What do you do with your slide film?

[Jim Andrada]

I used to think the same thing about transparencies being easier to scan, and last time I looked I had close to a hundred sheets of 5 x 7 Provia and about a hundred rolls of 120 Provia in the freezer.

Unfortunately(?) I discovered that Ektar 100 scans beautifully as long as it isn't overexposed so it's what I mainly use for MF and 4 x 5. And I chipped into Keith Canham's group buy for 5 x 7 Ektar 100 as well.

Still love the look of the Provia, but have been VERY favorably impressed with the Ektar.

By the way, 4 x 5 and 8 x 10 Provia 100 are still showing as available at Yodobashi Camera in Japan. 8 x 10 transparencies are really impressive!

[alexn]

I love my 4x5 transparencies.. Even the ones a little too far under or over exposed for scanning are remarkable to the naked eye when on a light table... There is nothing quite like a big transparency.. I scan my slides at home, the best ones get drum scanned and printed...

Jim has a point too... I have in the past year discovered that when carefully exposed, Ektar 100 gives me very very good results for scanning and printing with more range than slides with similar strong color.. Still, if I had to pick either C41 or E-6 for the rest of time, I'd have to go for E-6

[alavergh]

As somebody who hasn't seen a large format transparency, I would think the ultimate goal of photography is getting an image on paper or at the very least, something that's displayable. Even framing it with a light behind it...except I thought I read that constant light would degrade the dyes or whatever is used to give chromes their color (was it Kodachrome that used dyes?)

I've always heard that slides are easier to scan in terms of color,I've seen some wonderful digital files from 4x5 slides, so I'm sure a print would look great made from a quality lab.

[Richard Johnson]

I think people who shoot chromes believe they are easier to scan... you haven't heard from negative shooters in this thread so it's preaching to the choir.

Basically the model workflow for chromes was to match the look of the chrome, and because it has a shorter range it is relatively easy to match with the scanner on auto-pilot. That's the way it was done since since the 50s, first with process cameras and later with huge drum scanners.

Color negative has a much greater range and when you scan it you have options, there is no "correct" exposure and the scanner operator or artist is faced with making decisions how to interpret the image. This breaks the old school photo reproduction model that many of the older traditional photographers grew up with but it has a lot of creative advantages -- you aren't locked into the simply reproducing the chrome. Just like a B&W neg in fact.

Color neg also gives you 12-14 stops of photographicable range as opposed to 5-6 with chrome. I've shot (tens of) thousands chromes as a pro since the early 80s but I'm glad to leave chromes (and Ciba and everything related) behind. Back then we (all of us, as an industry) needed to do 1/3 stop brackets, careful lighting, and tons of test Polaroids to give clients scannable chromes so I have to laugh when I hear of amateur nature-backpacking photographers shooting chromes without brackets in natural light... leaving tons of detail behind but making pretty pieces of stained plastic for the light box.

[dave_whatever]

you aren't locked into the simply reproducing the chrome.

You aren't locked into reproducing the chrome when shooting chromes either!

[Drew Wiley]

I'm trying to pin down internegatives, but making them costs way more than just going out and shooting a fresh color neg - and I'm already accumulating way more of those than I'll ever have time to actually print. But there are some very special 8x10 chromes I'd like to still print. Otherwise, any of my post-Ciba chromes are pretty much doomed, except for a handful I'm prepping for dye transfer printing, maybe possibly one of these days, if I get the time. But even if certain of these option hit a dead end, it has still been worthwhile because it's given me an even broader grasp of advanced color masking etc, which has already come into play printing color negs themselves. I'm very encouraged, at least as long as Kodak is still making color neg sheet film, and Fuji is making the paper. I figure my odds are pretty good at least until I'm too old and arthritic to print color anymore at all. I really dislike the pasted-on, stencil-like look of saturated inkjet colors. Prefer the transparency of real dyes.

[towolf]

Guy on German LF forum describes the 9x12 Epi-Diaskop projector from "VEB Bildwerfer" he found

[jnantz]

i love putting slide film between 2 pieces of glass and hanging it in a window ..
the sun illuminates it like stained glass, and its new every day.

[StoneNYC]

I don't know where this myth that Velvia is hard to scan comes from. If exposed correctly it's a doodle to scan, and certainly much easier to produce a file with beautiful consistent colour than colour neg film!

Agreed +1

I used to think the same thing about transparencies being easier to scan, and last time I looked I had close to a hundred sheets of 5 x 7 Provia and about a hundred rolls of 120 Provia in the freezer.

Unfortunately(?) I discovered that Ektar 100 scans beautifully as long as it isn't overexposed so it's what I mainly use for MF and 4 x 5. And I chipped into Keith Canham's group buy for 5 x 7 Ektar 100 as well.

Still love the look of the Provia, but have been VERY favorably impressed with the Ektar.

By the way, 4 x 5 and 8 x 10 Provia 100 are still showing as available at Yodobashi Camera in Japan. 8 x 10 transparencies are really impressive!

You can still buy Provia100f and Velvia100 from B&H in 4x5 AND 8x10 ... No need to buy from japan...