DSLRUsers.com

I have read that Fuji have released the Provia 400X which is supposed to be as finely grained as 100 ISO film.

Now, I was wondering if it is worthwhile going through the expense of shooting slide film, such as this, to end up scanning it when I could just shoot negative film for the same purpose.

Given that slide film has a lesser exposure latitude than neg film, is more expensive to buy and develop, and would (I understand) be harder to develop myself (when I get around to it) - is there a benefit to this compared to sticking with good 'ol neg film? eg. Fuji Pro 160 vs Provia 100 (ok, 1 stop difference, etc).

Hopefully I have explained my question well enough

Patrick,

You may have answered your own questions (all the disadvantages of slide film), although I guess you want the benefit of ISO 400 over ISO 100 of negative film.

I used to shoot almost exclusively with slide film, and while all the disadvantages you list were true back then, I found I got much richer and deeper colours. Processing E6 does have more steps than C41 but it really isn't any more difficult. I used to do my own E6, too.

Thanks for the fast reply.

Re 400vs100 ISO - I obviously realise I can get both in both mediums (hey, would evel like to try some 50 Velvia). So the ISO as such is not an issue.

Just wondering if the greater saturation that I understand you can get with slide film is worth the effort.

Sorry if my questioning is disjointed I just want to get an idea of the benefits (if any) of shooting slide for the purpose of scanning compared to negs (taking out the difference in film types). Or, at least, what issues I can consider in making up my mind.

(To put it in one perspective, the cost of developing 120 neg film is $5.50 at the Fuji staff shop locally. The cost for 120 slide film is something like $28)

Reschsmooth wrote:Just wondering if the greater saturation that I understand you can get with slide film is worth the effort.

In my opinion, it is, but only if you get the exposure right. Half a stop either way and you can either blow highlights or lose too much detail - although you have a little bit more margin for error on the latter.

Patrick, in the pre-digital era, if you wanted to get something published by a magazine it had to be submitted as a transparency and the reason was mainly due to quality. I guess it really depends of what you intend to do with the slides. I used to print slides onto Cibachrome paper and the quality was generally far superior to anything else in the c-41 world.

I just thought of another benefit of scanning slide film over negative film...

It should be a lot easier to get the colours right first go when scanning slide film. There will be some subtle difference from one film type to another, but nowhere as big as the difference from one C41 film to another. I remember when I used to print my own slides (on Cibachrome) and negs (on Kodak paper) and the latter was far more fiddly in terms of the filters in the enlarger. I would have to image you'd have the same issues with scanning.

Thanks guys

I would be nervous developing my own slide film (haven't even developed neg film yet!), but would like to try shooting a bit more with slide. I just didn't want them to then sit in a draw not being viewed.

Reschsmooth wrote:I have read that Fuji have released the Provia 400X which is supposed to be as finely grained as 100 ISO film.

Actually, what I've heard is that this is actually going to be new CF/SD card technology, imparting the film characteristics into any camera by modifying the files as they're being written to the card by the firmware on the card.

Reschsmooth wrote:Thanks guys

I would be nervous developing my own slide film (haven't even developed neg film yet!),

Easy.

We can do a workshop one day; all we need is a location.

And the time.

Reschsmooth wrote:I would be nervous developing my own slide film (haven't even developed neg film yet!),

It is easier than you probably think. If you can read instructions, a watch and a thermometer, you have all the skills required, well, other than loading film into the developing tank which can be a bit tricky.

Patrick
I think a switch to scanned slide film would only be worthwhile if it was medium format. Otherwise the current crop of DSLs can equal the quality of 35mm and there would be little or nothing to gain. I've been scanning a fair bit of film lately and the 6 x 6 and 6 x 7 really gives a lovely result. The scanner is the Epson V700.

Matt. K wrote:Patrick
I think a switch to scanned slide film would only be worthwhile if it was medium format. Otherwise the current crop of DSLs can equal the quality of 35mm and there would be little or nothing to gain. I've been scanning a fair bit of film lately and the 6 x 6 and 6 x 7 really gives a lovely result. The scanner is the Epson V700.

Matt - MF slide film was what I really had in mind, although, I am not sure of the quality of the scanner we are getting (for nuthin') is. But, saving up for the V700 if my scanning escapades go ok.

sorry to divert the topic (a lil) but im going to have a bronica sq-a in my possession soon and i was looking into getting a neg scaner, ive heard you can get cheap add on ones for regular scanners. is this true? also will a neg scanner be able to handle slide film? as i want to shoot slide stuff for publication applications instead of relying on my DSLR

DavidR wrote:sorry to divert the topic (a lil) but im going to have a bronica sq-a in my possession soon and i was looking into getting a neg scaner, ive heard you can get cheap add on ones for regular scanners. is this true? also will a neg scanner be able to handle slide film? as i want to shoot slide stuff for publication applications instead of relying on my DSLR

If you can afford it, get a Epson V700. It is the bee's knees in scanners. While it is a flat bed, it will do as good a job on negs and slides as some of the dedicated film scanners.

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/intera ... page_8.htm

Well, I may get m'self a box of Provia 400X 120 film to try. Although the cost of developing is a bit rich!

gstark wrote:Easy.

We can do a workshop one day; all we need is a location.

And the time.

That would be a good idea, location and time permitting!

Reschsmooth wrote:Well, I may get m'self a box of Provia 400X 120 film to try. Although the cost of developing is a bit rich!

gstark wrote:Easy.

We can do a workshop one day; all we need is a location.

And the time.

That would be a good idea, location and time permitting!

And I've just had a thought about this ...

Did it feel good??

It certainly was a rare event.

Cherish the feeling!

What, pray tell, was that thought?

Reschsmooth wrote:Cherish the feeling!

What, pray tell, was that thought?

That would be telling.

But I did remember that we may soon have access to a recently acquired resource that just might have some suitability for this sort of exercise.

Gary, not sure what you have in mind, but if you are thinking of establishing a good old fashioned darkroom, I can donate an antique colour analyser last known to be working 25 years ago.

phillipb wrote:Gary, not sure what you have in mind, but if you are thinking of establishing a good old fashioned darkroom, I can donate an antique colour analyser last known to be working 25 years ago.

Phillip,

That would be very nice.

I have enough hardware to take film through to neg (or tranny) stage (not that that's a lot of hardware), and I think I have some trays and tongs, so that just leaves us in need of an enlarger.

And yes, the venue, which was the subject of my thought, as noted above.

That would be great - especially if someone is also willing to run a tute or demo on scanning negs/trannies (leave the innuendo at the door )

gstark wrote:
And yes, the venue, which was the subject of my thought, as noted above.

Geez, I hope you're not thinking of tossing Leigh out of his room.

phillipb wrote:

gstark wrote:
And yes, the venue, which was the subject of my thought, as noted above.

Geez, I hope you're not thinking of tossing Leigh out of his room.

What room?

Who's Leigh, anyway?

I have an ANCIENT (40s or 50s or something) condenser enlarger... I have forgotten the brand. The condenser glass is good from memory, though it needs a new lens. I would love to see this old beast get some action one day...

Viz wrote: I would love to see this old beast get some action one day...

I could say the same about the person of the first party.