# Print vs. Slide



## DaphneOracle

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

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

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

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

Im sticking to Elite-chrome 200, works best for me  the detail it captures in macro pics is amazing.


----------



## malachite

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

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


----------



## wharrison

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

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

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

Bill,

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

Dave


----------



## wharrison

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

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

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


----------



## DocFrankenstein

wharrison - thank you so much for sharing that. You've just saved me lots and lots of time/money!


----------



## wharrison

Dave:

My apologies! So here's some further information and a story. 

I am not certain that I can provide you will all of the "details" you might wish to know or need, but I will share more of what I've learned and experienced over the years. 

1. My "old" Leitz Pradovit N-24 projector, which I purchased used and used my old Kodak Carousel 750H as a trade, had a lamp filament adjustment screw on the left side of the projector - as the projector was facing the screen.

As you may or may not know, Leitz was world renown - and still is - for the manufacture of superb microscopes - something that they did decades prior to Oskar Barnack's invention of the prototype Leica. (LEItz CAmera).

In viewing through a microscope and especially, when doing photomicroscopy, one of the things that needs to be done first is to "columnate" the light source. (I think I am using the correct term.) I will not describe the whole process, but basically one had to make certain the that light emerging from the bottom of the microscope was "centered" to provide even illuminatation all the way through the slide and thence to the optics of the miscroscope and also to the film.

FYI - I worked for some time as a Staff Photographer at the University of Illinois College of Medicine - Peoria (Illinois) campus and had the privilege of working with a $35,000 (decades ago prices) Zeiss Photomicroscope III. Not knowing anything about photomicroscopy, I obtained Kodak's publication "Photography through the Microscope" and spent hours - including many unpaid overtime - learning the art of photomicroscopy, developing B & W and Ektachrome films to eventually come to a high standard of producing consistent results.

In the process, I found out that the exposure metering system in this fine new Zeiss microscope was way off; the illumination diaphram at the bottom light source was defective; that the flash unit was disfunctional; that the microscope needed some other minor adjustments; and the poor service (not Zeiss) of the company in Chicago that sold the microscope to the School of Medicine in Peoria. But that's another interesting and long story.

At any rate, the Leitz Pradovit N-4, the Pradovit Color 150 and the Pradovit Color 250 - and I suspect newer models, all have an adjustment screw to make certain the the light source is centered to provide even illumination on the slide and through the optics.

All one had to do is to cut a nice 2 X 2 inch piece of cardboard and drill about a 1/4 inch hole in the absolute center. If you purchased your Leitz projector new, this centering slide came with the projector.

Then one just placed the centering slide in the slide tray, loaded it in the projector, and turned the projector on. Then one placed the (milky white - for want of a better description) dust cap over the lens and made certain that the projection lens was turned all the way back into the projector.

In this process, the centering slide produce a "double" image of the filament of the projection lamp on to the lens cap. In my old N-24 Leitz Pradovit - using a CYN lamp, the image would look something like this if it wasn't centered.


(Well, I tried providing a diagram, but it doesn't work, when I previewed it.)


 One simply turned the lamp filament adjustment screw ever so slightly in either direction to make certain that the top and bottom images of the filaments were aligned - centered. A very short process that only needed to be repeated, if the lamp burned out and needed replacement.

I know that projectors made by Kodak, Sawyer's, Bell & Howell, Airquipt, Pentax, etc. never had a lamp filament centering device to insure even illumination of the slide. Perhaps, other European projectors - Kindermann or Rollei, for example - might have had them, but I've only seen these projectors and haven't used them.

2. At one time, Leitz made a "test" slide, which include a very nice "color wheel" in the center, a double (top and bottom) very long grey scale at the bottom center, and an array of other means by which to compare the image quality, sharpness, corner to corner luminosity of Leitz projectors.

