Ok there was a topic a while back on the Forums regarding Film.
First of all I have been into 35MM Color print film all my life. now there is a problem. I want to continue to use C>P>F for as long as I like but the problem is,is that most of but all Railfans in this country all use Slide film nowadays. I like to use C,P,F for my own personal use for like Photo books and so on. But since Slide film is much more pricey than Color print film I realy don’t no what to do. I am so use to useing Color print film that I just only buy film speeds like eather of 200 or 400 speed,And “IF” I where to ever to switch over to Slides how will ever how to set my ISO Speed dial so that I can get the correct exposer. See I am all confused right about now. See I hear that Color film realy sucks compaired to slide film anymore. So…
Can anyone who realy no a lot more than I surly will ever will can tell me to help me to understand this realy confusing film ordeal problem?
And by the way…If I where to get slide film someday,Are there any good web sites out there that have the best buys on a good price for slide film?
Thank you,Allan.
In my personal opinion, I would rather use Color Print Film, IMO it gives better clarity than some of the slide films that I have seen. My personal prefernece for film is Fugifilm ISO 100 for color. I always take my pictures to Wal-Mart, because they are the only ones I know of that doesn’t use Kodak Print paper, When it comes to my photos, I am VERY picky and prefer Fugi everything. I have never really liked Kodak products, I used to use Kodak Tri-X 400 for B&W until I found Fugi Acros 100 My&W pictures are 100% better!
Just remember, the slower the ISO speed, the less clear you pictures will be.
Allan, I’m probably missing something, but have you considered going digital? I’ve shot both slide and negative film for decades in 35mm and medium format, and the difference in effort in producing a final image as compared to all digital is simply astonishing. The writing is on the wall for analog; even the pros are starting to sell their equipment. I’ve sold most of my enlarging equipment and bought a high-end scanner to scan in my film images and a quality inkjet printer. The resultant prints from scans easily match any of my chemical prints. When it comes to fixing badly exposed images or manipulation you can do things previously undreamed of. The important thing is that a good digital camera is really inexpensive, a few hundred dollars at most. Somehow the debate between transparency and negative film, of which at one time I could have said a lot, seems quaint and dated now.
I’m with Eastside here. If you are serious about quality look at Digital. Look at the series on this website about digital photography (“Trackside with Eric and Mike”, now vol 25). The new Canon 350D is even better than the 300D being used by Kalmbach staffers. The intial cost is higher, but the cost of individual frames is just how much your hard disc or CD or DVD will hold. If you are relying on commercial prints, the costs are similar, but there is no cost for film. Most DVD players allow watching digital pictures from CD or DVD on your own TV. The quality is not good with a standard TV but it gives a really quick slide show with no setting up!
Peter
I’m with the above two guys. Digital pics are easier to store - just burn them on to a CD.
When I got given a digital camera as a birthday present a couple of years ago I found myself using its video facility. As a result I’ve now bought a digital camcorder. Now I shall have to get me a DVD recorder so I can make DVD’s.
s it still ok to use 200 and 400 speed film? and how can you tell the difference between the two? No I haven’t thought about going over to Digital just yet because I would have to get a new computer first. lol. This windows 98 crap isn’t going to cut it,lol. Now that I have heard that Fuji film is much better I think that I will start to use it now. Thanks everyone. Allan.
The speed of the film is an indication of the size of the grain that is sensitized by the light. Low ISO films (64, 100) have a very fine grain, requiring a greater exposure to light to adequately sensitize them (longer shutter speed or larger aperature). High speed films have a relatively large grain which requires less light to sensitize them - faster shutter speeds and smaller aperatures.
If you were to take identical pictures with ISO 64 B&W and Tri-X Pan 1000, then study the negatives or same-sized prints with a strong magnifier, you would be able to see that the grain was more pronounced in the picture taken with the ASA 1000 film.
So - the advantage of slow films is that the grain is very fine - if you want a picture which shows minute detail, use the slow film. The advantage of fast films is that you can freeze action better, or take that moody picture of a locomotive lit only by a 100 watt bulb on the switchmans shanty.
Let’s draw an analogy between film speed (specifically the graininess) and the megapixels of a digital camera. If you pick up a really cheap digital camera (I found one in the toy section for $20, and that included the USB cable), you get low resolution pictures, typically well less than 1/2 megapixel resolution. On the other hand, the newest Canon Digital Rebel has 8 megapixel resolution (I can dream!). If you were to enlarge both images to the same size on the screen (or print them the same size), you would still be able to read the builders plate on the side of the engine in the 8 megapixel picture. In the “toy camera” picture you’d be lucky to even pick the builders plate out.
The price decision on buying a digital camera is the same as for buying a computer - buy the biggest, baddest one you can afford that will do what you want it to do. Selecting cameras is a topic unto itself.
