sorry newbie question!!!
Posted 04/08/2004 - 21:38
Link
Hi,
Any 35mm camera can take either slide or print film in the same way they can take B/W film. With print film you get a negative image when the film is processed. There is also a strong colour cast. This image is then printed which gives a poitive image and gets rid of the cast. Slide film gives a positive image when processed. This can also be printed by a slightly different process which used to be much more expensive but could give some fantastic results. The difference in cost has now largely disappeared. The slides can also be prjected which can't be done with negs from print film easily. So most of the displays you see at public attractions use slides. Prints are cheap and easy to use. Also the exposure is not as critical because up to 2 or 3 stops can be corrected for at the print stage. Slide give much better colour intensity and many consider much better quality. The downside is the exposure is much more critical. typically + or - a half stop. They are more awkward to handle. It is difficult to pass them around your friends and would normally need to be projected or printed.
Hope this helps
Kim
Any 35mm camera can take either slide or print film in the same way they can take B/W film. With print film you get a negative image when the film is processed. There is also a strong colour cast. This image is then printed which gives a poitive image and gets rid of the cast. Slide film gives a positive image when processed. This can also be printed by a slightly different process which used to be much more expensive but could give some fantastic results. The difference in cost has now largely disappeared. The slides can also be prjected which can't be done with negs from print film easily. So most of the displays you see at public attractions use slides. Prints are cheap and easy to use. Also the exposure is not as critical because up to 2 or 3 stops can be corrected for at the print stage. Slide give much better colour intensity and many consider much better quality. The downside is the exposure is much more critical. typically + or - a half stop. They are more awkward to handle. It is difficult to pass them around your friends and would normally need to be projected or printed.
Hope this helps
Kim
Posted 04/08/2004 - 21:38
Link
Ooops Double posted
Posted 04/08/2004 - 21:42
Link
could i get a normal set of prints from a slide film? Ie in a pack of 36 the same as normal photos?
Posted 04/08/2004 - 21:47
Link
Hi,
You can but it would be a bit more than normal and you may have to use a specialist. I use Lab 35, a 36 print film is about £7 and a develop and print package for slide is £11.
Kim
You can but it would be a bit more than normal and you may have to use a specialist. I use Lab 35, a 36 print film is about £7 and a develop and print package for slide is £11.
Kim
Posted 04/08/2004 - 23:20
Link
maybe a case of only using it for special occasions then!!!
Posted 05/08/2004 - 13:27
Link
Hi
I'd consider what you really want from photography (or a particular phtography session) before choosing.
Even most professional photographers only get around half-a-dozen really good shots from a 36-shot roll of 35mm film (although I'm sure there are others who will claim more success!) so printing each and every shot is not important. I tend to only print one slide from about 3 films, meaning that I can get a really decent, large print for the same price as having a load of pretty poor prints. If you're after keepsakes or momentos, negatives are probably better as you can print those off wholsesale very cheaply, but if you want to get some decent shots to put on the wall, I'd recommend slide as the quality tends to be better and the prices for large prints, done well, are not so different for negative and slide - I should qualify that by stating I am referring to a decent handprinted image (around £15-£25 depending who, where and how large the print is). You can also get them digitally scanned and printed, in which case it makes little difference if you have slide or negative, and it also tends to be cheaper as there is less labour involved.
Also, as Kim rightly states, slide film is much less tolerant of exposure error, and hence represents the sharpest learnnig curve - every mistake is magnified, making it easier to improve your technique (although a bit disheartening at first!). If you can take good shots reliably with slide film, negative film is a doddle!
Whichever you choose, you will still be able to get decent images with either, good negative film is still good, just not as good generally as slide.
Hope this helps
Matt
I'd consider what you really want from photography (or a particular phtography session) before choosing.
Even most professional photographers only get around half-a-dozen really good shots from a 36-shot roll of 35mm film (although I'm sure there are others who will claim more success!) so printing each and every shot is not important. I tend to only print one slide from about 3 films, meaning that I can get a really decent, large print for the same price as having a load of pretty poor prints. If you're after keepsakes or momentos, negatives are probably better as you can print those off wholsesale very cheaply, but if you want to get some decent shots to put on the wall, I'd recommend slide as the quality tends to be better and the prices for large prints, done well, are not so different for negative and slide - I should qualify that by stating I am referring to a decent handprinted image (around £15-£25 depending who, where and how large the print is). You can also get them digitally scanned and printed, in which case it makes little difference if you have slide or negative, and it also tends to be cheaper as there is less labour involved.
Also, as Kim rightly states, slide film is much less tolerant of exposure error, and hence represents the sharpest learnnig curve - every mistake is magnified, making it easier to improve your technique (although a bit disheartening at first!). If you can take good shots reliably with slide film, negative film is a doddle!
Whichever you choose, you will still be able to get decent images with either, good negative film is still good, just not as good generally as slide.
Hope this helps
Matt
Posted 05/08/2004 - 14:52
Link
Mattie, I couldn't agree more.
That is exactly what happened to me. In fact, in my case, using negative film is more expensive than slide. I use Kodak EB-3 mainly and velvia sometime. For each 36 exp. EB-3, I spend more or less € 8, including processing and frames. Prints cost extra, but I don't print all of them, only the really decent ones.
If I shoot negatives, I should pay not less than € 18 for each 36 exp. including 10x15 cm prints (I can't make judgment from contact/index print).
If you bracket your exposures, don't use negative. I was so stupid bracketing my exposure while using negative. The print I recieved from the lab showed no difference. The lab operator had adjusted them all according to his taste.
That is one of my reason to use slides, to see the result directly from the film, not from the print.
Anyway, give it a try.
ridwan
That is exactly what happened to me. In fact, in my case, using negative film is more expensive than slide. I use Kodak EB-3 mainly and velvia sometime. For each 36 exp. EB-3, I spend more or less € 8, including processing and frames. Prints cost extra, but I don't print all of them, only the really decent ones.
If I shoot negatives, I should pay not less than € 18 for each 36 exp. including 10x15 cm prints (I can't make judgment from contact/index print).
If you bracket your exposures, don't use negative. I was so stupid bracketing my exposure while using negative. The print I recieved from the lab showed no difference. The lab operator had adjusted them all according to his taste.
That is one of my reason to use slides, to see the result directly from the film, not from the print.
Anyway, give it a try.
ridwan
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
2277 posts
24 years
Many thanks