This "test" slide - which is, unfortunately, no longer available - came in handy in other ways as well. For example, it provided a means to insure that your projector was exactly perpendicular to the screen on which you were showing your images. If the test slide projected a sharp image at the top of the screen, somewhat sharp in the center, and out of focus on the bottom, you quickly realized that the projector was not perpendicular to the screen and made the necessary adjustments. I still use my "test slide" - it's the first slide shown - when I show (somewhat rare these days - but that may change) slides

I obtained a Leitz Pradovit "test slide" for use when I was the Staff Photographer at the School of Medicine in Peoria. It came in very handy to insure proper exposure and developing times for B & W films and/or for color slides - at times we did a lot of duplicate slide shooting and processing for the medical staff/professors at the College of Medicine. It also came in handy when we made Cibachrome prints - on few occasions - for the "Pathology Boards" (4 X 8 foot masonite boards, painted blue, which held, prints, diagrams, words, etc. showing the progress of a disease) that the school's educational department did for the medical students.

3. If my memory serves me correctly, my old Pradovit N-24, the Pradovit Color 150 and the Pradovit Color 250 (all now older models) constructed the focusing or auto-focusing mechanism in such a manner that the slide chamber moves rather than the lens. Obviously, such engineering makes for more rapid (and perhaps, accurate) focusing and less eye strain on the viewers - over a long period of time - the projection of several hundred slides in an evening.

4. The slide chamber on Leitz projector is designed to keep the slide cooler than other projectors thus eliminating or greatly minimizing the "popping" in and out of focus that can happen when a 'cool' slide hits a warm or hot chamber. One of our customer's - a Professor of Art at Knox College in Galesburg, IL deliberately used Leitz projectors because (1) she could leave the same (art) slide in for very long periods of time and (2) the projector wouldn't damage her slides in anyway whatsoever.

5. Of course, there are other important factors as well - beginning with the optics of the condensors and Leica projection lenses - the most famous of which is the 90mm Colorplan. If you come across an old Leitz Pradovit N-24, you'll find out that it weighs a ton. Well, not literally, of course, but it is much heavier than the Kodak Carousel. My Pradovit Color 150 is a little lighter, but still manufacture with more than durable materials - beginning with the housing.

6. I hesitate to "advise" you on what Leitz Pradovit projector to seek for possible purchase, but I will offer the following. 

Although the Pradovit N-24 is still an excellent purchase, I am not certain of the availability of CYN projection lamps. If interested, you should, of course, email Dave Elwell of the Leica Camera repair dept. and inquire if they still have the quartz halogen lamp conversion kit still available, which will allow you to use the FCS bulb. At one time, I found 18 FCS lamps and paid a mere $12.00 for the lot - so I have more than enough lamps to last me the rest of my life. 
So if you're currently constrained by budget, I might opt for a used, but excellent condition, Leitz Pradovit N-24, but be certain to check with the Leitz repair department first for the conversion kit.

If you're moderately constrained by a budget, I'd seek out the Pradovit Color 250 - not because you intend to project images in a very large auditorium, but because you may wish to have a slightly brighter light. The Pradovit Color 150 produces a much brighter and whiter light on the screen and is very well suited for home use.

Both the N-24 and the Pradovit Color 150 and 250 projectors used the same type (diameter) lenses and are, therefore, interchangeable. In addition to the 90mm Colorplan, I would also opt for a 120mm Leitz Projection lens - I believe the name is Elmaron - it's been a long time since I've looked at mine. The 120mm lens will simply give you a little more distance between the projector and a 50 X 50 inch screen.

Sometime later and I don't know when, Leitz redesigned both its projectors and its lens - so I am not certain as to whether the lenses for 1500 and 2500 series projectors - also a nice buy these days - are compatible with the older projectors. You'll have to do your homework in this area. On the point, members of the Leica Historical Society and/or Leica Camera should be of great help.

Hope this additional information is useful.

Again, my apologies for the mis-interpretation.

Bill


----------



## selmerdave

Thanks, Bill.  That is the type of information I was looking for.  I actually bought a Rollei 250 AFS a little while ago after being dissatisfied with the Kodak.  It is definitely an improvement over the Kodak (5200) although the results I get, particularly in terms of uniform focus across the slide, aren't as flawless as you describe so I have been wondering if it's the projector design, the lens, or my viewing setup that are the culprit.  Your comments give me some things to think about and check out.  The Rollei uses a 250W bulb, but I'll have to check if it has an adjustment screw like you describe.  I wonder if the Colorplan lens would fit it, the design seems to be similar to the modern Leitz (R150?) projector.

I'll have to investigate, and perhaps at some point look into something like a Pradovit Color 250.  For now budget certainly requires that I try to make the most of what I already have.

