Slides vs. print

[Erik D.]

I know most people prefer slides, but with todays print film (like Fuji Sensia 4th colorlayer) is slides really still the only way to go? A guy from Fuji told me that their Sensia film will undoubtedly last better in the heat than Velvia and Provia. It is after all no problem nowadays to use negative film for printing matters (books,magazines etc.) Any opinions?

Erik


------------------

[Alanb]

This is really a matter of personal preference. Slides are cheaper (no printing costs) have generally better colour reproduction but need a lot of effort to view in comparison to prints as you need a loupe or projector, the quality of which affects the final quality.

Personally, I shoot only prints (mostly Fuji Reala at 64) because its a lot more convieniant for my needs. Reala is magnificient!!! Very sharp, saturated, but accurate colours. High speed print film eg. 400 and up, is a lot less grainy than the equivalent slide film as well.

There is an argument for slides in combination with a good quality scanner for the best of both worlds, ie avoid printing costs, except for the one or two shots on a roll that are really worth it, and then either scan them and print them yourself or use something like the Fuji Frontier machine to print commercially with great results.

[Grant Johnson]

Actually most people prefer prints - it's something like 90% of the film sales.

Slides are still preferred by printers, but as you say can use negs as well and get similar results.

But there's nothing an art director prefers to putting a bunch of slides on a light table. They tell the whole story right there.

We use both, to cover ourselves thoroughly, and a high quality scanner.

If your interest is in reproduction, talk to the people you want to sell to and see what they say.

Alanb is right, mostly it's personal preference and what you want to do with it after. Slide shows require slides.

I never shoot film faster than 200 and throw most of it away when I do.

Regarding cost, remember that you have to bracket with slide film and so will burn up three times as much of it. I'm not sure it works out cheaper...

As far as life in the heat is concerned, I'll believe the Fuji rep, but haven't seen any problem with our slide film.

All film should be kept cool, don't use professional film, keep it in ziplock bags out of the canisters for compactness, and in an insulated bag inside a saddlebag away from exhaust heat. The saddlebag should NOT be black.

We spent 9 months in Africa and shot over 500 rolls of film, (mostly slide) with no problem. And most of that time was in the deserts and hot countries.

------------------
Grant Johnson

One world, Two wheels.
www.HorizonsUnlimited.com

[This message has been edited by Grant Johnson (edited 18 April 2002).]

[rodskogj]

As was stated before this is really a personal choice based on what you are using it for. If you are selling images to a stock agency, then no doubt slides are a plus as this is what they are used to receiving. If you are publishing a magazine article them negs are fine.

One thing to keep in mind though: If you are scanning your slides/negs for computer use, then negs come out better than slides. This is because negative film has a larger dynamic range then slide film, i.e. more ranges for gray and color can be captured by neg film. In practical terms this usually means that the shadow (dark) areas come out better when scanned from negs.

One more thing. Pro films are (a lot) more expensive, but may be worth it if traveling in hot climates. Many of the pro and consumer slide films are actually identical, but the pro film has been stored under better and controlled conditions (i.e. cold) while consumer slides are stored at room temperature (quite hot in some countries). One result of this is that the 'pro' slide film will have a longer life then 'consumer' film before the undeveloped film starts deteriorating (i.e. loses the ability to record color accurately). So, if you are going a l-o-n-g time in hot weather with slide film, than pro film is a safer choice.

Johan Rodskog
www.rodskog.com

[Photog Rob]

Johan,

I beg to differ on this. By all means I advise using the film best suited for final use - if you want prints to show around, go with print film, for publication and presentations, go slide. But that aside, my experience of many years working as a pro photographer, and the last six involved also with the design and printing business shows quite different results than yours.

For one, many stock houses won't even LOOK at negatives, it's a "chrome or none" policy. And besides that, negatives for magazine reproduction are not "fine". They are "workable" and will do, but many people will be grumbling and swearing to get proper scans from your film. This is because many high-end scanner operators (myself included) have endless trouble getting proper colour balance from negs (it's not as easy as substracting the orange mask!), let alone match the colour you saw in that spectacular pinkish-salmon sunrise in the Sahara without significant input and GOOD prints to guide ourselves by. And believe me, when colour balance goes awry, not many people will even look at the nice dinamic range you managed to keep (and that will mostly be lost to dot gain and paper-ink limitations when offset printed).

This being the case, I know many service bureaus that will charge double or triple to produce repro-quality scans from negs than from slides. I have also seen many magazine articles being illustrated with scans from prints, but that is not the ideal scenario if you want quality.

Bottom line? think about what you're going to do with your images: if they're for you, use what you like most. If you plan on big traditional enlargements to hang on a wall, go print. But if you're pitching to quality magazines, go with slides and your chances of success are much, much higher.

And let's not get started on digital in this thread too!

best,

Roberto.

[Grant Johnson]

Originally posted by rodskogj:

One more thing. Pro films are (a lot) more expensive, but may be worth it if traveling in hot climates. Many of the pro and consumer slide films are actually identical, but the pro film has been stored under better and controlled conditions (i.e. cold) while consumer slides are stored at room temperature (quite hot in some countries). One result of this is that the 'pro' slide film will have a longer life then 'consumer' film before the undeveloped film starts deteriorating (i.e. loses the ability to record color accurately). So, if you are going a l-o-n-g time in hot weather with slide film, than pro film is a safer choice.

Johan Rodskog
www.rodskog.com

I guess this is "beat up on Johan time"

I'll take serious exception to Johans comments on why pro film is better for hot weather.

Pro film is indeed kept in ideal conditions before delivery to the consumer. The reason is that film "ages". When it is fresh made it's "green" or not ripe and not yet perfect colour. Pro film is aged just right, and is perfect when delivered - and then deteriorates from that moment on if it is not refrigerated.

Amateur film (slide or neg) on the other hand is shipped "green", and so improves with age, and it will be some time before it actually deteriorates. I've been told that manufacturers expect amateur film to be unrefrigerated for up to two years before processing, and must still give good colour. So with any luck it will be perfect halfway through your trip!

------------------
Grant Johnson

One world, Two wheels.
www.HorizonsUnlimited.com

[This message has been edited by Grant Johnson (edited 18 April 2002).]