# Slide film.



## Weaving Wax (May 12, 2007)

I hear so much about it, like the details are more clear on slide than on negitive film, but I don't know too much about slide. Is this considered medium format? Would I need a certain camera to do it? How is it done?

Thanks!


----------



## Peanuts (May 12, 2007)

Nope, it works the exact same as your regular film. You can get it in both 35mm, 120/220. The only difference is when you have it processed you will likely only have it mounted, and then you can look at each image individually and determin whether you want it printed or not.

The great thing is - what you shoot is what you get. Mind you, that can also be a bad thing if you 'miss'. Those shooting artwork will often shoot with slide film as the colour integrity is less dependent on who is working in the lab that day. Hopefully that all makes sense 

(One thing that should be mentioned is generally the cost of printing may be x2 - x3 higher then that of negative film. But, you can choose those that you are happy with to be printed, so you will likely end up saving)

Oh! (too many edits?) If you are happy with shooting slide film - you might want to look into purchasing a slide projector. I believe Kodak, the last company to manufactur them, stopped doing so 3 or so years ago, but you could probably pick one up at a garage sale or ebay quite easily.


----------



## terri (May 12, 2007)

No, don't be intimidated, WW.  Slide film is available in many formats; try 35mm first if that is what you're comfortable with. It's a _positive _transparency film - as opposed to a _negative._ I've noticed some people seem a bit put off by shooting slide film as it has gained a reputation for being more difficult to shoot, which I've always found a bit baffling. 

Try a roll; use your meter and bracket a half stop either way while keeping an exposure log on each frame. When you get your slides back, review them against your log and you will have learned volumes - what the film can do, what your meter is telling you, etc. You will learn much faster doing this than by reading alone. 

I like Fuji slide film - snatch up a roll of Velvia or Provia 100 and go blast the myths!  You can branch out from there, if you like your results.


----------



## nealjpage (May 13, 2007)

Listen to Terri.  She knows what she's talking about.

BTW, I just got back my first roll of Velvia today.    Never had shot it before.  I highly recommend it.


----------



## Peanuts (May 13, 2007)

Oh boo. and I don't? 

No, listen to Terri - she is the most knowledgable person about film I know. (or at least have ever read)


----------



## Weaving Wax (May 13, 2007)

Thanks guys! So...can my Canon shoot it?


----------



## terri (May 13, 2007)

Weaving Wax said:


> Thanks guys! So...can my Canon shoot it?


Of course! Any 35mm slide film will drop right in there.

Thanks for all the kind words, guys. :blushing: I can assure you there are plenty of knowledable film people on this forum, some with many more years of experience than me. I'm sure I just have the biggest mouth. :mrgreen:

I hope you go try it, WW! And post your results for us to see.


----------



## Alex_B (May 13, 2007)

Yes, your canon can shoot it! 

As for the projectors, I bought a brand new slide projector from Leica last year, so they are still being produced.

The dynamic range of slide film is usually less wide than that of negative film. So you have to watch your exposure more carefully.

As for Fuji Velvia (aka Disneycolor ) you have to be careful not to lose too much detail in the dark part of the images. It is a high contrast and high saturation film.


----------



## Weaving Wax (May 13, 2007)

Thanks guys! I can't figure out how to use my meter on my camera. I know how to do the exposuer comp and the DOF preview (Which I use to find the right aperture for my shot). 

I'm going to go to the camera store tomorrow and pick up some slide & 120 film for the holga.

What's that film that comes in the square boxes. It's not Polaroid, but something else.. Anyone know what kind-of film I'm talking about? I see it all the time... 

Oh, Peanuts (or anyone) what does it mean to have it "mounted" when processed? I'm looking forward to this!


----------



## New Hampshire (May 13, 2007)

I am sending out my first roll of slide film to be developed tomorrow (with A&I of Hollywood.)  Im very excited because I think I managed to get some awesome waterfall photos!  I did as Terri said, I logged each shots f/stop and speed including the brackets.  Ive got my fingers crossed, and Ill be sure to let the folks here see any positive results that come from the roll  

Oh, and by "Having them mounted" its meant that instead of getting prints and negatives back like you normally are used to, you get the Transparency (the equivelant of the negative) ONLY, and it comes enclosed in a cardboard or plastic square.  This is so it can be used in the slide projector.

