BetterPhoto Q&A
Category: To Be Categorized

Slide film vs. print film

With that in mind, I would eventually like to learn enough to sell some of my work. I have read that most stock photos and art photos are sold as slides; but I have also read that slides do not make very good prints. This seems contradictory. I would assume art and stock photos will be used in print media either for magazines or framing, is the process different for making that sort of print?

To love this question, log in above
March 27, 2001

First, having slides printed is typically more expensive than color negative reprints . . . whether it's done by a "consumer" or "pro" lab.

I cannot speak about which way most editorial submissions fall as I have no experience with them. I do know that what they want depends on the specific periodical and what the image will be used for.

For stock archives of images, transparencies are easier to look at in sorting and selecting images and, in general, have a much longer archival life. They also tend to have much more dramatic color. Personally I've found it very very difficult to look at color negatives and evaluate much more than some resolution and large objects. Color evaluation is all but impossible for me with not only negative colors, but the orange mask on top of it all.

For fine art, the majority of gallery prints I've seen are done from transparency films. Having been down the path of having a good number of slides printed, I do not recommend letting a "consumer" lab do it. They typically use an "internegative" process that first makes a color negative on 35mm film from the slide, then print from the 35mm negative on standard "C" type paper as they would any color negative. My experience with this has been consistently disappointing with undue contrast increase and resolution loss.

A good pro lab will make direct prints from the slide onto "R" type paper (a special positive paper for printing slides). Both Fuji and Kodak make "R" papers for this, along with Ilford, which makes Ilfochrome for direct printing. You can get superb prints from direct printing. My experience is it requires a pro lab that does this routinely and knows how to do it well. My results from this have been consistently outstanding.

In addition, I can easily tell at a glance which prints were done from slide and which were done from negative! I have yet to find a color negative that can produce a print on "C" paper that has the look of a good slide printed on "R" paper or Ilfochrome. Custom gallery quality, large prints (8x12 and larger) direct printed from transparency can be very expensive. However, you also get what you pay for from a good pro lab that does it well.

If you are intent on selling prints of your work, whether you use negative or slide (for fine art work in color I would use only transparency films), you need to find an excellent pro lab that can extract the best resolution and color balance out of each image in making your color prints. If you have superb images on film, the quality of their printing will make or break you.

-- John

To love this comment, log in above
March 28, 2001

As far as slides used in fine art, all of my current color fine art work was shot on slides and printed from drum scans. That being said I am considering experimenting with negative film for some of my fine art color stuff. I have seen other artists who use only negative film for this and their work is very good. The advantage of negative film is its wide latitude. Transparency shooters are always throwing filters on their lenses to compress the contrast of scenes so they will fit onto their Velvia when often a negative film would handle the contrast without all those filters.

To love this comment, log in above
April 01, 2001

-Joe

To love this comment, log in above
April 02, 2001

To love this comment, log in above
June 25, 2001

There are several methods for printing transparencies. A problem that runs common to all of them can be a contrast increase. High contrast transparencies are obviously most susceptible to this. I found the least satisfactory uses an "internegative" which is a color negative photograph of the transparency. The negative is then printed on "C" type paper used for color negatives. If the internegative is large sheet film, the print quality can be better. However, too many labs use 35mm internegative film for this and quality goes down.

Another method is making direct prints on "positive" print paper. IMO this is a better method than the internegative process. The finest gallery prints will have a "contrast mask" created before printing to reduce the contrast problem. The making and use of one is expensive, however once made it can be reused. One of the best papers is Ilfochrome (formerly Cibachrome), but you must find a lab that uses it or set your own darkroom up for it. "Ciba" prints are typically a little more expensive than the other "R" papers, but if printed well it has a "look" unmatched by any other printing method or material.

My experience with transparency prints hasn't been so dismal after I found the proper lab for it. I will admit there are a few of my very high contrast slides that will always look better projected than printed.

Hope this helps some,

-- John

To love this comment, log in above
June 25, 2001

To love this comment, log in above
June 25, 2001