Okay, here's a REALLY stupid question

Sharkbait · May 10, 2004

I'm considering submitting some of my rural photos for publication in Country Magazine, and they prefer transparencies. All my work has always been digital, and to be honest, I don't even know what the hell a transparency is. Do they mean like a plastic transparency like I'd put on an overhead projector at school?? :scratch:

photogoddess · May 10, 2004

They want slides.

markc · May 10, 2004

You could use a service like this: http://www.colorslide.com/
I just grabbed that from Google. I have no idea how good they are.

soulfly · May 10, 2004

you can have a transparency (slide) made from any print right at wal-mart. it does take two weeks though, so be sure to factor that in ...its something like $1.50 from the print.

Galaxy_Stranger · May 10, 2004

Shops like Pharmacies and Wally-World basically only do the one-hour thing. Anything you can't get that day is sent off to a local photographer or print shop anyway.

If you'd like it quicker, go for a local lab. Good Pro labs can be hard to find depending on where you live, but can usually have your work back to you in about a week.

Besides, Wal Mart sux anyway.

markc · May 10, 2004

It really depends on the location. I know a pro that uses a particular Wal-Mart because he has built a relationship with the people at that location and they know him.

Of course if you mean the company in general, I agree.

Face · May 10, 2004

what are the advantages of slides? won't you lose something in the conversion? Also, do they have the same ratio as 35mm film?

Galaxy_Stranger · May 10, 2004

Slides are more contrasty. Colors tend to be more vibrant. You have much less error for mistake. If you want prints, shoot it on color print film because it records a greater tonal range, and that's really what you want in portraits - if that's your goal.

Shoot both for a while and send them to a pro lab so you can learn what you get from each.

Sharkbait · May 11, 2004

Thanks for all the info.

The magazine editors said they will take prints, but prefer transparencies. Guess I'll get a couple of my shots done up as transparencies and see which is better looking. :-D

markc · May 11, 2004

Shark said:
Thanks for all the info.

The magazine editors said they will take prints, but prefer transparencies. Guess I'll get a couple of my shots done up as transparencies and see which is better looking. :-D

I'd go with the slides. Even though they are smaller, they hold more resolution, and have better color, contrast, etc, than paper prints, which is why they prefer them. And they are easier to view and handle than negs. You can just plop them on a lightbox and know what you've got.

photogoddess · May 11, 2004

One more thing... If you are shooting digital, have them make the slides from the digital files. Print film, from the negs. The quality will degrade with every generation that you add to the process. You will get more contrast and loss of details in the darker and lighter areas of your image.

How it works... Digital or neg would be first generation. If you make a print from them, that is a second generation image. If you make a slide from that, it's a third generation image. Making the slide from you digital or neg would make the slide a second generation image.

omega_zulu · May 11, 2004

Given that you can get more light by pushing it through something than you ever could by bouncing it off something, it's possible to have better DMIN and DMAX. Therefore you can also be more accurate in the highlight and shadow than with reflective material. This results in higher dynamic range.

They're trying to start with more, and more accurate information. Every time you transfer from media to media you lose something. So, if you start with the max possible you can have less total loss on your final product.