Brian


----------



## Weaving Wax (May 13, 2007)

Oh and then from that I can get prints?


----------



## New Hampshire (May 13, 2007)

Weaving Wax said:


> Oh and then from that I can get prints?


 
Yes, though I hear they can be a bit more expensive than negative prints......however, since you can choose which ones you want made into prints (as opposed to getting all prints from you negatives like you are used to) it is claimed it all evens out.  I also hear the prints made from transparency (slide) film are not quite as good as negative prints, I would think it not THAT noticeable (though I have no experience in this, obviously).

Brian


----------



## Alex_B (May 13, 2007)

Weaving Wax said:


> Oh and then from that I can get prints?



or get them scanned


----------



## Alpha (May 13, 2007)

New Hampshire said:


> Yes, though I hear they can be a bit more expensive than negative prints......however, since you can choose which ones you want made into prints (as opposed to getting all prints from you negatives like you are used to) it is claimed it all evens out.  I also hear the prints made from transparency (slide) film are not quite as good as negative prints, I would think it not THAT noticeable (though I have no experience in this, obviously).
> 
> Brian




Yes and no. Your average lab will scan the slide and print on a lightjet. Results are very good. Then there's Ciba/Ilfochrome, which puts the rest of the color world to shame.


----------



## New Hampshire (May 13, 2007)

Thanks for the clarification Max! :thumbup: 

Brian


----------



## cigrainger (May 13, 2007)

Fuji Velvia 100 metered with my 1964 Spotmatic. It's not as hard as some make it seem. Terri has it spot on. I didn't even bracket my first roll and every exposure came out perfectly, just using my Spotmatic's metering system.

I don't think there's any negative that could get greens and detail like that.

Give it a shot. My processing place charges me the same to process/mount/scan/4x6 print it as b/w film and will do it in about 24 hours.

I don't think I'll ever shoot color negative again.


----------



## nealjpage (May 13, 2007)

cigrainger said:


> I don't think I'll ever shoot color negative again.



I second that one!  

Oh, and Max, what's this "Ilfochrome" of which you speak?  And why does it blow the doors off the rest of the color world?  Not that I don't believe you, of course, but I'm intriqued now.


----------



## Loupaixao (May 14, 2007)

Why when I shoot on slide do the shots come out so much darker and sometimes unusable when on the same settings shots from film of the same iso come out fine?:banghead:


----------



## selmerdave (May 14, 2007)

I would say either your film is severely out of date or you are not shooting with the same settings in the same light at the same ISO.  There is no trick to it, proper exposure will give proper exposure.  Print film does have more latitude generally so if you are a little off it should still come out fine, but shots that are way off are not likely to come out very well even in prints.

Dave


----------



## Weaving Wax (May 14, 2007)

I got my first roll of slide today! Prints coming soon!


----------



## ksmattfish (May 14, 2007)

Quality is vastly more affected by the skills of the person involved than inherent properties of the materials.  Learn what slide film is and does, and what it's strengths and weaknesses are, and if they would be suited for your style and subject matter.    

The same applies to printing methods.  If you are not seeing inkjet prints that match or beat Ilfochrome prints, then you need to meet new printers.  The hardcore Ilfochrome printers I know all switched to inkjet prints years ago.  Not because it was cheaper of more convenient, but because they felt they were getting significantly better results with the new technology.  These aren't goofballs; these are people who make their 100% of their living selling their personal work.  They had their own darkrooms set up for Ilfochrome process and they were very good at it, or they would have the work done at some of the best custom Ilfochrome labs in the country.


----------



## New Hampshire (May 14, 2007)

Loupaixao said:


> Why when I shoot on slide do the shots come out so much darker and sometimes unusable when on the same settings shots from film of the same iso come out fine?:banghead:


I may be wrong, but perhaps it is because when your negative film gets developed the developing machine corrects slightly for color and exposure?  Slide film is developed as is unless you specifically ask for a bump in stop?  Just throwing a possibility out there....I don't know for sure.