I gave up slide or print film some time ago for digital. Digital gives the clearest color/pix & you can pick & choose which one you want to print. In the end the investment in digital pays itself back by saving you $$$$$$$$ on the ones you do not want to print. In my case I put them all on my web site so I never have to print a pix. [:o)][:p][:)]
[quote]
Originally posted by BNSF railfan.
[
…I am not a professonal with photography…My experience of just a few years ago purchasing a Canon E0S with eye focus film camera…happened just about 2 years too soon…Sure wish I would have waited. I would now run and purchase the new Canon Rebel digital. I haven’t use any of my film cameras for almost a year now…Instead use an inexpensive digital and really pleased with the whole process…
Slides versus prints? Consider this. For most of its publishing life in the 20th & 21st centuries, the pre-eminent magazine employing photography as its principal communication tool, the National Geographic Magazine, has almost exclusively used slide film, and for the most part, Kodak slide film. The photographers for this magazine likely use the highest proportion of exposed film to published images of any magazine anywhere. Only recently, with the advent of truly professional grade multi-pixel digital cameras, has the NG begun to use digital cameras.
The real issue here is: what do you intend to use your photos for? It seems as though you prefer photo albums. That said, without a slide projector for slides or a sufficiently powerful PC and printer for digital cameras (although I’m still running Win98 and can do ok), it seems that your best choice is to stick with what you know–print film. Print film has inherently higher latitude (the film’s ability to produce a good image if the exposure isn’t precisely correct) than slide film, so it’s easier to get an acceptable print. Slide films have inherently higher saturation than print films, and when you view a slide as it is intended, projected, with light passing through the slide, the image is more vibrant than a print, which uses reflected light.
The last issue is durability. All film and print products use dyes which will both fade and change color tone over time. They’re a lot more durable than they used to be, but after 20 years or so you are likely to see some changes in the image color (however, I have some Kodachrome slides that were taken in 1955 that still look almost new). Of course, both print negatives and slides can be digitally scanned, turning them into digital images. The digital image, as long as it’s digital, (that is, either displayed on a monitor or resident on a CD, hard drive, etc.) will not suffer from color shift or fade but a printed digital image will fade and color shift, too. From what I’ve read, CD’s are consi
Speaking as a stubborn holdout for Kodachrome 64 and 200 – it now taking nearly three weeks to get my slides back. And the combined cost of the film and developing is approaching $20.
The local camera store no longer sells carousel slide projectors for slides; they still have a few carousels but nobody is buying. Soon the replacement bulbs will not be available and they are already getting very expensive. The local camera store sold its last stack loader recently and does not seem to be restocking it.
In short the handwriting is, as they say, on the wall
Meanwhile my buddy Keith Schmidt can often post his digital pictures on this forum within minutes of returning from a railfan trip. The quality of the digital pictures (don’t judge by what it looks like when posted) has improved greatly just within the last few years.
Dave Nelson
It’s only a matter of time before I go all-digital; the only thing holding me back now is the cost of a digital SLR. I do use digital for all my “utility” photogpraphy, such as reference photos for modelling. I mainly use Fujichrome Sensia in my film SLR.
All other things being equal, slide film produces a superior image to print film - it especially has better colour saturation. Even when the end objective is a print, I shoot my image as a slide and have the print made from that. I get film and processing locally, so I can’t help much with web availability.
Slide and print speed ratings are identical (usually ISO numbers), so you can use it the same way you’ve been using print, except that since there’s no printing process in which to fix exposure or composition problems, you need to be precise with exposure and with composition when you shoot - what you see is what you get. That’s usually the biggest hurdle when going from print to slides. You will also probably have to get used to slower film if you’ve been using 200 and 400 - slide film gets a lot more expensive once you get above 100 ISO.
In regards to your original question, slide film may be a bit more expensive up front, but developing is cheaper since you don’t have to make prints. If you’re happy with print film, stick with it. Especially if you shoot ISO 200 and 400. I’ve yet to find a 200 or 400 speed slide film I’m happy with.
I’m a big proponent of Fuji stuff, too. Provia 100F was my favorite slide film for trains (Astia 100F gets a slight nod if you do any portaiture…wonderful skin tones…kind of low contrast, low saturation doesn’t make a good railfan film, though). Velvia was never a favorite of mine. It was simply over the top. I shot a picture of a green field once, and it came back with a radioactive glow.
As for print film, I shot the pro NPS 160, and NPC 160. Occasionally I’d shoot a roll of Reala, too.
As others have said, digital really is the way to go (the only film stuff I do now is 4x5 and an occasional roll of 120 or 35mm in one of my film cameras to keep them excercised. However, film equipment (especially obsolete stuff like Canon FD, Minolta MC/MD, etc.) is getting fairly cheap. Film should still be around for awhile. If you want to stick with film, you could probably add some nice equipment without breaking the bank.
Best of luck to you with your decisions.