Dave


----------



## wharrison

Dave:

Just in case it's within your budget, here's a current Pradovit Color 250 being offered on Eay. 

I've cut and pasted the item's description below, since it will provide you with additional information that might useful or helpful in your endeavors. 

As for his statement that a lot of these (older) projectors show up for auction have a defective autofocus, I am not certain that I would stand behind that, since I was still working at Peoria Camera Shop when these models, the Pradovit Color 150 and the Pradovit Color 250 had been introduced and we never had to send one back. Besides, the focus on my Pradovit Color 150 still works very nicely. Nevertheless, it would pay to do your "homework!"

Another alternative is to look for a Leitz "Prado" projector, which were built for home use, but designed primarily for auditorium use. Currently, there are two "newer" units - one without the lens and lens mount on Eay - and an old version of the Leitz Prado. The older version's auction number is # 752699050 and the bid price is currently $10.00. 

The only problem with these older Prado's is that the lamp will probably cost you an arm and a leg - i.e. $30.00 to 36.00, if they are still available through a store and/or cheaper on Ebay. I am not certain about the lamp cost and/or availability of the newer Prado model.

As you will note, the Prado projectors used a single slide changer for only two slides. Such an arrangement my not fit your purposes, but it may be an alternative to consider.


Pradovit Color 250 projector

Auction # 
7527345629
	

	
	
		
		

		
			















*Description *





(revised)
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	










Please read this description thoroughly and clarify any unanswered questions before bidding: 

When the first generation of Pradovit Color projectors was introduced, during Leitz's golden years (late 60's, think of M4 and you got the idea!) they were touted "The perfectionist's projector". My personal opinion is that they are THE ONLY widely available laboratory grade automatic projectors ever made. The Pradovit Color 250 was the big gun in the series, introduced later and replaced in 1977/78 by the C-2500 series as the top Leitz projector. The specs: Low voltage (24V) quartz halogen lamp has a low heat/light ratio, yields white light which is the closest to daylight of all incandenscent light sources (less eye fatigue after extended viewing); 250W power yields just under 1000 lumen, more than enough for home use and adequate for auditorium projection (same lamp, EHJ, as the last true Leica slide projector, the Pradovit P2002). Unique to the Pradovit Color and the Pradovit 1500/2XXX projectors is the dual channel cooling: one fan pulls fresh air and pushes it onto the slide stage to keep the slide cool, as well as under the lamp to cool the transformer; the warm air is expelled onto the next slide (in the tray) in order to preheat it through a special duct (lower temperature contrast prevents slide popping). The bulk of the air is drawn inside the lamp housing and is expelled by the second fan after cooling the lamp. Large aspherical lens replaces two spherical ones, increasing light efficiency significantly (two less glass-air surfaces). Cast aluminum chassis, lamp housing cover, metal lens mount. The sturdiest lens mount ever designed! (The lens doesn't move for focusing! The slide does! (Contax fans listen up! Somebody else came up with the "film focusing" idea long before Contax did, but it was not in a camera!) Dimmer switch saves 15% power and doubles lamp life. (on my 6' screen I hardly ever need full illumination) Built-in timer for automatic advance. No slide-no light shutter with slide sensor. Autofocus; focus the first slide by turning the lens and all subsequent slides will be focused automatically (unless the AF is off). Here are some advantages over other projectors: Full illumination of superslides (possible with the later Pradovit 2XXX series ONLY with special condensors and heat filters, which you have to buy separately). Single slide projection possible (try that on the 2000 series!) Built in self timer (mechanical, control located just under the lens). The Pradovit Color 250 can take all the P mount lenses if fitted with the sleeve (and some of the P2 ones), whereas the next generation (Pradovit Color, C/CA2500/1500) can NOT take the early lenses. Which brings me to the punch line: this particular projector has the early Leitz Colorplan 90mm 1:2.5 lens, which has 5 elements in 4 groups, an absolutelly superb lens; When the newer projectors (starting with the later model Color/Color250/AF were designed, the focusing mechanism (autofocus especially) wouldn't clear the older lens so the lens had to be redesigned for a 42.5mm tube (in the process being cheapened to a 4 element design, so if you have or are considering buying a later Colorplan you basically have a Hektor 2.5 design (itself not to be confused with the currrent Hektor 2.8 which is a 3 element cheapie). Only relatively recently has Leica gone back to a 5 element (Super Colorplan, a lens which costs over $300). At the time, Leitz prized themselves with the large depth of field of the lens, making refocusing between slides almost unnecessary, as long as the mounts were consistent (that is you do not mix glazed with unglazed slides, cardboard with plastic, etc.). A lot of these projectors show up for sale with defective autofocus. The repairs are prohibitive for most of us. So if you buy one of these untested, be prepared to focus by hand on the projector as there is no remote focus capability! There you have it! Can you beat this? Have you thought of precision? The slide is guided in the slide stage on 3 rollers to reduce wear. Every time I use a Kodak Carousel/Ektagraphic, being spoiled by my Leitz projectors, I feel something missing (even if I use the great Schneider Cinelux lenses). It must be the precision with which these things operate. I am sure anybody who has had a chance to use one of these will agree with my opinions expressed here. PLEASE, do not copy this or any of my descriptions for any purpose without my permission. Buyer to pay for shipping. Check out my other auctions for more Leica stuff and other optics for sale. 

