- This topic is empty.
Slide film… explained?
-
I’m now the proud owner of a Nikon F90 with vertical grip :) Now all I need to do is figure out where the compact flash card goes :lol:
Seriously though, I have the camera in my hand and I’ve already hit a bit of a brick wall. What do I put into it? I’m considering taking the easy option and going with my previous only other film experiment, which was Ilford HP5 400 B&W. But I was considering shooting some slide as well. The problem is, I’m completely ignorant to the process – is there better slide films to use? Can they be developed anywhere? Will I need to get a lightbox thing or is it pretty easy to get digital scans of slides?How do you get from a roll of film into little white slides? Any tips, hints, pointers, links etc would be much appreciated.
Hi Ciaran
I shot slide for quite a few years before going digital and to my mind going digital initally meant that my photography went down hill for a while because you can just shoot with abandon – with slides every shot costs so you have to make them count. I hope that my skills with digital are improving. With this in mind I am quite interested how you get on going the other way…will you automatically be more discerning with your shots or is this going to be an expensive exercise for you!
My suggestion (and I am sure you will receive many) while you are starting out would be to go to an online place like 7-day shop (http://www.7dayshop.co.uk) and buy Fuji Sensia which you can buy with processing vouchers you then just send the film back to them in a little envelope they supply and you will get the pics back in about a week. You can specify if you want them mounted or unmounted which will come in sheets much like negatives and this can make scanning easier as you can scan a row of 4 shots at a time. There are better slide films than Sensia like Velvia or Provia for eg but I have found that Sensia is great for bulk shooting as it is dependable and reasonably priced – you don’t really have to keep it in the fridge either.
Hope that helps…Good luck and enjoy!
Hi Ciaran,
Slide Film has a small latitude, between 4.5 and 5 stops (digital has about the same, while the human eye has about 10 with colour film somewhere in between). So getting the exposure right is critical. Also we were always told in College to underexpose Slide Film by 1/3 to 1/2 of a stop but this can be a bit hit and miss.
I used to bracket to make sure I got the corect exposure, but I took more landscape, still life types of shots which made that easier than shoot reportage. Graduated Neutral Density filters came in very handy from time to time.
Checking the accuracy of your Camera’s meter (or better still use a hand held one) is vital.
Apart from Tri-X (exposed and developed to give great big balls of grain of course!!) slide film was a favourite of mine back in the days, particularly for brochure work. Enjoy!
Dave
Thanks for the info so far.
wavydave wrote:
Hi Ciaran
I shot slide for quite a few years before going digital and to my mind going digital initally meant that my photography went down hill for a while because you can just shoot with abandon – with slides every shot costs so you have to make them count. I hope that my skills with digital are improving. With this in mind I am quite interested how you get on going the other way…will you automatically be more discerning with your shots or is this going to be an expensive exercise for you!
I tend to be pretty considered when I’m shooting these days anyway, digital or not. It’s a discipline I try to force on myself to see if I can nail the shots I want first time, without having to rely on the wonderful flexibility that digital offers us. I also shot one roll of HP5 a while back, again as practice to see if I could take shots in camera, without needing to rely on post processing/cropping. I’m guessing slide should be no different? I certainly intend to be a little more disciplined on it. But… in saying that, I want to learn quick, so it means I will be firing off a good few rolls in pretty rapid succession. I think it’s important to have feedback at the earliest possible stage after you take a shot, so you can remember how you took it and how you’d improve it.
Ciaran,
I think the style of work you intend doing will decide your choice of slide film. If you are going to do some general landscape type work try the process paid 100asa Fuji for convenience. For around 10 euro + you get film and processing in those nice white mounts. Hand the film into the Fuji lab in Abbey Street for a quick turnaround on processing and no postage issues. Its a good introduction. Fuji Velvia is for quality and in good light with a good lens and a tripod wont be beaten for landscape work. Its not process paid so is a little more expensive, It will work well on those bright frosty mornings we are due some time soon.
The 400asa faster films are a lot more expensive and would work really well with some of the graphic portraits you create. No one has ever produced a decent 400 asa slide film for general use. You would also have the option to push the faster film for a more graphic and grainy effect. For processing again it will be expensive and i suggest somewhere like Grants or Repro(not sure on name its a basement job) in Merrion Square. Pushing the film will increases the cost of processing.
Eddie, considering how hopless I am at landscapes using digital, I can’t see me branching out into landscapes when I start shooting slide. My guess is subject matter will stay the same (i.e. people/streets etc). The main purpose for getting the film body was as a backup body for a trip to Iran early next year, where people are definitely going to be the main subject. Thanks for the tips, especially on the labs – very useful.