Brian


----------



## fmw (May 16, 2007)

New Hampshire said:


> I may be wrong, but perhaps it is because when your negative film gets developed the developing machine corrects slightly for color and exposure? Slide film is developed as is unless you specifically ask for a bump in stop? Just throwing a possibility out there....I don't know for sure.
> 
> Brian


 
No.  The underexposure would be the same for either film.  With the slide film you are looking at the film itself.  With print film you are viewing a print made from the film itself that was corrected for exposure in printing.  The negative would still be underexposed.

Transparency film needs to be exposed correctly.  There is no intermediate step to hide the errors.


----------



## Alpha (May 16, 2007)

ksmattfish said:


> Quality is vastly more affected by the skills of the person involved than inherent properties of the materials.  Learn what slide film is and does, and what it's strengths and weaknesses are, and if they would be suited for your style and subject matter.
> 
> The same applies to printing methods.  If you are not seeing inkjet prints that match or beat Ilfochrome prints, then you need to meet new printers.  The hardcore Ilfochrome printers I know all switched to inkjet prints years ago.  Not because it was cheaper of more convenient, but because they felt they were getting significantly better results with the new technology.  These aren't goofballs; these are people who make their 100% of their living selling their personal work.  They had their own darkrooms set up for Ilfochrome process and they were very good at it, or they would have the work done at some of the best custom Ilfochrome labs in the country.



Matt, are you sure you mean inkjets and not lightjets? Because I've printed on the best of the best inkjets and the results are never quite as good. But I suppose that's just my opinion. 

I understand what your point is, but I'm still taking it with a grain of salt. You know, it's really quite similar to the rest of the "digital revolution." When DSlr's came out, a lot of people made the switch for a number of reasons. I know a lot of guys who switched from ilfochrome, too. But that's mostly because the chemicals started getting too expensive. The fact that they switched doesn't necessarily mean that inkjets are better. But like I said, your point is well taken.


----------



## New Hampshire (May 16, 2007)

fmw said:


> No. The underexposure would be the same for either film. With the slide film you are looking at the film itself. With print film you are viewing a print made from the film itself that was corrected for exposure in printing. The negative would still be underexposed.
> 
> Transparency film needs to be exposed correctly. There is no intermediate step to hide the errors.


 
Ahhh, gotcha.  See, I love learning something new every time I come here :thumbup: :mrgreen: 

Brian


----------



## nealjpage (May 17, 2007)

On the same subject, I swear that I once saw someone claim that Fuji Provia 400 is one of the best and most versitile color (slide) films in the world.  Anyone care to elaborate on that one?


----------



## selmerdave (May 17, 2007)

Well, I've heard it's as good as it gets for a 400 film.  I don't think it would out-do Velvia 50 (or any other slow film) at what it does, but it probably comes much closer than you would think for a 400 film.

Dave


----------



## Mr.goose (May 18, 2007)

hmm i had to use slide film in my first year at PSC what i found is the that there is only about five stops of difference between highlights and shadows. dont be to sad if your first roll messes up you pretty much have to get the exposure bang on for it to work . . .


----------



## Alpha (May 18, 2007)

nealjpage said:


> On the same subject, I swear that I once saw someone claim that Fuji Provia 400 is one of the best and most versitile color (slide) films in the world.  Anyone care to elaborate on that one?



I've definitely made that claim before. Provia 400 is so amazing because it is capable of both saturated colors and natural skin tones, has extraordinarily fine grain (almost as fine as Provia 100), and can be pushed or pulled from 100 to 800.


----------



## fmw (May 18, 2007)

I have used Provia 100 as a standard film for many, many years.  It is still my standard color film.  Accurate colors, fine grain, neutral contrast.  Great stuff.


----------



## JamesD (Jun 12, 2007)

Weaving Wax said:


> Thanks guys! I can't figure out how to use my meter on my camera. I know how to do the exposuer comp and the DOF preview (Which I use to find the right aperture for my shot).