If you're interested, Leitz also made a 'wide angle' projection lens for both the Prado and Pradovit projectors.  One couple who were members of the Peoria Color Camera Club had an old Prado projector with a wide angle lens.  They painted their basement walls a nice bright white and used it as a projection screen.  Seeing their slides was almost like being in the scene itself.  An interesting visual experience.  Greater impact than seeing slides on a 50 X 50 or even a 60 X 60 matte white screen.

At any rate, now you have more information than you ever (perhaps) thought possible, but that's what happens when you deal with a conscientious Librarian! ;>)

Best wishes in your photographic endeavors!

Bill


----------



## joeboot

This discussion seems to have ended on a technical slide projector note, but if more slide/print opinions are desired, here goes.  I started shooting slides about 25 years ago.  I liked projecting them and the color was better than anything I was getting in prints.  Over the years, as the kids have gotten less interested in watching slides and as the carousels have taken over a hall closet, I have considered the possibility of switching to print film.  I stay with slides for the great color, the continuity of having all my pictures in the same medium, and the New Years Eve recap of the year that the family still shows up for.


----------



## wharrison

Joe:

Thanks for the "thumbs up" with regard to slides.  There's nothing better than seeing wonderful colors, fine details, etc. projected onto a nice screen.  For that reason, I am returning to slides, while Sue can continue to persue prints.

Bill


----------



## Vineyardbernard

I read with great interest all that magnificent information about the Leitz projector.  It rekindled my interest in my old hobby.  Thank you that information was very helpful!

I just dug up my Leitz Pradovit n24, with the 90mm Planar, so I could look at the several k slides of 30 and more years ago. It had not been out of the box in 20 year and it worked after some trouble with the fan got resolved.  Amazingly, the fourty year old rubber belt is still good.

All the mechanics, such as the remote slide changer, still work fine.

I was also happily surprised that the quality of the slides seemed at least still as good as thirty years ago.  Storing them in those almost airtight boxes, I used to buy at Sears, must have contributed to that.

It still has the original tube like lamp in it.  I compared its projection quality of this Pradovit with an Ektagraph projector and quite obviously the Pradovit is "spectacularly" better.

I wonder if you or someone could help me with some questions:

How can one  obtain a Leica conversion kit for that halogen type lamp fitting you were talking about?  Although the lamp is virtual new, it is still the old four pin type, and I never laid in a bunch of spares. They did cost a fortune even 25 years ago.

If I will ever have to replace the belt, I have no clue how to dismount the top of the projector.  Does anyone now where to find the first screw or whatever is needed to get to it?

Thank you!

Bernard





			
				wharrison said:
			
		

> 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


----------



## DocFrankenstein

Such a nice discussion with lots of experience.

Does anybody have experience with Schneider Cinelux 150 f/2.8 Especially compared to leica glass.


----------



## keller

Is slide film a good choice for beginners to photography? Such as, do you need to do anything complex to use slide film?


