Slides! - Very impressed

  • Thread starter Deleted member 21335
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Deleted member 21335

Guest
Despite my lack of photographic ability in this particular roll (many others too, but specifically this one), I have just mounted a roll of Velvia 100 that I shot bout 18-24 months ago and has just been sat there. I recently picked up a Kodak carousel projector for Vic as she wanted to do artwork on acetate and project it but seeing photos projected has completely blown my mind. I have heard the merits of it previously and how it gives the images depth but I am surprised just how much, particularly as these are not great images.

It's actually tempting me to shoot exclusively slide for colour and just project. I have scans of this roll but projecting them completely blows the scans away.

slides.jpg
 
Back in my Camera club day some of the print and slide comps were outstanding , The colour and vibrance of slides is as you say amazing , Have fun
 
You've made me go and dig out my screen and projector..got loads of Kodachrome and Fujichrome slides from big trips to Asia in the 1980s and 90s. Time to bore the kids with tales of India and China etc..

PS where did you get the E6 processing done? I have a 645 slide film to send away.
 
Last edited:
Back in my Camera club day some of the print and slide comps were outstanding , The colour and vibrance of slides is as you say amazing , Have fun

Totally agree. The colours have totally sold me when projected. Such depth.

Those were the days.
Velvia 50 or Kodachrome 64 were always my first choices.

However good they were, I couldn't go back to those days though :exit:

I wish I was able to shoot Kodachrome. I have books here full of beautiful images by the greats all shot on it. Eggleston, Herzog, etc. All beautiful.

You could go back to those days (alas not Kodachrome), just just choose not to, which is fine.

You've made me go and dig out my screen and projector..got loads of Kodachrome and Fujichrome slides from big trips to Asia in the 1980s and 90s. Time to bore the kids with tales of India and China etc..

PS where did you get the E6 processing done? I have a 645 slide film to send away.

Glad to have inspired you. I got the done I THINK at Peak but AG are also very good I believe.
 
Usually good enough colour but even Kodachrome has poor resolution compared to modern digital imagery, and the brightness range usually blows out the highlights and blocks the shadows in bright sun.

However large format in the controlled conditions of the studio could produce outstanding images for reproduction.
 
Usually good enough colour but even Kodachrome has poor resolution compared to modern digital imagery, and the brightness range usually blows out the highlights and blocks the shadows in bright sun.

However large format in the controlled conditions of the studio could produce outstanding images for reproduction.

Modern digital imagery is an area where I have little interest, though Terry. I have books here with probably thousands of beautiful images made by much better photographers than I will ever be. I also have little interested in over analysing imagery based on it's blown highlights or resolution.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Usually good enough colour but even Kodachrome has poor resolution compared to modern digital imagery, and the brightness range usually blows out the highlights and blocks the shadows in bright sun.

However large format in the controlled conditions of the studio could produce outstanding images for reproduction.

This reminded me when we had a visiting well known professional photographer to our club who brought hundreds of slides to show of wildlife etc. For some of our members, it was the first time they had seen slides projected and were generally shocked at how poor they looked compared with our usual digital presentations. They were not a shock to those of us who used slides in the past. The problem is lack of dynamic range. To be fair he did not normally have burnt out highlights but as a consequence most of the shadows were blocked up. Composition wise his shots were very good and he has used a digital camera for some time now, so his recent images are fine.

Dave
 
Modern digital imagery is an area where I have little interest, though Terry. I have books here with probably thousands of beautiful images made by much better photographers than I will ever be. I also have little interested in over analysing imagery based on it's blown highlights or resolution.

Yet you are praising the transparency technology over digital.
If it were purely Imagery that was your criteria., then the technology involved. Digital or Analogue, would not matter.

Film imagery fed me and my family for most of my life, but it has few if any inherent advantages in capturing Images.
It is undoubtedly an interesting but largely historic technology.
But one that I have been happy to set aside in my later years.
Had those past masters had the availability of modern Digital Technology, they would have been delighted,
but one can not interpolate from that, whether they would have created better or worse images, than they actually did.
They were people of their time. just as we are.
 
Yet you are praising the transparency technology over digital.
If it were purely Imagery that was your criteria., then the technology involved. Digital or Analogue, would not matter.

Film imagery fed me and my family for most of my life, but it has few if any inherent advantages in capturing Images.
It is undoubtedly an interesting but largely historic technology.
But one that I have been happy to set aside in my later years.
Had those past masters had the availability of modern Digital Technology, they would have been delighted,
but one can not interpolate from that, whether they would have created better or worse images, than they actually did.
They were people of their time. just as we are.

