projecting images for an illustrated lecture

[Henry Carter]

I have to give an illustrated lecture to a group of about 400 people. My talk involves speaking about and showing images that I have documented with my 4X5 camera. When speaking to smaller groups I have used a set of matted 16X20" prints on two easels with lights, and this has worked well. This approach will not however work for speaking to larger groups.

For a presentation to a large group I have two options:

(1) Scan my 11X14" portfolio prints and project jpegs with an LCD projector as part of a power-point presentation, or:

(2) Make 35mm transparencies (i.e. photograph my prints) and project them optically.

Which route should I take??

[Louie Powell]

This is the 21st century. I would opt for the powerpoint presentation, recognizing that the optical quality won't be quite as good, but the flexibility that comes with powerpoint is a read advantage.

However, I would also take along a selection of prints that could be use to illustrate the quality that comes from LF and that can be used to engage members of the audience in dialog following the formal presentation.

[Robert A. Zeichner]

I recently made several sets of B&W slides using T-max100 and processing with Kodak's Direct Positive kit. Results were excellent. A kit will do (10) 36 exposure rolls as I recall.

[lee\c]

I would just shoot the prints in some color slide film on a copy stand and be done with it. Either bracket or make a test roll and let some automatic processor deal with it.

leec

[David A. Goldfarb]

I do the same as Lee--shoot 35mm copy slides. The optical quality is much better than LCD projection, even with a relatively cheap projector. Most art historians I know who lecture with slides all the time still prefer slides for most things. The only time I would be tempted to use Powerpoint would be if the talk would otherwise require more than two projectors.

[John Flavell]

Always take prints. People love prints, especially if they're allowed to hold them and talk about them.

[Henry Carter]

Thanks to all for your input. Given that I work in B&W with a 4X5 camera and make fibre based prints, it makes more sense to maximize the projection quality by using 35mm transparencies.

One of our local labs has a Scala processor, and they can make Scala copy slides. The other local labs make copy slides with color transparency duplicating film. I assume that Scala is the better option.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I'm not sure, really. If you have time, you might do a test, or ask the lab what they think. Scala is really beautiful, but I'm guessing it will pick up more contrast than dupe film.

[Henry Carter]

That's a good point. The lab can pull the Scala to flatten the contrast a bit. I have the time to do some testing. I will take the same two prints and have Scala copy slides made in one lab and then have another lab make copy slides with duplicating film. I will need to have 50 to 60 slides made for my lecture.

[Ralph Barker]

Another option to Scala, Henry, is any of several conventional B&W films that process well in dr5 to produce B&W positive transparencies. See www.dr5.com for details and examples with various films.