[Gerbermiester]

I'm a big fan of slide film, but the price and development cost is what stops me from shooting it too often. I recently shot six rolls of chromes on my trip across Japan and Korea, but $80 just in development costs alone really makes it a special occasion film. To make matters worse, it's not nearly as shelf stable as a lot of negative films; it's not something you'll want to leave half finished loaded in a camera for too long. I can get a 36 exposure roll of colour negative film like Colorplus and have it developed for about a third of the cost of what the "cheapest" slide film with development would set me back. But dang, I do love the look of Provia 100F.

Here's a few of the shots from that trip:
All of them are Provia 100F. Shot on a Pentax K2 with the K 135mm f/2.5 and the K 50mm f/1.4
The first is Osaka Castle, Japan, the second is a monk in Haedong Yonggung Temple, South Korea, and finally, the third is a shot from the Jagalchi fish market, Busan

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

---

Last edited by Gerbermiester; 10-08-2019 at 02:56 PM.

[Bob 256]

One of my Ahhhhhh moments in photography was when I processed my first roll of Ektachrome slide film (then the E2 process which really dates me). I pulled this roll of film out of the film reel and all those colors - WOW! I was hooked and shot a lot of Ektachrome until I got weary of processing it and switched to Kodachrome (which I really long for when it comes to film). Ektachrome was fairly easy to process. The only difficult part was temperature control but that could be mastered with practice. I have a lot of Ektachrome stock and the colors are holding up good after many years though no comparison to the Kodachromes which are as good as the day they were shot. I'll probably jump in there and buy a few rolls of Ektachrome just to keep Kodak motivated, though it's only going to be repeat purchases by the masses which turns Kodak a profit and keeps the Ektachrome mill churning out film.

[Silent Street]

I personally think it's slowly dying. We are probably close to the end of the line.

That's a rather bold and somewhat meaningless statement to make.
There is still a great deal of choice available for slide film, but the use for it has changed considerably from its traditional historical roots in projection.

Professionals using slide film today in medium- and large format are predominantly printing through the hybridised RA-4 process using drum scanners (Heidelberg Hell/Tango, Hasselblad Flextight, among others). This costs money — serious money (about $400 for a file to 12x16"+ scan), and will be of no appeal to wide-eyed and bushy-tailed amateurs who will find it easier to gleefully disparage slide film than find a very good and satisfying personal use for it. The printing process has its roots in magazine publishing of 20+ years ago, and further back still in the realm of photogravure, and it is a highly skilled deviation from the diminished past-time of projecting slides for family get togethers.

I would also advise caution with the age-old argument that only negatives should be printed. Slides were being printed through the pioneering Cibachrome (latterly, Ilfochrome Classic and long defunct) process as early as 1963, and continued right up to 2010 when the last of materials were consumed.

To its credit, Kodak has gone to considerable effort to re-introduce a newly-formulated Ektachrome 100 in 35mm, and 120 format of this film is likely around this time. Fujifilm is offering very high quality emulsions which have proven pedigree over the long term, including those which push very well. That said, there should be a much greater take-up of slide film; unfortunately, my observations in training have revealed there is a poor understanding of what sllide film can be used for, with most ideas pointing to "that daggy projection thing at home". Undeniably, there is also a price penalty.


I also think people who are panning slide film are those who have not seen the beauty of 6x6, 6x7 or the larger 4x5 slides on a lightbox. This is a profound experience and a crowd puller, and importantly, the reason why slides (prior to the digital counter-revolution) were prioritised for publication consideration on front pages and middle spreads in glossy magazines (outdoor, photography, sport, etc.); negatives were seldom used because the editors could not "read" the negative as easily as they could a slide on the lightbox, which gave instant feedback as to the subject, colour, tone, contrast, sharpness and overall appropriateness for the end use. In the 1980s and 1990s, several of my 35mm slides were on front covers of bushwalking and photography magazines, paying $950 minimum, double that for middle spreads.