When I was at college, a particularly long time ago, we were told to photograph the things we made on slide film. I assumed it was because the colours were ‘truer’ and if we went to interviews they would be projected to a larger size.
At the interviews I went to, the slides were left in the sleeve and squinted over on a lightbox. I’m sure they could have had a better view of the artwork if it had been a print – but they were never required. Now students put together portfolios on CDs, but I’m digressing.I’ve a couple of questions to ask about slides, and this thread would seem a good place.
In the past photographers used medium format cameras to produce slides that are used for magazines and large prints – having true colours and the capacity to be enlarged.
With digital cameras – can you produce the same quality and how ‘true’ (if that is word) are they?
When scanning negatives or slides can they be printed to same standard as a digital photgraph?Stevie wrote:
In the past photographers used medium format cameras to produce slides that are used for magazines and large prints – having true colours and the capacity to be enlarged.
With digital cameras – can you produce the same quality and how ‘true’ (if that is word) are they?
When scanning negatives or slides can they be printed to same standard as a digital photgraph?Hi Stevie,
In my other job I’m a graphic designer, have been for over 20 years. So I can answer a few of your questions. But first, in deference to my need to keep my head on my neck at all times I’ll skip the “produce the same quality” question :shock:
1/ Medium and Large Format cameras were preferred by the design and advertising agencies because the degree of enlargment to A4, for example, is much less than for 35mm. Sharpness is therefore better
2/ Slide film is thinner than colour film and can also give much better sharpness. This is to do with thicker layers of emulsion on colour film
3/ Colour is much better, and truer, on slide film. This is because to produce a print from a neg you need to introduce filters in the enlarger. Change the filters slightly and you change the colour.
4/ The quality of scanned negatives or slides has all to do with the scanner. A cheap flatbed scanner will not do a good job, a film scanner will be better, but you really need an expensive drum scanner to get the best quality. There are not many of those around today. 15 years ago a drum scanner you set you back in excess of ?100,000.00 (pounds that is!).
5/ Would a digital camera produce a better image than a good slide scanned on a ?100 scanner? Therein lies a tale!
Hope this helps
Dave
Thanks Dave,
I had no idea that slide film was physically thinner than negative film.To try to rephrase part of the question – would a ‘professionally scanned slide’ be of equal quality to a digital image, or better?
Stevie wrote:
…would a ‘professionally scanned slide’ be of equal quality to a digital image, or better?
I can’t honestly answer that as I’ve never seen such a comparison in real life. But if pushed I would say a 6×6 slide, shot through quality glass (eg Hasselbald), scanned on a top quality drum scanner and enlarged to A4 would beat the pants of most dSLR’s. Not sure about medium format digital backs though.
Thanks again Dave,
The reason I ask is because for years I used a Practica Noval (about 20 years). I still have it and it probably takes the better quality photos than the Olympus OM10 I bought two years ago. That was a bit of a disappointment.
I guess I’m wondering what I should put my money into – a better film camera or a digital camera. I can see the attraction of being able to manipulate digital images easily, but I just really don’t know enough about it to make an informed discision.
Doh.Hi Ciaran,
If you’re shooting people, the Fuji Sensia gives reasonably accurate skin tones. Avoid Velvia for people shots, it “Saturates” colours, fine for blue skies and landscapes. Provia is between the 2, again, not great for accurate skin tones. The dynamic range of the film is a lot tighter than digital, so exposures are critical (incident meters are great for slide work). For bright days, you may find it easier to shoot some good negative film (lots of choice here, Fuji and Kodak both do a portrait film with accurate colours, most people don’t like it as it is not “punchy” enough, kodacolor gold is fine), this film has a very wide dynamic range so great if you intend to get them scanned (most photo-stores can develop and scan for you) and Post process yourself.
For mono film, Fuji Across (iso 100) and Neopan-400 are my tools of choice, they are both fine grain and multi-layered (layers with different sizes of grain in). For portrait work, there is a single layer emulsion Efke 50, which is great when pushing the processing and getting the 1940s Hollywood B&W look.
Re scanners: Drum scanners can resolve anything that the film can lay down (grain and all) but expensive. Proper desktop negative scanners are plenty good enough for 35mm (4000dpi). Medium format film can probably show more details than your digi (just) but it’s behind a layer of “Grain/dye-clouds/film” whatever you want to call it. The digital is much cleaner and more accurate (colours) if set up properly. 35mm film doesn’t resolve as well as your digi. If making enlargements bigger than A3+ you might see a difference between digi and MF. You should see the difference between 35mm and digi sooner than that.
Si
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
