch with E6. The fact that there was no wholly optical/chemical way to produce prints also bothered me. Then I started getting into medium format and found that prints made from commercial processors didn't really have the zing I wanted. I suppose I could move to processing and printing C41 in my darkroom, but I have limited time in there as it is. So I rediscovered the joy of using slide film. There really is nothing like seeing a 6x7 velvia chrome on a lightbox. It's just magic. The fact that pretty much all commercial processors now scan and print digitally not optically also encouraged me to try scanning. There is less guilt doing this as that's what the commercial processors would have to do anyway, I just do that part at home now. As for 35mm slides, the kids love a slide show, it's like going to the cinema, We have popcorn.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

There really is nothing like seeing a 6x7 velvia chrome on a lightbox. It's just magic.

I haven't shot chromes in over 10 years because I don't shoot professionally any more. Shooting transparency is frustrating at times, but when you photograph a shot that fits within the range of the film, it's a beautiful thing. I remember when I assisted a car photographer in Los Angeles that shot 8x10 chromes. I saw one of his shots for a nation car ad on a light box and it looks like I could dive right into to transparency. I took a lot of work for the photographer to get fill in the shadows and gobo off the hot spots of the car. All this is a lost art now with digital cameras and computerized post production.

 

[xtolsniffer]

Yes, I went to an exhibition some years ago where there were 10"x8" chromes on lightboxes on the walls. I've never seen anything quite so beautiful.

 

[bvy]

Yes, I went to an exhibition some years ago where there were 10"x8" chromes on lightboxes on the walls. I've never seen anything quite so beautiful.

What an interesting idea. Were these custom made lightboxes, or are such things readily available?

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

What an interesting idea. Were these custom made lightboxes, or are such things readily available?

Back then, they were color corrected 5000° Kelvin florescent tubes. Now they're LED tables. I own one of these.

http://www.jerrysartarama.com/acurit-light-tablets

I love them.

 

[Photo Engineer]

And yet, the Colorama displays by EK, the large transparencies in public places, were all C41 or C22 processes using print films.

PE

 

[MattKing]

And yet, the Colorama displays by EK, the large transparencies in public places, were all C41 or C22 processes using print films.

PE

PE:
Are you referring to the displays themselves, or the film that the images were originally "captured" on?
My recollection was that at least one of the Coloramas was originally a 35mm Kodachrome.

 

[NJH]

Fuji provide MTF curves and resolution numbers at 1.6:1 and 1000:1 for all their colour films. RVP50 still comes out on top.

MTF 50% however looks relatively bad for the slide films, RVP50 something under 50 lp/mm but conversely pro160s up over 60 by their graphs. This would explain why some see negative film as looking sharper as MTF 50% (MTF50) is often associated with our perception of sharp fine details in an image, hence why some have become obsessed with it in recent years.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

And yet, the Colorama displays by EK, the large transparencies in public places, were all C41 or C22 processes using print films.

PE

Is that the same as the old Duratrans?

 

[Photo Engineer]

AFAIK, all Coloramas were taken on a Kodak negative film and printed on a Kodak print film. A version of Duratrans is still made, but in the beginning, this was not used for the Colorama displays. At an exposition in NYC in the '60s, Kodak used color paper in wall sized sheets for displays. They were illuminated by arc lights at night and sunlight by day.

This was done because no reversal film could achieve that magnification with that quality in terms of color, sharpness and grain.

PE

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

AFAIK, all Coloramas were taken on a Kodak negative film and printed on a Kodak print film. A version of Duratrans is still made, but in the beginning, this was not used for the Colorama displays. At an exposition in NYC in the '60s, Kodak used color paper in wall sized sheets for displays. They were illuminated by arc lights at night and sunlight by day.

This was done because no reversal film could achieve that magnification with that quality in terms of color, sharpness and grain.

PE

Interesting facts. Since Duratrans are still made, how does demand compare with inkjet display material? I seems that I see more retail displays done with inkjet. I could tell by the sharp dots of ink up close. I would think Duratrans would require someone to shoot a negative than printed on the material. Or if it's digitally made, some sort of recorder device used to expose the film.

 

[MattKing]

AFAIK, all Coloramas were taken on a Kodak negative film and printed on a Kodak print film. A version of Duratrans is still made, but in the beginning, this was not used for the Colorama displays. At an exposition in NYC in the '60s, Kodak used color paper in wall sized sheets for displays. They were illuminated by arc lights at night and sunlight by day.

This was done because no reversal film could achieve that magnification with that quality in terms of color, sharpness and grain.

PE

Ron:

I believe there were several Colorama photos taken by Ernst Haas and a couple of others on Kodachrome.

I understand that this image was shot with a Leicaflex on Kodachrome 25:

EDIT: This article is a review of the travelling exhibit show about Coloramas that started up after the renovations to Grand Central Station caused the display to end forever.

It mentions 1977 as the first time a Colorama was created from a 35mm slide - maybe the one shown above?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0614/p25s01-stin.html

 

[Photo Engineer]

Matt, one of the photographers, a friend and former associate, contacted me a few years back asking me to offer prints from him for sale. There were no takers, but Sam gave me a lot of info about it. He never mentioned reversal. BTW, he shot the two photos of the group of children. AFAIK they are still for sale. Kodak gave him a stack of them.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

Maine.... etc. Contact Jim Browning of DT fame. He does them commercially.

PE