The take-away of all this is that slide film could do with a good PR boost, education as to its in-camera use and production choices, and a bit more respect from people who today are all too ready to say it is dead, which sounds more like cockney populist opinion than something based on fact.

[ramseybuckeye]

I shouldn't have an opinion because I'm not currently shooting any film cameras. But I think there will always be a market as long as it is available. Not for the mainstream, but there will always be a niche market, it's an art, and hopefully there will always be artists using slide film.

[Silent Street]

but $80 just in development costs alone really makes it a special occasion film.

What??
That doesn't sound right. In Australia, the common processing cost is around $8.70. Facilities exist to provide discounts for students and artists and volume users.
Very high cost indicates that the facility processing your film is operating on a very low volume of throughput, which will mean higher and more costlier maintenance costs. E6 processing requires a high, constant throughput to keep maintenance overheads down, and as a consequence, processing costs at a level accessible and agreeable to all.

[disconnekt]

I'm a big fan of slide film, but the price and development cost is what stops me from shooting it too often. I recently shot six rolls of chromes on my trip across Japan and Korea, but $80 just in development costs alone really makes it a special occasion film. To make matters worse, it's not nearly as shelf stable as a lot of negative films; it's not something you'll want to leave half finished loaded in a camera for too long. I can get a 36 exposure roll of colour negative film like Colorplus and have it developed for about a third of the cost of what the "cheapest" slide film with development would set me back. But dang, I do love the look of Provia 100F.

Same here, I would love to shoot some slide film but the prices alone just for one roll of slide film & developing cost for me is like: 😨

[RobG]

I feel sad that Fujichrome 100F appeared just when digital took over, because it was a fabulous film. The only justification I can find for film (of any kind) now is longevity. While theoretically digital is forever, no storage medium for digital media is perfect. I've seen Kodachrome slides of the coronation of Queen Elizabeth that were in perfect condition after all this time. I'm less confident about the survival of digital images.

Contradicting myself a little - I'd still like to shoot some B&W film, especially if I can still find the chemicals to print it myself. I really enjoyed printing my own B&W.

[womble]

I got into photography as a teenager because it was a vital part of the archaeological recording process. I shot slide film almost exclusively because I needed slides to give lectures. I hated print film at the time because it always seemed so dull and lifeless compared to my slides.

Roll forward 27 years, and the recording / lecturing part of my work is replaced by digital. Especially for teaching, I do not miss the endless taking of slides in and out of hanging files and putting them in carousels and then putting them away again.

For myself, I've been enjoying shooting slide film again. Analog Wonderland were selling Ektachrome at the same cost as Ektar. Admittedly it was a special offer. All my films are sent off for processing, and all the labs I use do BW, E6 and C41. E6 is a little more expensive (e.g., £6.55 v. £5.25) but not that much more. My main gripe is that I find it hard to get scans to share that are anywhere near as lovely and vibrant as the originals. The lab scans are OK but not stunning. This is especially true for medium format slides, and as a result I'm currently struggling to master fluid scanning.

Kris.

[Gerbermiester]

What??
That doesn't sound right. In Australia, the common processing cost is around $8.70. Facilities exist to provide discounts for students and artists and volume users.

$5 for C41, $12 for E6 (without mounting) then Canadian federal and provincial taxes at 12% to round it off. My volume is only about a roll and a half a month. I shoot a mix of digital and film. The K-1 and the K-2 are my two bodies.

---------- Post added 10-09-19 at 02:27 AM ----------

I feel sad that Fujichrome 100F appeared just when digital took over, because it was a fabulous film. . . I'd still like to shoot some B&W film, especially if I can still find the chemicals to print it myself. I really enjoyed printing my own B&W.

I can see why you'd feel that way, but it's still being sold as far as I know. 100f provia is my jam but Velvia 100 is a winner too.