Nope. A roll of slides costs about three times as much to process as a roll of prints. There are only a few labs left that do E6 (slides), whereas every supermarket has a 1-hour C41-process machine.
I guess I should have mentioned that I was comparing apples to apples. Drug Store Mini-labs may be cheaper (though I still don’t think they are) than pro labs, but after a couple bad experiences, I simply do not trust mini-labs.
Additionally, when I push a roll of Fuji Press 800 to 1600 or 3200, I have to use a pro lab. I’m not sure a mini-lab tech would even know what push processing is.
Comparing slide and print processing at pro labs here in Denver, slide is still much cheaper. YMMV of course.
Okay, we’ll compare at a pro lab. Processing C41 at the local pro lab costs twice as much as a generic minilab,. leaving E6 “only” 50% more.
Even the pro lab has to send to their nearest branch set up for E6, which is 200 miles away. All their branches can do C41 onsite.
The lab I go to in Denver does their own E6. It’s a lot cheaper for me than C41. As I said, Your Mileage May Vary, though. Trust me when I say I used to send a lot of film to this lab, though, and I know their pricing.
What kind of prints are you having made? Maybe this was some of my issue as well. I always went with Matte Finish 4x6’s. Sometimes, not always, I would have double prints made as I would use the 4x6’s as proofs for my clients, and I would keep a set for myself.
It’s all moot to me now, though, as the only film I shoot regularly is 4x5 Provia 100F. I generally think a little more thoroughly when shooting 4x5, and so I don’t shoot as many pictures. Processing doesn’t matter too much to me in this case. And all proofs from negatives (albeit there isn’t much C41 stuff available in 4x5) would be contact prints anyways.
I think the best advice for the original poster is to evaluate his needs, and check pricing in his area for both slide and print film, and make a decision based on that.
Just my [2c],
Chris
Denver, CO
What a question!
The very best digital cameras – the ones the pros use, with bodies costing in the mid four figures – have a resolution approaching film; either slide or negative (print) variety. The less expensive digitals (like us ordinary mortals use and enjoy!) don’t have the same resolution. If you never enlarge anything beyond 8x10 or 11x14, though, the difference is only just noticeable. That’s one difference.
Another difference is what is termed ‘exposure latitude’. Again, the top end digitals have an exposure latitude (the range from the darkest dark to the lightest light they can record without blowing out the image or blacking it out) which is on a par with a very good colour print film (negative film) and about a stop better on both ends than colour slide film. Colour slide film is about on a par that way with the cheaper digitals (say less than $1,000). This can be significant if some of your photography involves high contrast subjects – and a lot of train photography does.
Digital photography does allow you to make adjustments in the final print or output (REMEMBER: NEVER ever edit the original file!!! Work ONLY on a copy of the original!) to compensate for weird colour balance, or mild under or overexposure, assuming you have a good computer and good image processing software (e.g. Photoshop). This can also be done in the printing stage with colour negative (print) film in the printing step, but is difficult unless you have your own darkroom. Slides are exceedingly difficult to correct.
I have used all three over the years; as Chris said, perhaps the best thing to do is to evaluate what you are doing and what you need, and decide based on that. All three have advantages – and disadvantages.
I’ve been shooting trains for about 35 years. And I’m also involved professionally in image making (mostly electronic). So let me add one thought to this discussion.
99 percent of my rail photography effort involves high-speed lenses and films in the ISO range of 25-100, with an occasional foray into faster films for marginal light. I prefer fast lenses and relatively slow E6 films for optimal image quality. To each his own.
(I was a Kodachrome loyalist until a couple years ago).
That said, have you ever considered the residual value of your photographic efforts?
Most of us shoot trains for pleasure, and you can’t put a price on that. A few of us do some publication work; slides are the preferred medium, but digital and color negative can be used with almost equal ease these days. My publication efforts are a break-even proposition at best and are done simply to make an expensive hobby less so.
There is, however, quite a market for collectable slides, and all you have to do is check out ebay or Trains classified ads to see what I mean.
Railroad slides have collecting value. Color negatives, for the most part, do not (neither do digital images, but that’s another story entirely).
And we’re not just talking old slides of fallen flags, either.
As an example, a couple friends and I were on a hill several years ago in western Montana, shooting a parade of trains on MRL. A short local, with two Geeps, appears and we shoot multiple exposures.
One of the guys just sold one of those exposures on ebay for 17 bucks. And the subject matter (railroad, train and those particular units) still exists!
We won’t talk about the $700 he reaped that same week selling other train slides on ebay.
I’m not suggesting slide sales are the main reason for a railfan to engage in railroad photography. It’s just important to know that the market exists for collectible railroad slides, and that might a
I was pretty happy with my Pentax, but when i blow them up they loose all of the crispness. Im waiting for my new Kodak digital camera. Its a 3.2 MP so i think my pics will be a whole lot better.
Alec