Actually, I'm scared of using slide film for its lack of lattitude. What physio-chemical process makes slide film less forgiving? I have never seen an explaination for this, anywhere; it's a rule that everyone just accepts.

But, in the modern age, print film is getting better and better. Is it a throw-back to the past when most publications insisted on slides?

I read once that if you like to look at prints, shoot print film. I know one can get prints from slides, and the cost of processing slides is less than getting a whole roll printed at the local drugstore by a high scool drop-out. But, one could go to a pro-lab and get a contact sheet made to weed out the non-keepers.

So, summing up: am I missing something besides something to do?

Slides: Better(?) saturation (un-lifelike(?)); tests your technique (only exposure technique(?)); finer grain/higher resolution (maybe?).

Prints: More lattitude (BIG advantage, no argument); wider avail. and selection (depends on where you are); easier to view/show (no projector/loupe needed).

BTW, I use print film in my leica, 100%; 1/3 slide in my SWC (loupe not nec.). 8X10 Prints from 6X6 slides equal neg. quality (using 4X loupe to inspect).

Please tell me why you use slide film.

-- chris chen (chrischen@msn.com), February 22, 2002

Answers

Three reasons:

1) Kodachrome. The dark-storage longevity of this family of films is unbeatable, the color fidelity is very good, the grain is very fine, and the sharpness is excellent.

2) it's a positive. I find it much easier to adjust the colors in my prints when the original represents the original colors instead of a masked negative, and it's easier to see which are "keepers" from a positive than a negative.

3) I don't have to keep a print or contact sheet with the original to see what the original looks like.

-- Douglas Herr (telyt@earthlink.net), February 22, 2002.

For me slides are more easier to archive. Really, there is no need for contact sheets...

...but, I see myself going back to shooting exclusively B&W. Firstly, its a chore to find a decent slide developer as most of them use these old E6 machines with cruddy rollers, already Black's has managed to scratch OR color cast 5 rolls of E6. The color cast was probably from improper temperature during roller developing... they don't admit to it, but I know my Ektachrome enough to see that its "off". Secondly, B&W has good latitude and many of my shots lend themselves to classic monochrome. Thirdly, B&W is not as finicky to develop at home and I figure with my new dryer and reels I can do the dip'n dunk thing for a fraction of the cost of sending it off (seeing as my Sundays are free). Now just to figure out how to do cheap contact sheets without a print set-up...

Hmmmmm.

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), February 22, 2002.

Simple: I love the way they look projected. They give us those nice bright colors...makes you think all the world's a sunny day, oh yeah!

There's just something magic in the air between the projector lens and the screen on the wall. Something you don't get with a print.

-- Luke Dunlap (luked@mail.utexas.edu), February 22, 2002.

look at this links:

http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/portfolio/25/slides.htm

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000pYU

for me i shoot slides because i don't want to mess around with color balancing and compensation in the darkroom. i like to go to the lab and ask for "best match".

as far as latitude is concerned, i have always shot slides so i don't know any better.

i like the contrast. i like using a light table. and i hate contact sheets

john

-- john molloy (ballyscanlon@hotmail.com), February 22, 2002.

John - sounds like Blacks have put you off slides. If you are in Toronto have you tried Steichenlab? They are excellent, with two hour processing, but they likely are more expensive than Blacks.

-- Ivor Quaggin (iquaggin@rogers.com), February 22, 2002.

Main reason - sharpness (edge definition). But you have to shoot K25/64 or Velvia to get this advantage. I recently shot some 100 color neg, and Reala (and Kodak Supra 100) were pretty darn good - only a little behind the slower chromes and (IMHO) at least as good as 100 and higher slide films. In the 400+ speed range negs pull 'way ahead for image quality - and that's a dedicated slide-shooters opinion!

(It's also not a new phenomenon - when Kodacolor 400 came out about 1977 it was already visibly sharper and crisper than the Ektachrome 400 of the day (if there even was an Ektachrome 400 - we may still have been pushing High Speed Ektachrome 160).