----------



## stingray

as was said above a while back the exposure latitude is not quite as good as print film and you must expose with complete and utter accuracy (almost). 
also, slides are much less forgiving to focus, it can be embarrassing to find your whole family looking at your spectacul photo large and realising it's out of focus.
that said, the colour produced by slides is so magnificent that it's worth it, thus people still use them.
if you are a complete beginner to photography i would suggest staying away from the slide film... unless price is not an issue, in which case just be prepared to live with a few roles of dissappointing results. 
again i say "that said"... with a very good slr with a great autofocus and a stong auto mode, it will be easily possible to shoot some great pictures (technically) first time around. i say to anyone, give it a try and see if you like it~!


----------



## Rob

keller said:
			
		

> Is slide film a good choice for beginners to photography? Such as, do you need to do anything complex to use slide film?


You only need to get the exposure right. In answer to your question, it's my opinion "no" it's not good for beginners. I can barely shoot with the stuff and I hate oversaturated portions of an image. I am probably the only person here who has been consistently and bitterly disappointed with Velvia to the point where I tell everyone it's crap.

IMO, slide film's annoying, difficult and does not produce pleasing results.

I am an army of one. :lmao:

Rob


----------



## DocFrankenstein

Rob probably has a camera with a broken meter. 

If you learn how to meter properly and take your time to make sure everything falls info 5 stop range, you won't be disappointed. But you are bound to spoil your first few rolls though, so keep detailed notes as to how you metered and what exposure was.

On the other hand you have color neg film, which doesn't train you to control exposure much. Or you can shoot BW and develop it yourself... which is pretty much the best and most economical way to start out. And you can see the results directly on film.

Or if you can afford it, spring for a digital of some kind. Make sure it has spot or partial metering and a histogram - then you're set.


----------



## wharrison

Bernard:

1.  Open the lid to the slide tray area of your Pradovit N-24 and just behind the slide chamber area, you'll see a metal piece along the inside of of the tray chamber; pull it away from the body of the project and the lid accessing the inside of the projector will open up.

2.  If you send an email to Dave Elwell of Leica Camera

dave.elwell@leicacamerausa.com

and request information about prices and instructions for obtaining and putting in a new rubber belt and the FCS quartz halogen lamp conversion kit, I am certain that you will get a reply within a short period of time.  

I am almost 99.9% certain that the conversion kite for the Pradovit N-24 projector takes the FCS, but be certain to ask Dave about that as well.

3.  If you do a search on ebay.com for the FCS (or whatever the lamp may be) lamp, I have no doubts that you will find some available at a very reasonable price. You may have to search several times in order to come up with a "hit" of a good price or prices.  A few years ago, I found a dozen or more of these lamps for the very reasonable price of around $18.00.  A bargain to be sure.

Hope this additional information is useful.

Bill


----------



## sobolik

Follow the money.
Buyers of photos required the very best, they dictated the rules. They required slides.  
Why do non sellers of photos shoot slides?  I would not unless for experimental purposes. I have and found it to be no practical value or advantage.


----------



## duelinthedeep

DocFrankenstein said:
			
		

> If you learn how to meter properly and take your time to make sure everything falls info 5 stop range, you won't be disappointed. But you are bound to spoil your first few rolls though, so keep detailed notes as to how you metered and what exposure was.


 

its quite funny. i dont know how to meter properly. how do you meter properly?if you dont mind me asking.

and the whole note thing.....photogs keep telling me to track all my exposures(write it down in a log book). i'm not sure if that is what you're talking about but how does that work? i dont really know how to do that..


sorry for the ignorance 
 and thanks.


----------



## Vineyardbernard

Bill, that is great information!

I also loved al the other detail you have been showing.

Thank you very much!  

Bernard


----------



## DocFrankenstein

duelinthedeep said:
			
		

> its quite funny. i dont know how to meter properly. how do you meter properly?if you dont mind me asking.
> 
> and the whole note thing.....photogs keep telling me to track all my exposures(write it down in a log book). i'm not sure if that is what you're talking about but how does that work? i dont really know how to do that..


Basically you need to get an understanding what shutter speed, aperture and ISO is. Then you need to understand the algorithm of the camera used to determined those values to achieve a proper exposure.

Those are rudimentary basics of photography and a lot of people are challenged by them. So you should take your time, especially if you're not mathematically inclined.


----------



## duelinthedeep

hmmm.....sounds hard.


----------



## markc

duelinthedeep said:
			
		

> hmmm.....sounds hard.


It's not to bad. Having examples to look at helps. I suggest _[ame="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0817463003/002-0816593-4181638?v=glance&n=283155"]Understanding Exposure[/ame]_ by Bryan Peterson.


