Print vs. Slide

DaphneOracle · Jun 25, 2005

I shoot print film which I have developed at a a local Ritz camera. Sometimes I like to enlarge photos (8X10) for framing, sometimes put on disk for editing and submission here and other places.
Please explain why some people prefer to shoot slide film. I don't think its for projection or multimedia. Is it a better format? Could we get some discussion about the pros & cons? If I have overlooked an earlier thread could someone direct me there?

Thanks
Bryant

GrAsS · Jun 25, 2005

I use slide film.

The really good thing i can think of, are that images are sharper, more coloured (more lively anyway) verry good contrasts overall, and slide film lets itself get scanned verry well when using a good filmscanner, i have had images with sharpness and color that a canon eos 20D could only dream of thats the reason i still shoot slide/film.

Plus when you print an image, its less grainy, meaning you can go print larger and larger..

A bad thing about slide, is that when you get a GOOD roll, it'll cost you about 3 times as much as 1 roll of regular film..

terri · Jun 25, 2005

I agree with Grass, for the reasons he stated above. I shoot tons of slide film, different kinds but my favorite is Fujifilm - superb quality and color.

Also, Bryant, you mentioned "...sometimes put on disk for editing and submission here and other places." Most places that ask for examples of my work are asking for slides. I use slide film to get pictures of my images for that reason, as well.

It's extremely versatile, and while I agree the better films can cost a few bucks more, it's still fairly cheap to process. Love slide film!

ksmattfish · Jun 25, 2005

Slide film is usually higher contrast than print film. If you are shooting in a low contrast lighting situation, or with older, low contrast lenses this can be a good thing. If you are shooting in a high contrast lighting it may cause problems.

In the past it was a lot more expensive to get slides printed; if you wanted slides you shot slide film, if you wanted prints you shot print film. Since most of the labs are using digital methods I don't think that's so much of an issue these days.

Scans from color negs are harder to color correct because of the orange base.

Slides are their own color guide. Without a guide print the lab tech printing from a negative makes their own decisions about how the color should look.

Print negs have more exposure latitude. With print film a good lab should be able to get okay prints from negs that are off by up to two stops. It's easy to spot the difference between two slides that are only 1/3 of a stop off. For this reason slides are good for testing equipment and practicing exposure; if there is a problem the slides will show it.

Lot's of folks talk up low speed slide films like Velvia, but IMHO high speed slide films (400 or faster) don't look as good as high speed print films (like Fuji NPH or NHG).

GrAsS · Jun 25, 2005

Im sticking to Elite-chrome 200, works best for me

the detail it captures in macro pics is amazing.

malachite · Jun 25, 2005

GrAsS said:
A bad thing about slide, is that when you get a GOOD roll, it'll cost you about 3 times as much as 1 roll of regular film..

It all cost the same in the long run as slide film usually cost less to have developed.

GrAsS · Jun 25, 2005

I develop my own film/slides.. so.. yeah.. that doesnt go up for me

wharrison · Jun 25, 2005

Bryant:

Decades ago, I used to shoot almost nothing but slide film simply because of their clarity, tonal range, detail, luminosity, sharpness, etc. Some time ago, I began to shoot print film and have recently decided to go back to using slide film, because print film simply cannot compare, especially at great enlargements - a projection of a slide onto a 50 X 50 inch screen for example.

Decades ago, I was able to attend two 2-day Leica Photographic Seminars - one in Peoria, IL - sponsored by the camera shop that I was then working at and the second at Southern Illinois University in Carbondale, IL. At both seminars 35mm slides were projected - using Leica projectors, of course - onto an 8 X 12 FOOT screen - a 96 times enlargement from the 1 X 1.5 inch slide. The projected slides were clear, sharp with extraordinary detail. show great luminosity and color separation, etc., etc., etc.

I project my slides on an (now old) Pradovit Color 150 projector onto a 50 X 50 Matte White Screen.

Some (hopefully) useful information:

1. 35mm slides have a thinner emulsion which accounts for a number of things, namely the ability to transmit finer detail, sharpness, luminosity, & color separation at greater enlargements than print film.

However, these factors are dependent upon a number of other factors:

1. While a Silver Lenticular screen produces a bright image with a wide reflectance angle, the surface actually breaks up the image so that the surface can become interruptive of your viewing enjoyment. A glass beaded screen will also produce a bright image, but with a narrower angle of reflectance when compared to a Silver Lenticular screen.