Secondary - it is easier to sort/edit/catalog positives, and also easier to scan them. Plus you can dump all the rejects, instead of having a whole page of negatives with a few keepers scattered amidst the dross.

Re: prints from slides - I get great prints via digital processing - much better than optical Ciba/Ilfochromes or R-prints, or 3rd- generation interneg prints. I can open up shadows and hold highlights and bright colors and basically get a fuller tonal range.

Re: "saturation (un-lifelike?). Maybe I've trained my eye - but Velvia looks like what I saw when I took the picture - other slide films usually look dull compared to the picture I thought I was taking. They also can pick up color casts (cyan-Kodachrome, blue-Provia). Velvia adds enough extra "original subject color" to punch through any possible cast (except sometimes in blue shade) so that browns look brown instead of muddy purple/gray, and skies look blue-blue instead of cyan or magenta.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), February 22, 2002.

The reason for slide film's unforgiving reputation on exposure is due to the fact that all commercial film processing is done (supposedly) according to fairly strict criterion. The process is standardized, and beyond the the variables of how fresh and well temped the chemistry is and how clean the lines are, all film is run the same.

This works fine with negatives, because a tech can then correct for small changes in exposure when printing. The fact that B+W has a reputation as being more forgiving has more to do with the fact that we can regulate how we process the film than anything else. Even color negs have some exposure latitude, which is corrected with density and color channel settings in a color lab.

Slides, (or chromes, if you prefer) have no such second process to give you another chance. But if you had the chemistry and a JoBo or other film processing machine at home, you could run your own E-6 and control the different variables yourself, thus giving you back the control you have with B+W. Slide film is, after all, essentially B+W film with one extra layer in the emultion. The chemical process in dev'ing E-6 includes a first developer, at which point you basically have an un-fixed B+W negative. Depending upon the exact process (E-6, which is Kodak's version, vs. Fuji's or Agfa's versions), the film then gets a color developer which lays color over the negative, or rather brings it out, and then a reversal bath, which then gives you the positive. I am leaving out a couple of steps, but you get the idea. The problem is that labs run all film at one constant time and temperature (or they should)- thus the standardized E-6. You know that you can ask for push or pull processing, which is the same as we do with B+W, when we make our own adjustments.

If you did your own E-6, you could do some tests and shoot it at different ISO's and run it differently per shooting conditions, just as you might with B+W, and thus get around the exposure issues, but you are still working with a material for which there is only one process, and you get the original, as opposed to negatives which give you another chance to fix things when making prints if your exposure was off a little bit in reference to the processing.

I'm working on not being so long winded, but I like to be precise. And yes, I've been told I'm anal retentive.

Anyway, I hope this helps.

-- drew (swordfisher@hotmail.com), February 22, 2002.

Kodachrome is very stable, when properly stored. I have some slides my Mom took in the 1950's, when she was on vacation in Italy that look as good as the day they were taken. Kodachrome also has a particular look, which I'm really fond of. But if I was going for lots of shadow detail and material that I was going to scan I would fall back on print film.

feli

-- Feli (feli@d2.com), February 22, 2002.

Aside from the color saturation, stability and the dated concept of slides being the first choice for publications (no longer true), I like to shoot slides simply because it cuts out the middle man. I can visualize how I want the scene to look, and get it on film without having to dialog with some person behind a counter.

Once you learn how your film handles various contrast ranges, you can make the shadows go black if that is what you want, tweak the exposure for the highlights and create an image that looks totally different than what your eye perceives, and play with minute incremental exposure deviations (bracketing) to really change the mood.

Yes it is harder to learn, and you need to know what the meter is "looking" at and how it is being interpreted, but to sum it up in one word, it gives you "CONTROL." All of this is based on my way of doing photography... on film, no Photoshop. I guess now you can fix anything, but I like to get it in one move.

Oh yeah... a well exposed slide projected on a good screen in a dark room can knock your socks off.

For me, the subject dictates the film choice. If you need prints, then it is easier to just shoot negative film. I almost always do portraits on print film, because you will usually want to give them to the people for framing or display. For travel and scenic shooting, it is FujiChrome.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), February 22, 2002.