It is the imagery that is the criteria, but personally I dislike digital image capture. It is not compatible for me to film. It's a different way of creating an image. What I don't get, constantly is how a thread gets started about a subject, whatever that may be and then people come on purely to say how bad it is. Happened here, happened in various Polaroid and Holga threads.
You say that film has no advantages over digital. I can list several...but I won't. If you are so happy to leave it behind, keep into the digital threads with their higher standard of imagery.
Forums are creative cancer. I have said it for a long time and this is the straw that has broken the camels back for me. I have no desire to partake in such discussion any more. I shall take my sub standard image discussion elsewhere, hopefully in real life with real people.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What I don't get, constantly is how a thread gets started about a subject, whatever that may be and then people come on purely to say how bad it is.

Terry didn't knock transparency, but gave a balanced view:

Usually good enough colour but even Kodachrome has poor resolution compared to modern digital imagery, and the brightness range usually blows out the highlights and blocks the shadows in bright sun.
However large format in the controlled conditions of the studio could produce outstanding images for reproduction.

Gaz - it seems to me that you want a non-digital panacea for all situations, and that all should recognise the superiority of chemical-based image generation. I shot transparency in the 80s, and while it was good for some things, in certain situations it was a very poor choice due to limitations of dynamic range and a colour bias that could not be fixed. The first time I was really knocked out by an image was when I printed a Cibachrome from a shot I'd taken on Ektachrome of a friend's wife & daughter, but in less easy circumstances where contrast is high and the colour temperature of the light is not ideal then slide images often look horrid.

If you don't mind me suggesting it, next time someone comes into one of your 'specialist process' threads and doesn't praise the topic/medium, just ignore the comment and move on. This isn't an argument worth becoming involved in.
 
I wish I was able to shoot Kodachrome. I have books here full of beautiful images by the greats all shot on it. Eggleston, Herzog, etc. All beautiful.

Completely agree. Wish we could get Kodachrome back. In return for 100 rolls of Kodachrome and a lab able to process them, I would offer 1000 armchair digital photography enthusiasts, their Sony A7 IIIs, their resolution charts on Dpreview, their crappy HDR 150MPixels photos of waterfalls in slow motion or kingfisher in flight, and their trite and unsolicited opinions on the 'superiority' of a medium over another one.
 
Last edited:
gazmorton2000 - I'm glad you are finding slides a medium you like. I used to make the film and paper most of used to use back in the day, under controlled conditions or great lighting i agree with you slides really are magnificent when taken on what i would consider the best film cameras of the day that had multi spot metering. Viewd in a slide viewer or on a light box the images are superb and have that depth that is quite unique. I've seen images taken on the Olympus OM4 Ti that would blow your mind away. Equally i've taken images on a newly acquired to me Canon eos 1V back in 2010 when everyone was selling of this stuff and you had the pic of the best minty stuff out there. I'm no pro just someone who likes the idea of bettering myself, theres a long way to go.

This was just a quick grab taken 3 years or so ago on the Canon Eos 1V using Ektar 100 with canons ef 50mm f1.4 lens.

49824742532_a9fb5cb9c8_b.jpg
 
Honestly, I despair of some people on this forum. Why on earth would you stamp up and down on someone's enthusiasm like this, if you don't agree fine, keep it to yourself but don't flood in here (especially from the digital side) and slag of film photography.
Gareth was a really appreciated member of this forum and now you've driven him away with your stupid and pointless argument.
 
Congrats guys. You really just can’t help yourselves can you. All this resolution this, image quality that, dynamic range what ever... can’t you just appreciate something regardless of it’s comparative merits? Of course not, what a daft notion. Instead what’s been achieved is that yet another someone, who actually contributed something to the forum, has left. :clap:
 
I'm sad he's gone too, but he always seemed a man on a mission rather than someone who had found his niche, for whom the medium and not the result was the most important thing. Conflict was automatic. IIRC the main source of disagreement on the instant film thread was another film user.
 
I have heard the merits of it previously and how it gives the images depth but I am surprised just how much, particularly as these are not great images.
Film is fundamentally a three-dimensional medium. A tiny fresco chiseled with light and chemistry. Projecting directly through the transparency gives a depth that can't be replicated with pixels.

I've gone digital now and never looked back, but there are certain aspects of film that I truly miss. This three dimensionality is one of them. Some of my most striking impressions of an image came from editing negatives with a loupe on a light table. The peaks and valleys in an emulsion could tell you more about lens sharpness than any DXO review.
 
