Slide vs. Regular film.

[New Hampshire]

Hey Folks,

Been quite a while since I posted here. Kind of picked up new hobbies and got away from photography a bit. But recently I decided to undergo a new personal project to get me back into the swing of things. My main camera is a Canon XTi dSLR, but as part of this project I want to dust off my old baby, a Pentax K1000 with 1:2.8 24mm lens that I have not used for quite a few years. Now, all photos are going to wind up on the computer (I do have a decent scanner that can do both slide and regular film) so I am debating if it is really worth going the Fuji velvia route knowing I will be scanning and correcting in Photoshop Elements. In the past I have used Velvia and then scanned it onto the computer, and I have found it still needed a bit of correction in Elements (scanned photos, at least with the scanner I have, seem to lose a touch of it's saturation and a little bit of brightness). Between the availability of the slide film (I would have to mailorder it) and the fact it would have to be sent out for developing as opposed to regular film which is more readily available here as well as local developing. So what do you think, is the extra cost and effort of slide film worth it since it is all being scanned into digital? If regular film is your suggestion what would you suggest for a good regular film for scenery (in 50 or 100 ISO if possible)?

Thanks!
Brian

 

[MattxMosh]

Hey Folks,

Been quite a while since I posted here. Kind of picked up new hobbies and got away from photography a bit. But recently I decided to undergo a new personal project to get me back into the swing of things. My main camera is a Canon XTi dSLR, but as part of this project I want to dust off my old baby, a Pentax K1000 with 1:2.8 24mm lens that I have not used for quite a few years. Now, all photos are going to wind up on the computer (I do have a decent scanner that can do both slide and regular film) so I am debating if it is really worth going the Fuji velvia route knowing I will be scanning and correcting in Photoshop Elements. In the past I have used Velvia and then scanned it onto the computer, and I have found it still needed a bit of correction in Elements (scanned photos, at least with the scanner I have, seem to lose a touch of it's saturation and a little bit of brightness). Between the availability of the slide film (I would have to mailorder it) and the fact it would have to be sent out for developing as opposed to regular film which is more readily available here as well as local developing. So what do you think, is the extra cost and effort of slide film worth it since it is all being scanned into digital? If regular film is your suggestion what would you suggest for a good regular film for scenery (in 50 or 100 ISO if possible)?

Thanks!
Brian

You don't have to mail order slide film, theres a Hunt's in Manchester! I send mine to Dwaynes for processing though.

I'm partial to Provia, but Velvia 50 is still around. I don't really shoot much color nogative film, but Kodak Portra 160VC I like.

There's no "best" film though, just whatcha like.

 

[KenC]

Since it will end up as a digital file, I'm not sure you should go with slide film, which has less dynamic range than print film. I don't remember the numbers, but you could look it up and see that color negatives have at least a stop or two more range. If you shoot a contrasty scene and the highlights and/or shadows are beyond the range of the film, and so end up being pure white or black, respectively, you can't fix that in processing. Of course if you never take pictures in contrasty light it may not matter.

 

[New Hampshire]

Ok, been poking around the net since I posted this. I think I am going to give the Kodak Ektar a whirl and see ow it works. Looks like the Ektar has as fine a grain as can be had in regular film, has somewhat similar saturation as slide, and was designed to get good results from scanning.

Thanks for the replies!

Brian

 

[Orrin]

For some time I have been using color-negative film and working digital after it is scanned.

Since it is going to end up in an image editor (I use Gimp) anyway, the parameters of the
film you use are less important. I have been using whatever 200 speed film that is available
at Walmart with good results. It use to be Kodak Gold, now it's Fuji Superia.

I get fairly good 6 megapixel scans on a CD from my local camera store and have the ability
to rescan with my Canon MP990 if neccessary.

 

[swimswithtrout]

Probably not relevant, since its no longer being produced, but I was bequeathed all of my Grandfather slides 4 yrs ago, starting with his Kodachrome slides dating back to the 1940's when it was first publicly available.

The colors on the Kodachrome's are still as dripping wet/saturated as if they came straight from the original processor.

He experimented with several other slide films, some of which are completely faded, some of which are now too red shifted to be worth anything than a B&W transfer.

They only thing that's survived intact has been the Kodachrome.

Something for all of us to thing about in the digital age.

What storage/file type will still be recognizable to the naked eye 70 yrs from now.

I can pick up my Grandfathers slides, look at tham, and know what they are.

Will my grandchildren be able to do the same thing with all the IDE hard drives I have from my 10-15 yr old computers sitting in a box my closet ?