For that reason, I sent back my Da Lite screen (Silver Lenticular) and had them replace the surface with a Matte White screen, which gives slightly less brightness when compared to the other surfaces, but - because of its flat surface - gives a highly detailed image with a broad angle of reflectance.

2. With the exception of the Leitz projector, all other projectors, i.e. Sawer's, Bell & Howell Cube, & the Kodak Carousel will project a slight to a significantly orangish light on the screen and there will be a significant loss of image brightness and clarity at the edges - this is particularly true of the Sawyer's and Bell & Howell Cube projectors and noticeably true with the Kodak Carousel.

The Leitz projectors project a very nice bright white light which is clear out to the edges of the frame. They also have an extraordinary cooling system, which will not damage slides even over the long haul. My Pradovit Color 150 (watts) will project brighter (and clearer, even in the shadow areas) images than the any of the above mentioned slide projectors even though some of them had 500 watt projection lamps compared to my 150 watts.

Older Leitz projectors, such as Pradovit Color 150 (watts) and the Pradovit Color 250 (watts) - both with 90mm Colorplan lenses - are still often offered at reasonable prices on Ebay. The 90mm Colorplan projection lens will give you a moderate projection distance between the 50 X 50 inch screen and the projector; so you might also wish to consider the 120mm Leitz projection lens. You can also find newer models as well.

3. Of course, all of this is for naught, if you don't have consistency of exposure, accuracy of focusing; minimalization of camera movement (shake); and, above all, an good eye for composition, i.e. aesthetics.

In addition, I would be certain to forward slides for processing to a very reputable company to insure that your efforts are well rewarded with their high standards. For example, the older of my two younger sister sent her Super 8 movie film to all sorts of places in order to obtain cheaper processing. Her movies of her children consequently suffered - mostly off color. In short, why spend time, effort, and money attempting to produce excellent images only to have them greatly diminished by poor processing standards. Or projection standards, for that matter.

4. As for slide film, decades ago, I excusively used Kodachrome II; Kodachrome 25 and occassionally Kodachrome 64. I did so because Leitz lenses reach their optimal performance either at wide open or a few stops down from being wide open. So I had absolutely no problem in obtaining sharp images at either wide open or at 2 or more stops down.

I've experimented with Fuji and Agfa, both of which had their small advantages (decades) ago, but I found that the dyes used in these other slide films were not stable.

These days, I probably switch to mainly using Kodachrome 64 and/or Kodachrome 64 professional (when the need or project demands) and may again experiment with Fuji slide film sometime in the near future.

Hope this general discussion is useful.

Bill

DaphneOracle · Jun 25, 2005

Wow! Thanks for all the input! I can see there is a wealth of information out there just for the asking. I think I will just shoot a few slides and see what happens.

I do want to be able to look at the slides and choose a few to be scanned or printed large for framing. I assume that's a reasonable plan. Truth is, at my level, it probably diesn't make a huge amount of difference but I may as well try it out.

Thanks again.

wharrison · Jun 25, 2005

Bryant:

You're more than welcomed!!!!

Of all the discussion points, I've contributed, none is more important point # 3, because it will help insure getting the best results from your camera equipment. With that said, here is some additional hints that might be of use.

1. Even though slide film has a "certain" range of exposure values, it cannot - like other films - "bridge" the entire range of lighting values. Under the circumstances, both composition and exposure have to go hand in hand. You can - to a certain extent - "bridge" the exposure range gaps with negative film, especially with B & W) in the darkroom through the process of "burning in" or "dodging", etc.

For example, if you're shooting a scene with both shade and bright lite areas, you may wish to compose your photograph so that you just make use of the light - rather than to include (broad portions of) it - and then carefully take your exposure, hopefully with a hand held meter using the incident light meter attachment.

Therefore the exposure for slide film must be "right on"; "dead on" or "correct" with variations due to aesthetic interpretation - see below.

2. For that reason and even though you may make careful exposure readings, you may wish to "bracket" your exposure a half stop on either side and see what the results might be. For experimental purposesa and to find your own technical and aesthetic standards, film is relatively cheap. Besides, you might find - aesthetically - that a slight underexposure might result in the "better" slide under certain condition - and thus make for a better enlargment/print.