Terry didn't knock transparency, but gave a balanced view:

In my opinion, Terry gave an inappropriate, unwelcome and uninvited view for the F&C section. Yes, in accordance with the rules, he had every right to post it, but the F&C regulars now have every right to express their displeasure.

We don't turn up in Mirrorless camera threads and start posting our views about film photography being much more fun than digital, so we expect the same courtesy to be extended to the F&C section.

As for resolution, it's only comparatively recently that 35mm equivalent digital cameras have been able to get near the resolution of slide films like Kodachrome 64. This was taken in 1983 and has been scanned on a 'cheap' consumer-grade home flatbed scanner. Projected on a screen there's absolutely loads of detail in there. Put it this way, if I'd had a professional quality drum scan done of this slide and posted it as being from a modern digital camera, I doubt many on the TP forum would notice the difference and shout fake!

 
Last edited:
I'm sad he's gone too, but he always seemed a man on a mission rather than someone who had found his niche, for whom the medium and not the result was the most important thing. Conflict was automatic. IIRC the main source of disagreement on the instant film thread was another film user.

To be fair, this is literally the F&C ‘niche’ section on TP, so comparisons to digital images are largely irrelevant. If Gareth had posted his thread in the Equipment section, I could understand people chipping in with direct technology comparisons, but he didn’t.

As it is, even as someone whose business is analogue photography, it’s also pretty obvious to me that digital sensors have inherent benefits over film, especially in less than ideal conditions, but that’s not the point and not something I’d set out to pitch in a thread about someone enjoying projecting slide film for the first time. I use digital as much as film, and do find it largely sterile, but it serves the purpose for me. I’d never wish to shoot a wedding/event on film, and have massive respect for those who still choose to. Just because some posters on here have used film for their film career, and are now entirely digital converts, doesn’t mean that everyone else is wrong for wanting to use film.

The fact that Gareth has decided to delete his account on here is disappointing. As someone who has strived to run his own business using analogue gear, his work has always impressed me, and he’s a seriously nice guy too.
 
Last edited:
Oh dear, these types of thread are becoming a little too frequent recently and I too, like Gareth and the OP of this thread, could quite easily opt out of the forum .

I come in here for enjoyment not to hear that other members who have lots to contribute to the forum have quitted due to the behaviour of other members.

Hopefully @gazmorton will reconsider his decission and return in due course.
 
Yet you are praising the transparency technology over digital.
If it were purely Imagery that was your criteria., then the technology involved. Digital or Analogue, would not matter.

Film imagery fed me and my family for most of my life, but it has few if any inherent advantages in capturing Images.
It is undoubtedly an interesting but largely historic technology.
But one that I have been happy to set aside in my later years.
Had those past masters had the availability of modern Digital Technology, they would have been delighted,
but one can not interpolate from that, whether they would have created better or worse images, than they actually did.
They were people of their time. just as we are.

As companies like Intrepid have sold over 5000 4x5 cameras over the last 4.5 years, and there are over 160 Chroma’s out in the world, I’d argue that film photography isn’t a historic medium.

Whilst it’s undoubtedly a niche compared to the millions of digital cameras, writing it off in general because you personally spent your working career using it over the last few decades, is a little bit of a generalisation. The number of younger photographers turning to analogue photography, due to becoming bored with digital gear, shows that it is a growing niche again. Not every image calls for pixel peeping.

Many photographers are still perfectly able to take dull/awful photographs with the latest digital kit.
 
Put it this way, if I'd had a professional quality drum scan done of this slide and posted it as being from a modern digital camera, I doubt many on the TP forum would notice the difference and shout fake!

38547498541_4a7c8a08a9_h.jpg

Exactly this. Digital has only come of age around 2009 ish and even then quality Medium format blew that away. The major difference for me in digital is the lattitude is superior in difficult light but take transparencies or C41 in decent lighting and the advantage digital has is removed. When i left Kodak in 2001 film was way better than digital although sadly the writing was on the wall. Great shot by the way.
 
To be fair, this is literally the F&C ‘niche’ section on TP, so comparisons to digital images are largely irrelevant. If Gareth had posted his thread in the Equipment section, I could understand people chipping in with direct technology comparisons, but he didn’t.
.

I wonder if Terry found the thread through the 'new posts' listing, possibly on a mobile device that doesn't show which section a thread is in? I have purposely stayed out of his threads about film because they are all very focused on a specific viewpoint and discussion is pointless, however in this case it seemed Terry's comments were reasonable rather than being an attack.