----------



## duelinthedeep

oh, thanks. i've been looking for a book like that for a while now.


----------



## markc

I'd take a look at his _Learning to See Creatively_ also. You might find it a help in learning how the camera sees the world.


----------



## duelinthedeep

lol. i was looking at that book also.


----------



## sobolik

I sais previously follow the money... the buyer says use slides...  Here is Arizona Highways criteria

What constitutes the highest quality? 
according to http://www.arizonahighways.com/page.cfm?name=About_Submissions_Photo 

Thank you for your inquiry regarding photography in Arizona Highways. Although the magazine and our Related Products (calendars, books, cards, etc.) are all planned many months ahead, we welcome photographic submissions of original transparencies and 35mm slides that exhibit the high quality that we demand from our professional contributors. 

In order to achieve the high-quality reproductions in our publications, we prefer large format (4x5) transparencies, especially for the large scenic landscapes that we are famous for. We will use medium format and 35mm transparencies that display exceptional quality and content. Some subjects such as wildlife and people are best suited to 35mm, but in order to achieve high-quality reproduction they must be shot on fine-grained color slide film (100 ISO or slower). NO PRINTS, NEGATIVES, DIGITAL-CAPTURE PHOTOGRAPHS, OR DUPLICATE TRANSPARENCIES WILL BE ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW BY THE PHOTOGRAPHY EDITORS. Edit your photos carefully before submitting. More is not necessarily better. Submit only the images that are as good as or better than those you see in our magazine, books, and calendars. Midday light is the worst for photography of any kind, but especially bad for landscape photography. Try to be original, and avoid visual clichés like saguaro silhouettes at sunset.


----------



## markc

sobolik said:
			
		

> I sais previously follow the money... the buyer says use slides...


While I agree that slide film has many good points, this isn't necessarily a demonstration that it's better than negative film. You can't get good reproductions from prints and negs are a pain to review. Slides give buyers from magazines a convenient and quick way to review work and are great sources from which to obtain data all in one package. It doesn't mean that slides are inherently better than negs as simply a data source.


----------



## sobolik

markc, markc, markc. It is quality. I loved reading replies to my AHMag post elsewhere. All kinds of comments about; it cant be quality, AH is lying, they just don't want to be troubled looking at so many pics. blah blah blah. Why can't people just admit that there is various levels of quality within the various photography technologies?


----------



## Alpha

I might add that a lot of professional portrait photography is done using special portrait film, which is print, not slide. However, nothing beats certain slide films for popping colors (i.e. Velvia or EG). I can't speak for portrait work using slide film, since I do all of my portrait work in B&W.


----------



## markc

There is, but it's post hoc, ergo proctor hoc ("after it, therefore because of it"). You are assuming that the one is the result of the other. Quality may very well be a factor, but the reasons I mentioned are the ones I've usually seen given, so that's what I'm going with. The statement you linked to only said they want slides of high quality, not that they want slides over film because it's of higher quality. The 4x5 vs. 35mm is a much, much bigger factor, and they most likely were refering to that.

But I don't know for sure, and my point was that you can't either, based on that linked statement. I'm not saying that slides aren't better, only that the link you posted did nothing to settle the matter. I tried to be polite about it, but that seemed to do little good.


----------



## DocFrankenstein

What is Arizona Highways? What's the circulation?

Can it compare to Sports National? National Geographic? They accept digital and one would be hard pressed to call the images in these mags "low quality"


----------



## Vineyardbernard

Bill, I am in need of more advice than you already gave me.

I recently acquired the lamp conversion kit for my Leitz Pradovit n24.  
The kit consists of two metal bracket parts that come together with the porcelan socket in between. No problem. The two holes in the bottom part seem to match the holes for the old lamp fitting well.

But without doing anything else the filament if the new lamp will be half an inch or so lower than the filament of the old lamp. In other words way below the center of the lenses.

Should there be another part, some kind of bracket, in between to raise it?   Or can the bracket that holds the lampfitting be raised?

Since I read that you passed a Leitz Pradovit n24 with a conversion kit to your daughter you may be able to tell me what is  missing to raise the filament to the same level as the old tube.

I am at a loss.  Can you help me?

Thank you very much


----------

