slides vs prints dilemma

[walt williams]

Going to Bonaire in a couple of weeks. I have previously used slide film exclusively on other trips. But, it's a hassle to get out the projector, set it up, etc. And, for showing friends and family and co-workers, naturally, it's not practical to lug all that equipment around. Prints are much easier and convenient.

I realize slides seem to show the colors better and you can't beat a bigger than life projected image.

Prints from slides are possible, but expensive.

Does anybody have any hard opinions about one over the other?

Also, if going for prints, what's the best film? I'll be doing some macro and some with 35mm. Nikonos V and SB-105.

Thanks for the advice.

 

[James connell]

given the new digital projectors, even the "slide show" reason for E6 is going by the wayside.
it becomes a question of are you going to Only put these in a projector? if (as most do) you want to make prints than it really makes very little difference whether you use E6 or C41 - the prints are very much the same. and given C41 technology it's much easier to get good prints from that.

as for film for C41 - i shoot fuji reala almost exclusivly underwater, though i'll also use superia 800 if i need it. i don't use C41 "pro" film for underwater work, and i avoid the C41 kodak films because they don't have the vivid reds and yellows of fuji.
for E6 it's still hard to beat fuji velvia!
but it's really an iso 40 film not the iso 50 fuji claims. i haven't tried the new iso 100 velvia yet but i'm looking forward to the chance. the kodak ecktachromes do well - but use VS or SW versions.

 

[TheAvatar]

If I am doing color, I think slides are better because of their saturation and color (I like to shoot Kodak E100VS and Fuji RVP (Velvia)). There is now Velvia 100ASA.

The only color negative film I would shoot underwater is Agfa Ultra 100 because it has very saturated colors. It is the most saturated color print film. It's predacessor, Agfa Ultra 50, was sometimes called "the Velvia of print film."

BUY SOME AGFA ULTRA 100 FOR ONLY $3.49/ROLL OF 36!

Read more about award winning Agfa Ultra 100, the most color-intensive color negative film in the world

EDITED TO ADD:
1. No... I don't work for Afga... Ultra 100 is the only Agfa emulsion I use (now that they discontinued APX 25)

2. I *LOVE* saturated colors, thus my preferences.

3. If you are digitizing your work for digital output or digital slide projection, perhaps Kodak E100GX (awesome new slide film, kodaks new and definately improved version of E100SW), Fuji Provia 100F (great slide film, I think 100GX would be better, but that's personal preference), or, as James recommended, Fuji Reala (one of my favorite print films for above water macro work)

4. James... you type really fast!

 

[SubMariner]

Firstly, I have to tell you that we have switched exclusively to digital since 2000.

However, prior to that we were using KodakSelect Elite Chrome 100 ASA Slide Film in our Sea & Sea Motomarine II cameras and the results were breathtaking: the colours were superb and seemed to almost glow, they were so saturated.

One method we found to get prints was to have them hi-res scanned by a place here in the Atlanta area called Imagers (http://www.imagers.com).We then could print them off on our Epson Sytlus Photo 1280 and get photos every bit as crisp as those we got printed directly from the slides at a photo shop.

Just another piece of info,

~SubMariner~

 

[TheAvatar]

If you are going to use a consumer slide film, use Kodak EBX (extra saturated elitechrome)

 

[James connell]

TheAvatar once bubbled...
4. James... you type really fast!

thanks

if you saw me doing it you wouldn't think so!!! my dyslexia Really comes out when i type! i can compensate when i write but every typed word has a least 1 reversal in it - i even type 'ti' when i mean "it" ( i ahve to edit every word!) <-- see what i mean

 

[onbelaydave]

Slide film rules ! Digital still has a long ways to go to equal the quality of a scanned Provia slide ! Stay away from print if you are really concerned about your quality. If not , 400 print film is "exposure mistake proof"; the only errors will be your focus ,composition, etc.. I've been shooting nothing but slide for 35 years and use a Polaroid Sprintscan 120, 4000dpi film scanner, to scan my "trannies" that range from 35mm to 645 to 67 (Medium Format is Still the King !) and then print them out myself on my Epson 1280. Until a consumer priced digital camera comes along that has at least a 53 Mb file output; I'll stick with film.

 

[cavemanxxx]

Shame shame, get ready to be slaughtered by the digi freaks. I agree with you, and in my case I live in Thailand :- benefits, well the film I can buy at comparable rates ( about US$ 4 per roll - velvia, E100VS etc ) ) but the development cost me $1 per roll. At those rates, slide is great and I have calculated it would take me about 17000 shots to break even. ( and thats not an apple to apple comparison as the resolution is still not up to film level)

If I want basic prints to send to mum&dad , the shop does a digital drum scan ( I think about 5MB for normal size prints ) and prints out a pic just as good as any you can normally find. And if you want superb stuff ( i.e. for framing purposes on the wall) , you can still go for the traditional prints or the 50MB drum scan ).

 

[-hh]

caveman once bubbled...
Shame shame, get ready to be slaughtered by the digi freaks...

If I want basic prints to send to mum&dad , the shop does a digital drum scan ( I think about 5MB for normal size prints ) and prints out a pic just as good as any you can normally find. And if you want superb stuff ( i.e. for framing purposes on the wall) , you can still go for the traditional prints or the 50MB drum scan ).

I've been tempted by digital for awhile, and the problem that the "digifreaks" (as you call them) have is that there's a difference between the image resolution that you may want today for the causal image sent to Mom&Pop versus what you want when National Geographic calls because of that spectacular, "once in a lifetime" photo of XYZ that they want for publication and scientific research.

The absolute resolution potential of 35mm (best everything) has been estimated at ~600 MP. Being more realistic with merely going to "Pro" class equipment, this drops, but to no less than 100MP.

This means that today's "state of the shelf" consumer 5MP cameras are operating at roughly 5% of the performance potential of 35mm, but since this is generally considered acceptable, it also means that our end-use applications are not generally sufficiently demanding to need more.

The sticky wicket is in the exceptions. Personally, I know that I'd be tempted to jump from a tall building if I were to purposefully be carrying an "inferior" system when confronted with a once-in-a-lifetime shot. And with diving, therein lies the rub: we don't know when those "lifetime" shots are going to come along.

My general strategy and approach has been to invest in a 35mm scanner, and make my low res (3-10 MP) digital scans from there. Their prices aren't too bad, particularly if you go for a flatbed scanner that has the tray feature built in.

Granted, it takes some time/work, but if nothing else, I have protection from PC crashes because my original isn't a digital file that I never got around to making a backup of. Instead, its a "hardcopy" (original slide/negative), and it also is retaining all of the high-density data for possible use for those "what if?" exceptional shots.

Insofar as specific film recommendations, for a high speed print film, I like Kodak Portra 400UC over the Fuji Superia 400. I'd also recommend George Lepp's newsletter, even though this will be the last year of its publication (URL: http://www.LeppPhoto.com)

-hh

 

[TheAvatar]

I am a film snob, but 600MP seems like a very high number for 35mm.

First off, it should be noted that converting dye and grain based film mediums to a pixel based resolution number to compare with bayer CCD/CMOS or foveon CMOS image sensors is a hard thing to do.

For an attempt though, we can try this equation assuming a very high 4800dpi (full color pixels, not pattern):

36mm*24mm*(1sqin/6.45sqmm)*(23.04MP/sqin)=30.86MP (full color)

So this equation would call for a 30.86MP Foveon style sensor or a 92.57MP bayer pattern sensor.