For an EOS camera, press the shutter button half way.  You'll see a little scale in the viewfinder (and also on the LCD display on top), looking something like this:

-2.1.v.1.2+

With a pointer underneath it. When the bar/arrow on the bottom is centered, you've got the exposure settings which will yield a frame that averages out to 18% gray.  Note that if you're using a mode other than M, the pointer will not move by itself if you point the camera at different light levels, because it is automatically adjusting your exposure.

In general, if you adjust aperture/shutter-speed for less exposure, the scene will render darker, and vice versa.  The key is to meter off the subject.  If the subject is standing against a white wall, for instance, open up your exposure until the bar is more to the right (the + side), else your wall will be gray and your subject will be dark.  If your subject is standing in a darkened room, with light on his or her face, stop down (to the - side), else your room will look brighter and the subject will be "blown out" or too light.  This is more important with slide film than with negative film because you can adjust print exposure with negative film, but with slide film, what you see is what you get.

For most scenes, though, you'll probably want to adjust the pointer so that it's under the center mark or close to it.  Half a stop either way won't make _too_ much difference, but it will be noticeable.

-JamesD


----------



## Orrin (Jun 12, 2007)

fmw said:


> I have used Provia 100 as a standard film for many, many years.  It is still my standard color film.  Accurate colors, fine grain, neutral contrast.  Great stuff.



Yes, Provia is Fuji's "Normal" film with normal color saturation.
Velvia is their High saturation film.
Astia/Sensia has a little less saturation than Provia, their data guide
describes if as "subdued color reproduction".


----------



## carusoswi (Jul 15, 2007)

fmw said:


> No.  The underexposure would be the same for either film.  With the slide film you are looking at the film itself.  With print film you are viewing a print made from the film itself that was corrected for exposure in printing.  The negative would still be underexposed.
> 
> Transparency film needs to be exposed correctly.  There is no intermediate step to hide the errors.



Is this why I find it useless to bracket exposures when shooting negative film to be developed/printed commercially?  I used to bracket my exposures, but, then, all three pics would come back looking almost identical.

I currently shoot negative film and have it developed without printing.  I haven't tried bracketing only because I figure I can adjust the exposure in PS if it needs anything.

Caruso


----------



## dinodan (Jul 15, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


> Yes and no. Your average lab will scan the slide and print on a lightjet. Results are very good. Then there's Ciba/Ilfochrome, which puts the rest of the color world to shame.


 
Eventually, if you want, you can invest in a film scanner. I have a Nikon Coolscan V that does both negatives and positives (slides). It's a wonderful tool.

Years ago, I used to send my slides to Holland Photo in Austin, TX for Ciba/Ilfochrome prints. They did an excellent job. A quick visit to their website just now showed an announcement that they had discontinued C/I-chrome, but now have something similar called Kodak Endura. Does anyone know anything about this process?

The old Cibachrome process was superb. The prints had a luminescent, almost metallic quality and were printed on what appeared to be thin plastic sheet rather than paper. I have framed Cibachrome prints done by Holland 20+ years ago that still look perfect.

Having said that, last year I attended a Nikon seminar. Outside the auditorium, they had a display of Nikon equipment and some very large and expensive Epson digital printers, the results from which were quite impressive. As I recall, these had a dozen or so individual color ink cartridges.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 15, 2007)

I've printed on the top Epson printers. I work in a lab with a 7800. They're very good for color, but a pain in the ass to calibrate and to keep calibrated. 

AFAIK, the Endura papers are simply RA4 specially designed for digital printers.


----------



## AbelR74 (Aug 7, 2007)

I just recently started using slide film and really enjoy it.  I guess I cheated and left my camera in Program mode and had the computer do the work, but I got some very nice captures.  Scanned with Nikon Coolscan V. Film was Kodak Elite Chrome Iso 100.























Comments welcome.


----------



## Alex_B (Aug 7, 2007)

my first adventure into slight film was at some young age when i by accident loaded a roll of slide film into my camera ... from then on I never touched colour negative again (it is more forgiving than slide film with respect to exposure though)


----------

