 BetterPhoto Member |
Negatives vs. Slides I'm brand new to photography, just got my grandfather's old Canon FT and am raring to go. I'm specifically interested in wildlife photography. I got interested in slide film after finding a couple of old boxes of my father's slides. They're obviously much more resilient and longer-lasting than negatives, and also so much more vital than those dull little strips of gray. Unfortunately, I haven't had much picture-taking time during daylight hours, so I've been reading a lot about photography online. I found this discussion and decided to get some input on this issue. My questions are: would it be wise for a beginning photographer to start out with slide film? Is it a better way of honing your skill and eye? (not that I really *want* to hone my eye, per se... it sounds rather painful) How does the cost of developing prints from negatives compare to developing slides alone, and how does developing prints from negs compare to developing prints from slides? Does anyone have any great places to recommend for developing? Thanks in advance for any help you can give.... :) Chris
|
|
|
|
||
|
Hermann Graf |
Chris, in general, negative films are more "forgiving" than slide films, i.e., they do not react so harsh vs. over- or underexposure, and color shades can be eliminated when making the positive (for slide film, you need a set of filters). Also, making prints from slide film is more expensive than from negativ film, and the results are not always satisfying. As a whole (film plus development), slides are cheaper, because development is normally included in the price for the film; remains cutting and framing. As for storage (slides vs. negatives), it's pretty much the same. For developing, avoid "cheapo" labs.
|
|
|
|
||
|
doug Nelson |
I began with a Canon FT 30 years ago. Your camera could probably use a clean/lubricate/adjust. The piece of foam that the mirror bounces against on its upward travel is probably dry- rotted. Be sure you have a new battery of the correct voltage. Pro camera shops sell one made by Wein, or an adapter you can use on another battery. As the unofficial curmudgeon here, I'd recommend you learn with either black-and-white, developed and printed yourself, or slide film. Slides will help you learn exposure. If its off, it's something you did, not the lab. I grow weary of adjusting my exposure to allow for backlighting or some other special situation and having the automatic printing machines the color print labs use undo my corrections. With slides, what ya shot is what ya got. If you want other Canon lenses (the 50mm that came on the camera is a good one), you are limited to the FL series with the FT. To use FD-series lenses, you have to get an FTb, or an F-1. FL lenses are cheap. See keh.com. Canon made FL-series 200mm teles, but I'm not so sure about 300's.I still use my F-1, because I love the 12% rectangle metering area, the same metering system you have.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jeff S. Kennedy |
By all means start out with slide film. You may be frustrated at first but you will also be amazed at the occasional knockout slide. I would also recommend if you are going to shoot nature/wildlife go to the bookstore and buy any book by John Shaw. Study his books and you will have exposure nailed. Slide film is slightly more expensive than negs but develpment is significantly cheaper. Prints from negs are significantly cheaper than those from slides. As far as places to develop, check around your area. E6 development is not as tricky as C41 when it comes to labs. All the lab has to be is consistent with E6. You don't have to rely on the judgement of a printer. Try a few places and make sure they can push and pull process E6. If you ever get serious about getting prints made check out West Coast Imaging @ www.westcoastimaging.com .
|
|
|
|
||
|
John A. Lind |
I gave up on color negative and shoot transparency almost exclusively. Primary reason is the one Doug mentioned: WYSIWYG (What you shoot is what you get). Yes, prints will be more expensive per print. Over time I found myself shooting more frames to try different points of view, different perspectives (with different focal lengths), and occasionally bracketing an exposure under very unusual light conditions. With color negative this ends up with prints that will never see the light of day. Now I have selected transparencies printed. Color negative is now reserved for only a few occasions of portraiture or reception shooting which calls for restrained saturation and wide latitude of portrait films, and the result of which will be high numbers of prints. Printed transparency has a noticeably different look to it compared to most printed negatives. I found it sharper, with bolder color (not saturated) and sometimes slightly higher contrast (this can create the perception of bolder color). These observations might be a little confounded with the fact a pro lab is doing the transparency printing. Nevertheless I can pick out the "R" prints immediately; just glancing at them. I encourage you to try a few rolls of transparency. If you get hooked by what you can achieve with it and you'll never turn back! -- John
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||