# Why 35mm slide film?



## sincere (Mar 18, 2010)

Whats the advantage? Excuse me for being so blunt but i just never got into it.


----------



## matfoster (Mar 18, 2010)

these days..not much. it was once professional standard practice to use it, but no longer. however, you can project them..onto screens, walls, people..and photograph the result (digitally, no doubt) ;-)


----------



## Vinny (Mar 18, 2010)

Back when film and slides were all there were, slides had the sharpest images you can get. Kodak (only film I used) had ISO 25 and 64 slide film and the images came out fantastic. Actually all my "best" shots are on slides. Kodak had a display in Grand Central Station in NYC of a huge poster (maybe 20 feet by 10 feet) of a supposed ISO 25 slide film blown up to that size - they had the slide in the corner of that display.

Back then even ISO 100 film was too grainy to blow up beyond 8x10 or 11x14 and I believe the processing of a slide into a print was also pretty straight forward. I also believe that processing slides was pretty screw up proof vs getting prints. I hated getting prints done from negatives because colors were always wrong. Back when I was a serious amateur I had only 2 places that I would go to have my film developed or have prints made from slides. Most people who process film don't understand photography and just pass them through. Even in digital I have had people process images that were garbage and I wonder how!


----------



## julz (Mar 18, 2010)

you can also use slide film for cross processing if thats the effect you want on the photos


----------



## Plato (Mar 18, 2010)

Vinny said:


> Back when film and slides were all there were, slides had the sharpest images you can get. Kodak (only film I used) had ISO 25 and 64 slide film and the images came out fantastic. Actually all my "best" shots are on slides. Kodak had a display in Grand Central Station in NYC of a huge poster (maybe 20 feet by 10 feet) of a supposed ISO 25 slide film blown up to that size - they had the slide in the corner of that display.
> 
> Back then even ISO 100 film was too grainy to blow up beyond 8x10 or 11x14 and I believe the processing of a slide into a print was also pretty straight forward. I also believe that processing slides was pretty screw up proof vs getting prints. I hated getting prints done from negatives because colors were always wrong. Back when I was a serious amateur I had only 2 places that I would go to have my film developed or have prints made from slides. Most people who process film don't understand photography and just pass them through. Even in digital I have had people process images that were garbage and I wonder how!



You're making me shed a tear for my beloved Kodachrome.

For the record, Kodachrome colors have proven to remain bright for over sixty years.  Other slide films and all negatives turn to doggy poo after ten to fifteen years.

Developed (no pun intended) by two PhD guys in the thirties, Dr. Godansky and Dr. Mannes, Kodachrome was nick-named "the best available from God and man."

A lesser advantage with all slide film is cost when you're shooting a hundred shots to get one good one.


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 18, 2010)

Plato said:


> A lesser advantage with all slide film is cost when you're shooting a hundred shots to get one good one.



Never thought of that aspect, but - yeah, there would be a considerable cost savings if you only had to print the good ones.


----------



## dxqcanada (Mar 18, 2010)

As it is the first generation and not altered (except for unbalanced chemistry) ... you really know when you have figured out exposure.

When you make an exposure mistake with slide film ... it will tell you immediately.

My best film images were taken on slide film ... especially Kodachrome 64 120 (6x6) slides.


----------



## Dwig (Mar 18, 2010)

Long ago, in a galaxy far away ...

... before computers, the internet, and digital imaging, there were several factors that made slide film the choice of most true professional photographers:

1. The first integrated color film (single shot, single piece of film, no permanent granular or patterned filter layer) was a slide film. It was a decade before color negative film appeared.

2. Even when color negative film appeared, slide films were sharper. As time went on, color negative film caught up with the faster slide films, but the slower slide films were still quite a bit sharper than any print from a color negative.

3. Prior to electronic digital scanning and electronic plate making, commercial color printing yielded distinctly better results when working from the original image in a color slide than when working from a second generation image, as is a print from a color negative.

Skilled amateurs, as opposed to tyros or as they are now know - noobs, generally emulated the working pros by shooting slide films. This was probably more because almost all images that they saw and where the filim type was identified were shot as slides. The reason they saw images that were dominantly shot as slides was because almost all images they saw, other than the snaps shots of friends and neighbors, were printed on printing presses (e.g. in books, calendars, magazines, ...) and most printing companies only accepted slides for reason #3, above.

The other big reason for shooting slides and transparencies (slides are mounted, transparencies are the same film but unmounted) was that the slide was a positive and its color and exposure could be easily determined. When printed, the printer could easily determine what it should look like. Negatives, on the other hand, are very difficult to judge. You can't do it by eye to any degree of precision. Without the aid of computers, printing color negatives is largely a matter of trial and terror.


----------



## Hamtastic (Mar 19, 2010)

I am always amazed at the supernatural abilities attributed to Kodachrome.  Who is behind the plot to deny us this miraculous product?!  Why did serious photographers ever stop using it seeing as it was the best there ever was???

Kodachrome is an excellent example of the power of nostalgia.  For all it's wondrous powers both amateurs and pros stopped using and buying it.  It's easy to say that serious photographers switched because it was easier to get E-6 processed or that they just didn't know what was up, but come on, the reason serious photographers pick the materials they do is because those materials give them better results.  The reason modern slide films killed Kodachrome is because modern slide films are better in many ways.  