Fwiw I have shot weddings on film - there's nothing special about the medium, but you just go and take the best darn pictures you can in the circumstances.
 
I wonder if Terry found the thread through the 'new posts' listing, possibly on a mobile device that doesn't show which section a thread is in? I have purposely stayed out of his threads about film because they are all very focused on a specific viewpoint and discussion is pointless, however in this case it seemed Terry's comments were reasonable rather than being an attack.

Fwiw I have shot weddings on film - there's nothing special about the medium, but you just go and take the best darn pictures you can in the circumstances.

I’m not sure it matters what section the post was in though really. It was literally started by Gareth because he projected his slide film for the first time and was so impressed with it that he wanted to share. For others to come in and essentially say, “I did that 30 years ago, I now only shoot digital, so it’s therefore much better” is a little bit like peeing on someone’s parade.

Yes, digital gives a ‘better’ result in unfavourable conditions, as a modern car runs rings around my old Golf Gti in the rain, but that’s not the point.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if Terry found the thread through the 'new posts' listing, possibly on a mobile device that doesn't show which section a thread is in? I have purposely stayed out of his threads about film because they are all very focused on a specific viewpoint and discussion is pointless, however in this case it seemed Terry's comments were reasonable rather than being an attack.

Fwiw I have shot weddings on film - there's nothing special about the medium, but you just go and take the best darn pictures you can in the circumstances.
We appreciate that there are some people who don't like film photography. Fine, that's your prerogative, but don't turn up on a film photography forum and start saying that digital is loads better! It's the equivalent of turning up to a classic car club meet in a brand new SUV and trying to tell everyone there that your new car is much better than their old ones. You'd just be regarded as being a total t*sser.
 
Last edited:
I hope Gareth comes back. For one thing, he's a great photographer and for another, he's a really nice bloke!

I (still) like the idea of film photography and LOVE the colours that slides used to give me but no longer have the attention span that I feel I would need to keep shooting film. It's bad enough waiting for me to get round to uploading to the 'puter, let alone for a set to come back from Fuji. Even then, I used to scan the slides for printing rather than projecting, although I do have a projector and screen in the loft. Happily, my attention span is improving (slowly but surely) so hopefully I'll be able to start using the TLR I bought from the classies here a year or 2 ago - 2 1/4" trannies will be even better than the 35mm I used to shoot!
 
My neighbour recently bought a 1952 Jaguar XK120.

He was telling me how much he loved it and how, for him, it was a far better driving experience than modern cars.

Obviously I pointed out that, while his car was very nice, it was clearly lacking in terms of reliability, performance, handling and safety compared to my Lexus.

He appreciated my balanced input and I feel very pleased that I was able to help him.
 
Last edited:
My neighbour recently bought a 1952 Jaguar XK120.

He was telling me how much he loved it and how, for him, it was a far better driving experience than modern cars.

Obviously I pointed out that, while his car was very nice, it was clearly lacking in terms of reliability, performance, handling and safety compared to my Lexus.

He appreciated my balanced input and I feel very pleased that I was able to help him.

Indeed, and obviously the paint job lacked dynamic range and the headlights were blown.
 
I never said that I did not like film photography. I emphasized that the image was more important than the medium used. Analog or digital.
I processed and printed my first film over 75 years ago. And could do so still. However it would not be progress for me either technically or artistically. So I have set it aside. However I still own large format to 35mm film cameras. And I still see fine film images mostly produced in America, Russia and Europe often using primative materials that are breaking new boundaries. But they are getting fewer and further between, by the day.

It is true that film photography has become a minority hobby in its own right. And long may it continue. And there is a growing interest in film equipment.
However, I see remarkably few interesting images produced with film these days in forums. With post emphasing equipment, materials, and processing, and only rarely showing interesting images.

This is a shame, as the process deserves better, with a greater emphasis on image making that takes advantage of its unique qualities.

This of course is my own opinion and may bare no relation to what the new generation of film photographers think film photography should be about.

Perhaps my post will give food for thought. If only fleetingly. Or for as little as it may deserve.
 
Last edited:
I never said that I did not like film photography. I emphasized that the image was more important than the medium used. Analog or digital.

.........……....

However, I see remarkably few interesting images produced with film these days in forums. With post emphasing equipment, materials, and processing, and only rarely showing interesting images.

Your post is confusing. You state that too much emphasis is put on the medium itself, then go on to state that you see few interesting images produced on film.