I have found this particularly true when shooting under shaded light conditions - such as may exist in various state parks - when even 1/3 stop differences in exposure can be readily seen in the slide. BTW - one of the nicer things about using rangefinder lenses is that the lens openings are continuous - even though there are half and full stop "clicks" on the lens. You can readily see this continuity on many of the old folding type of roll film cameras.

3. If possible, find a family member or friend who might have a Kodak Carousel projector handy and ask them if they will allow you to project your slides on it. It's one thing to hold up the slide to some light source or to look at them through a loupe, but it is entirely a different experience to see them projected. Besides, it will give you a better idea as to how an enlarged print would appear.

If you opt for this route, make certain that the projector is perpendicular to a flat white surface - a nice white wall (at night) will do just fine - otherwise you might see some "keystoning" of your slide - the top being slightly wider at the top than at the bottom and the slide will not be sharp from corner to corner.

Again, I hope this adds to the range of the discussion.

Bill

selmerdave · Jun 26, 2005

Bill,

Can you detail the reasons why only the Leica slide projectors produce an accpetable image? Interesting info, thanks.

Dave

wharrison · Jun 26, 2005

Dave:

If you carefully re-read my posting (# eight) with my comments on Leica projectors, you will (1) find that I did not make use of the word "acceptable" and (2) that I provided you and others reading this discussion post with more than sufficient "details" as to why Leitz projectors are better.

You can, of course, do your own "homework", make the comparisons yourself and come to your own conclusions regarding the matter of "details".

One test is to simply turn on a Carousel projector w/o a slide in the chamber in a darkroom and enjoy the rather slight yellowish light on a white surface screen and you might even see a little light fall off at the corners. You can then wonder if there might be some color shift in your projected slide(s) and/or whether or not you might be seeing the best possible images of your photographic efforts, i.e. slides.

Decades ago, I noted the difference and traded my Kodak Carousel projector for a used Pradovit N-4 the previous model of the Pradovit Color 150. Even after all of these years, Leitz still has the conversion lamp kit available to "upgrade" the projection lamp from a bulb to a 150 watt quartz-halogen lamp. Not that I have a "newer" Pradovit Color 150, I gave my older, but still excellent Pradovit N-24 to my daughter and her husband along with the lamp conversion kit and some FCS lamps, which I had found inexpensively on Ebay.

I think far too many people on these various photographic posting sites think that only those who are extremely wealthy and/or have a huge excess of funds available from time to time are the only ones who purchased Leitz/Leica cameras, lenses, etc. And an equal number of these same people can't image a person doing a little planning, research, and budgeting to be able to afford a Leica. FYI - my Leica M-4 was purchased on a time pay plan - a little over $50.00 a month for a year - offered by the camera shop that I ended up working at for a number of years. And at the time, I was making a little over $5.00 an hour.

Your response to my discussion brings up an interesting and final point:

Historically, how many photographic manufacturers have made projectors and/or enlargers of the same quality as their cameras and/or lenses.

Shouldn't you (and others) be asking yourselves: where are the current or older Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Nikon, Miranda, Yashica, Zeiss, etc. enlargers or projectors???

I would think that it would be more intelligent to see what we can learn from one another in these postings instead of spending time writing up subdued barbs.

Hope this added information is useful.

Bill

DaphneOracle · Jun 27, 2005

Bill,

A couple of things:

1. I do have an old Canon projector to use for inspecting the slides. No problem there.

2. I shoot with a Nikon 8008 which seems to be a good machine, I also have a tripod. The big issues for me will be gaining a better understanding of exposure and getting a better hand on composition.

3. I do not have a handheld meter. That should probably be my next addition.

4. You mention the necessity of using a reputable firm to develop your slides. I know next to nothing about the reputation of these companies. Is Ritz reputable in your opinion? Would you have another that you could suggest?

Again, thanks for all the information. It is very helpful.

Bryant

selmerdave · Jun 27, 2005

Bill,

1. My reply was not a subdued barb.

2. I have a Kodak projector and have inquired here previously about the poor image quality at the edges, and have not heard a satisfying explanation.

3. I did not find much in the details of your post about the reason for the superior image quality, nor do I on rereading. This is not a criticism as I don't think that was your intention but I (apparently mistakenly) thought you might be willing to go into a bit more detail.

4. I am happy to do my own homework and sometimes that includes asking questions of people who are familiar with the subject area.

Dave