Slides are so pretty! And, despite claims to the contrary, I find that in my digital darkroom, they scan much better than negs - less grain and sharper.

Slides also show you exactly what you did exposure-wise, unlike processed/printed negatives. Of course if you scan the negs yourself, that advantage is eliminated.

And since slides are positives, it's easy to cull them on a lightbox, unlike negatives which nobody can figure out without printing them first.

I've shot probably 90% slides for 30 years. Every time I try print film because it's reputedly "better," I laugh my butt off when comparing the results. Everything about slides is superior except the waiting time to have them processed.

Slides Rule!

-- MikeP (mike996@optonline.net), February 22, 2002.

I think the reason for the low latitude of slide films is simple if we do a little math. Consider a scene with one light source, meaning no shadow areas. Everything in the scene receives the same amount of light. A surface which reflects 100% of the light appears white. Now start dividing that percentage in half, each division being one stop. 100-50-25-12.5. When you reach 12.5% reflectance, you are three stops less than pure white, and also at the level most meters are calibrated for to create "medium gray." (No, it's not 18% in most cases.) Divide again. 12.5-6.25-3.125-1.563. Now, at less than 2% reflectance, you have effectively reached black. This is about what copier toner reflects. So three stops either side of 12.5% reflectance and your eye perceives white or black.

The difference between this and the real world is that the real world has shadow areas which are not lit by the same light as other areas. Your eye compensates for this as it moves. The actual area of sharp vision is remarkably small, sort of like a spot meter. Film can not do this sort of compensation. If slide film was made to accomodate a huge brightness range, say 10 stops of more (I don't know if this is possible or not, but let's say for now that it is), any scene with flat lighting would come out looking unacceptably flat. Blacks would be gray, whites would be a lighter shade of gray. I would look awful. So I think slide films are made to deal with flat lighting as well as they can, and if the brightness range is greater, most people are content to let the shadows go black and expose for light areas.

Print films are able to deal with this because in the creation of the print, companesation can be made for differences in contrast in the original subject. If the negative is flat, we can stretch the range of brightness to create a print with more contrast. If a scene has huge contrasts, you can use exposure and development to capture the full range on film, and then further manipulation (dodging, burning, etc.) to be able to print it. These techniques don't work with slides because you view the original. I've found that scanning and printing digitally can somewhat enhance the effective latitude of slide films (I can often recover information from murky looking shadows), but it still doesn't approach print film.

-- Masatoshi Yamamoto (masa@nifty.co.jp), February 22, 2002.

When I shot transparencies, it was because that's what the publications that asked for them wanted. Worrying about the latitude of transparency film is wasted effort. You can almost always bracket to cover yourself in difficult situations. There's only one correct exposure, prints or slides. Prints can be adjusted more easily but you're still losing something if you didn't expose correctly. Select your film according to the intended use of the photos.

-- Joe Brugger (jbrugger@pcez.com), February 22, 2002.

I shoot slides because . . .

they make better targets. Prints are too easy. ;-)

Seriously, I prefer to select film on the basis of the target display medium, rather than slavishly shooting only one film type. If the aim is for prints, then print film is the better selection, I think. If for publication (or obviously, projection), transparencies.

I do, however, consider the latitude attributed to print film to be somewhat of a myth. True, you can get an acceptable print from a color negative that was not exposed properly, but a dead-on print requires dead-on exposure and processing of the neg, just as with slide film in my opinion. Shooting slide film simply removes a couple of the variables.

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), February 22, 2002.

Everything about slides is superior except the waiting time to have them processed.

Guess you're not exhibiting and selling prints.

This kind of religious frenzy is just plain silly. Go look at some of Richard Misrach's work.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), February 22, 2002.

Five reasons: Leitz M6; Elmar-M; 4000 dpi film scanner; Photoshop; six color Photo Printer.

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), February 22, 2002.

Sorry

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), February 22, 2002.

"Guess you're not exhibiting and selling prints."

You guess wrong. But I appreciate your judgement of my statement based on no knowledge at all of what I do...

Accordingly, I guess you can't see very well.

-- MikeP (mike996@optonline.net), February 22, 2002.