Surely, by your own post, the medium is irrelevant. Therefore, if you see few remarkable images, the issue is the photographers themselves, rather than what they’re recording their work on?

As I said, I use digital as much as film, so I’m not trying to defend the honour of analogue photography. My issue is that a thread started by someone, who found enjoyment in a new process specifically for them, has ended with them deleting their account on here as a result of other photographers being unable to appreciate that.
 
Last edited:
While Kodachrome undoubtedly produce many of the world's finest images. It was old technology and dying on the vine long before Digital came on the scene. The cine film world had long since deserted complex processing emulsions like Kodachrome or the even the more complex
Technicolour. To a very large extent both still and cinema photography had moved on to negative positive colour emulsions.
They were not necessarily better quality, but they were ultimatel more practical and far easier to colour grade, edit and reproduce.

Photography. Has always been led by technical need and technical invention. This process was still ongoing right up to the time digital rudely appeared on the scene.

Of recent times much interesting film work has been done reinventing ancient techniques with modern chemistry. However many films and papers have had to be reinvented for production on simpler and lower production machinery. Modern film photographers only have a ghost of what was once available. In many ways they are having to start over again. Often with inferior emulsions.

Unfortunately all this is getting in the way of the real purpose of photography. Image making.

This is exactly the same problem that has dogged Digital photography. Photographers are spending so much time and effort reinventing themselve, with new techniques, equipment and manipulation, that making interesting and potentially important images has become secondary to the process itself.

None of this in anyway belittles the importance of preserving an scanning past film images of what ever kind.
It is true to say that the majority of our heritage of images will go out with our house clearance.
It has ever been so.....
 
While Kodachrome undoubtedly produce many of the world's finest images. It was old technology and dying on the vine long before Digital came on the scene. The cine film world had long since deserted complex processing emulsions like Kodachrome or the even the more complex
Technicolour. To a very large extent both still and cinema photography had moved on to negative positive colour emulsions.
They were not necessarily better quality, but they were ultimatel more practical and far easier to colour grade, edit and reproduce.

Photography. Has always been led by technical need and technical invention. This process was still ongoing right up to the time digital rudely appeared on the scene.

Of recent times much interesting film work has been done reinventing ancient techniques with modern chemistry. However many films and papers have had to be reinvented for production on simpler and lower production machinery. Modern film photographers only have a ghost of what was once available. In many ways they are having to start over again. Often with inferior emulsions.

Unfortunately all this is getting in the way of the real purpose of photography. Image making.

This is exactly the same problem that has dogged Digital photography. Photographers are spending so much time and effort reinventing themselve, with new techniques, equipment and manipulation, that making interesting and potentially important images has become secondary to the process itself.

None of this in anyway belittles the importance of preserving an scanning past film images of what ever kind.
It is true to say that the majority of our heritage of images will go out with our house clearance.
It has ever been so.....

Again, the issue at hand is the decision to trample on another photographers' excitement about finding something new and enjoyable for themselves, because you've done it yourself before.

The fact that your heritage of images will be thrown out when you're gone is a sad thought. In contrast, a photographer who has recently received a Chroma, contacted me last week to say that he's made plans for his Chroma, and the negatives from the projects he has lined up with it, to go to the Bishopsgate Institute in London, along with his back catalogue of work and writings, once he's gone. I know we're all different but it's nice to think that work shot on such an archaic medium in 2020 will be available to view by future generations. I wonder if there will be similar archives of SD cards?
 
Your post is confusing. You state that too much emphasis is put on the medium itself, then go on to state that you see few interesting images produced on film.

Surely, by your own post, the medium is irrelevant. Therefore, if you see few remarkable images, the issue is the photographers themselves, rather than what they’re recording their work on?

As I said, I use digital as much as film, so I’m not trying to defend the honour of analogue photography. My issue is that a thread started by someone, who found enjoyment in a new process specifically for them, has ended with them deleting their account on here as a result of other photographers being unable to appreciate that.


I am indeed happy that he has found new enjoyment trying, for him, a new process.
However the post might have been more to the point had he shown us some of the images.

I am sad that he took umbrage, and took his bat and ball home. As I made no attack on either him or his hobby. But rather pointed out the weakness of transparency processes.
And later also pointed out how few interesting images are now produced on film.
This is regrettable, not an attack.

The reason that I see few interesting images taken on film to day is twofold. One. Few photographs are taken...Two. many new film photographers seem more oriented to the equipment, materials and process than in taking other than test images.
A similar complaint can equally be laid at the door of many Digital photographers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top