 Jordan |
Question About Slide Film Hello all, I have a question about slide film or negative film. I've heard many people say that for "prints use print film." But what if you don't need all 36 prints and are only interested in a couple final enlargements of exceptional quality. Would the quality be better than print film and therefore would using slide film be the better choice? The field in which I like to photograph is mostly landscape, nature, and cityscapes and would likely use Velvia, but I have not yet used slide film. Thank you very much, Jordan
|
|
|
|
||
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
places that print directly from a slide a rare. And the paper may not be able to carry over the quality you see from looking at a slide, if you were able to find a place that prints direct from slides. You'll be told that it'll be done with an internegative so you're better off doing it by negatives. Just get processing done since you don't want the prints and just pick your best negative to get blown-up
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jordan |
Greg, thanks very much for the response. The lab I usually use does a drum scan and then prints on photographic paper, either Crystal Archive or Endura, I believe. Would the results then be pretty good do you think? What does National Geographic do to get their prints from slides (probably now mostly digital) to look so good? This lab I believe is also going to stop using the Type R prints from slides because they say the drum scan option gives better results. Any comments are greatly appreciated as always. Thanks Jordan
|
|
|
|
||
|
John P. Sandstedt |
Despite all I read about print film improvements, I continue to be blown away every time I use slide film. I use FUJICHROME 400, usually, and have the film processed by FUJI vis mailers. For some time I've been having select prints made by The SlidePrinter of Denver, CO. They were using a "direct process" similar, I guess to Cibachrome but, when I went to their website this week, there was a notice that they were going over to digital scanning and then printing from the scan procedure. This change, they indicated, was required because of the discontinuance of the papers they had been using, by both FUJI and KODAK. I can't wait to compare results. As to National G, there was a flap a while ago that the magazine wasn't accepting digital images for its contests. It was unclear whether they were accepting digital for magazine shots. The Great Debate will continue a while longer - as to whether digital images are better or worse than images from film. Having both options available is having the best of all worlds. However, anyone who thinks digital is cheap hasn't paid for ink too often. As a grandfather, I find digital terrific since my son can send me pictures of my grandkids via e-mail. These pics are not, necessarily, suitable for printing. But, as an officer of a camera club in an adult community, I find digital to be a real problem for many people since older folks are not computer literate. It takes a lot of patience to make over a picture with Photoshop or one of the smaller versions [Elements, etc.] John
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Of course national geographic takes digital. Most stuff is digital in news magazines. But all that's important to them is getting a good picture. And the easiest way is what they want. I'm wondering how many trial and error tries are the reason for takes too much ink reasons I hear. I've actually been surprised at how many prints I can get before needing new cartridges. I also think that people don't realize that the feel you don't get when having a print when looking at a slide is like the same light by reflection vs. light by transmission that's there when you look at your monitor vs. what the print out the printer looks like.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||