AND, Jeffie, as I recall, doesn't Richard Misrach use large format? Really has NOTHING to do with the question re slides/print film in a 35mm Leica does it?

C'mon, give the gentleman asking the question some help, rather than blasting my opinion as "religious fervor". Just give YOUR opinion. Do you prefer slides or print film in your Leica? Why? Seems simple enough. I'll be glad to switch if a REASON shows up in your rhetoric.

Yes - I'm pissed!

-- MikeP (mike996@optonline.net), February 22, 2002.

What does the format Misrach uses have to do with it? He could easily shoot large format transparency. The problem is that he wants real control over the process to the finished print, and that control is difficult to impossible with slides.

If you want prints, use print film. If you want to project, use slides. Most pubs are taking digital files these days, so that's not a consideration.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), February 22, 2002.

choosing a good picture from b/w negatives is relatively easy to master. the same with slides, of course. but i find it much harder to judge a color neg

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), February 22, 2002.

Jeff,

I've calmed down a bit

I agree completely with you on the basic issue of "if you want prints, use negs, if you want to project use slides." But you can manipulate either equally well in the digital darkroom which is what I use now. And I have found that slides produce superior printed images for me - grain is far less visible at the same scanning resolution. Maybe I'm doing something wrong with negs but I've been doing the digital film scanning thing for 3 years and I just can't get negs to produce printed images that equal those produced by slides.

-- MikeP (mike996@optonline.net), February 22, 2002.

Okay! I'm an old fud of 78+ years of age, and I started shooting chromes when Kodachrome was rated at 12. I owned a Weston meter, where the chrome + or - exposures were on the circular display.

Why chromes? (a) You can shoot a lot of film, bracket to your heart's content, then throw the bum ones into File 13 (the wastebasket) after reviewing them on a light table with a loupe; (b) The remaining ones are your projection gems; (c) You can have prints made from your chromes if you choose - - - use a decent color lab; (d) It costs less to do it this way; and (e) you really learn to meter for a decent exposure.

-- George C. Berger (gberger@his.com), February 23, 2002.

Hello Chris. I shoot slides because of Ernst Haas and Paul Simon. Regards.

-- Sheridan Zantis (albada60@hotmail.com), February 23, 2002.

Hello Chris:

I'm surprised you are scared of the slides. Well, why not.

However, the Leica Meter is pretty accurate and it requires few efforts to decide what are the parameters.

Beside, it's really some fun to master more or less the exposure.

And after a few rolls, you are getting used to it.

Now come the archive, as it was said before me, keep only what you like, less space to store more.

Printing? Find yourself a competent (not necessarily expensive) film scaner like Microtek, Jenoptik, etc, and give a diskette to your lab.

A comment: the quality is better than the direct print on inverted paper and a bit cheaper too.

On Slides, you can visualize the crystal-like definition of the leica Lens (MHO) and you can undestand better the limit of the grain as well as the rendering. Try BW slides with SCALA from Agfa, just wonderful. X.

-- Xavier d'Alfort (hot_billexf@hotmail.com), February 25, 2002.

The difficulty of exposing slides properly is greatly exaggerated in some forums.

Slides, when projected through a quality projection lens, have no competition as a displayed medium. Nothing else, not HDTV, not big Laser prints, nothing, comes close.

Slides are cheap. If you need quality prints from slides, the technology today gets you very high quality prints in most situations. With Fuji Frontier, these prints cost no more than prints from negatives.

Find a good custom lab, one close to home or work if you live in a big city. You DON'T have to wait days to get the slides back.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), February 25, 2002.

Slides?

Storage convienience, longevity (Kodachrome), no negative film comes close for color brilliance, ability to project.

Jerry

-- Jerome R. Pfile, Jr. (JerryPfile@msn.com), February 27, 2002.

What Luke said. Also: they don't call a slide projector a "magic lantern" for nothing.

I like to assemble a slide show using a three- or four-projector dissolve setup, with the slide changes accompanied by music. It's a different experience from viewing a single print. It transports you through the screen, like Alice in "Through the Looking Glass."

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), March 06, 2002.