One example:  The longevity of Kodachrome is often touted.  What they don't tell you is that only works if the slides are kept in the dark.  Exposure to bright light, such as when being used in slide projectors and enlargers, Kodachrome colors start fading almost 3 times sooner than E-6 slides.  Yeah, K-14 is very archival, as long as you don't use the slide in any way that it was intended to be used.


----------



## jchin (Mar 19, 2010)

Someone at my photography club shoots digital and has her images made into slides.  Supposedly slides have a "better dynamic range" than print.


----------



## Plato (Mar 19, 2010)

Hamtastic said:


> One example:  The longevity of Kodachrome is often touted.  What they don't tell you is that only works if the slides are kept in the dark.  Exposure to bright light, such as when being used in slide projectors and enlargers, Kodachrome colors start fading almost 3 times sooner than E-6 slides.  Yeah, K-14 is very archival, as long as you don't use the slide in any way that it was intended to be used.



That's absolutely incorrect. I have Kodachrome slides that I took in the early sixties and a handful that my brother took in the fifties that I keep in a clothes closet in my home in humid New Jersey.  They're still in excellent shape.  ALL of my E-6 slides turned to doggy poo within five or so years.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Mar 19, 2010)

Plato said:


> Hamtastic said:
> 
> 
> > One example:  The longevity of Kodachrome is often touted.  What they don't tell you is that only works if the slides are kept in the dark.  Exposure to bright light, such as when being used in slide projectors and enlargers, Kodachrome colors start fading almost 3 times sooner than E-6 slides.  Yeah, K-14 is very archival, as long as you don't use the slide in any way that it was intended to be used.
> ...



So they are kept basically in the dark?  My slides are still being sold, some after 15 years, by my stock agency... WTF are you talking about? Doggy poo on you.

TBH, I don't keep any slides at home except in the dark. What I have is what was rejected by the agency and I only keep them for potential future use. :lmao: Translation, they never see the light of day. But then again, who keeps slides in full sunlight?

I shot Kodachrome before Fuji came out with its great slide film and then, goodbye Kodak... It was especially good to say goodbye to their labs.


Now, back to the OP's question.

Slides, or transparencies as they are called if larger than 35mm, were the norm in the commercial arena when not doing B&W. And the reason is very simple. Once shot, a slide gives you the right colors according to the photog while a shot printed from a neg can become a totally different image depending on who is printing it.


----------



## Vinny (Mar 19, 2010)

c.cloudwalker said:


> Plato said:
> 
> 
> > Hamtastic said:
> ...


----------



## Plato (Mar 20, 2010)

c.cloudwalker said:


> Plato said:
> 
> 
> > Hamtastic said:
> ...



WTF to you, too.  My Ektachrome and Fujichrome slides became total trash many years ago but my 50-year old Kodachrome slides, stored in the same boxes, are still good.


----------



## Plato (Mar 20, 2010)

_"Slides, or transparencies as they are called if larger than 35mm, were the norm in the commercial arena when not doing B&W. And the reason is very simple. Once shot, a slide gives you the right colors according to the photog while a shot printed from a neg can become a totally different image depending on who is printing it._"

Actually, if you really had any Kodachrome experience, you would realize that it depended on HOW the slide is printed.  Most commonly, it was done through an internegative which resulted in all of the problems associated with negative film.  If you wanted direct printing, it was necessary to locate a lab capable of doing so and to specify accordingly.


----------



## Dwig (Mar 20, 2010)

Plato said:


> _"...
> Actually, if you really had any Kodachrome experience, you would realize that it depended on HOW the slide is printed.  Most commonly, it was done through an internegative which resulted in all of the problems associated with negative film.  If you wanted direct printing, it was necessary to locate a lab capable of doing so and to specify accordingly._


_

In truth, this comment about internegative vs direct reversal printing applies mostly to amateur usage and not commercial usage. The vast majority of commercial use was for offset printing, such as magazine illustrations, calendars, posters, post cards, product labels, ... . 

The only significant commercial/professional use of photography that has conventional photographic prints as its primary end result are the wedding and portrait fields. In these fields, color negative materials reigned supreme in the days after B&W. The general lower sharpness of color negatives is a significant portion of why these fields continued to use larger formats as the norm long after a significant portion of other professional work was being done in 35mm.

BTW (in reference to a different post), the term "transparency" is not reserved for larger formats. It refers to a positive film image that is unmounted. "Slide" refers to a transparency that is in a mount for projection. Since very, very few images larger than 6x6 were ever mounted for projection and almost all 35mm image were, there is a trend for larger images to be "transparencies" and smaller ones "slides". Still, an unmounted 35mm positive film image is a "transparency" and a 3-1/4" x 4-1/4" positive mounted for projection in an old "lantern slide" projector (c. 1880-1900) is a "slide"._


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Mar 23, 2010)

Dwig said:


> BTW (in reference to a different post), the term "transparency" is not reserved for larger formats. It refers to a positive film image that is unmounted. "Slide" refers to a transparency that is in a mount for projection. Since very, very few images larger than 6x6 were ever mounted for projection and almost all 35mm image were, there is a trend for larger images to be "transparencies" and smaller ones "slides". Still, an unmounted 35mm positive film image is a "transparency" and a 3-1/4" x 4-1/4" positive mounted for projection in an old "lantern slide" projector (c. 1880-1900) is a "slide".



Well, I learned something today. Never really understood the difference but never really had the wish to spend the time figuring it out either  Thanks for taking the time to make it clear.


----------