I only develop black and white as well. Mostly Fomapan Classic 100 in rodinal. I'd like to shoot more tmax 400 but the chem that I like developing in doesn't last like rodinal does.

What's your go-to black and white film?

[Papa_Joe]

The primary drivers for slide film back in the day:

1) I want my shot unaltered by the print process. I want to see the actual exposure I made not the one that auto adjustment wants to make at the local mall.
2) I want to show it to a large group - blown up.
3) I like the specific characteristics of this film.

1 - Scanning the negative and or slide and printing your way is the norm. You aren't at the mercy of the printer anymore.
2 - Digitize and display is more common even if you shoot film. Nobody is missing the slide projector...
3 - Here things get a bit more complicated. Here's the one reason to keep the stuff around.

Just my 2 cents.

I'am completely with UncleVanya and just want to add the follwing points. And some more conclusions.


4) I want to save money as slide film is cheaper then a paper print.
5) I am a professional and have to provide slides for my customers, i.e. magazines


4 - Shooting slide film is know more expensive. The film, the development and the scans are more expensive on 135 film. Prints cost the same as color negative.
5 - No professional customer has a slide film based workflow any more. For digital workflow from analog cameras it is irrelevant which film is used.

3 - As Vanya said here is the interesting part.
I shot 15 years slide film only, a few thousand slides. And although I started it our of cost reasons, I prevered slide films because of the colors and contrast they delivered and the high resolution (color film caught up quite lately). But then in the days, you could not get hands on films like the Porta series, the Kodak Ektar or the Fuji Pro 400, which in combined digital - analog workflow give me so many opportunities I do not have with slide film. This boils down the advantage of slide film on a certain look (I can easily get by postprocessing color film) and the nice impression of a 4,5 cm x 6 cm slide gives me bevor being scaned and stored away for the rest of its live.

To make it short, on contradicition to Silent Street I can not see a lot of advantages for slide film over color film nowadays, while it has some disadvantages (dynamic range, fixed look) in practical use. I do not say slide film is bader or one should not use it (I do as well, occassionly) and I understand in some circumstances it will be the film to use, but I just think for the above reasons, the market will not develop in its favour.

[clickclick]

I really enjoy the look of film and have always loved slide film. I do a little B&W here and there still, and have been meaning to buy some Ektachrome. I always had good luck using an aquarium heater and a water bath to stabilize temperatures for doing developing, and I used to do Cibachrome printing. Pretty hard to resist picking up some film and an E6 kit.

[gofour3]

$5 for C41, $12 for E6 (without mounting) then Canadian federal and provincial taxes at 12% to round it off. My volume is only about a roll and a half a month. I shoot a mix of digital and film. The K-1 and the K-2 are my two bodies.

Do you live in Vancouver?

I use "The Lab" (295 E 2nd Ave, Vancouver) for my developing and these are their processing only fees for a roll of 135 36 exp or 120 film:

E6: $10.50
C41: $7.50
B+W: $7.50

If you bring in your film before the first 09:30 run you can pick it up later in the same day. The Lab does not do 135 slide mounting any longer, so if I want mounting done I send them to Dwayne's, who does both processing & mounting for $8.95USD per 36 exp roll.

Phil.

[Archimedes the Dog]

Slide is also what you need if you do stereo. Not that many people do stereo any more, but you can still get it processed and mounted by sending it away to a few places.

[stevebrot]

Cost is a significant issue, and yes, slide film does generally cost more as does processing. That last includes home processing; however, home processing might be the better option, assuming one has the tools. Consider:

• Bluemoon Camera in Portland will charge me $12.50 USD per 35mm roll for E6 (Mounted or unmounted) and $6.00/roll for C41. That noise was me saying ouch! There is also the cost in time and gas to run them over and pick them up again (15 miles and 30 minutes each way).
• The cost of a R4 kit from Freestyle to process 8 rolls is ~$40 USD = $5.00/roll. Note that capacity per kit may be somewhat higher, depending on tolerance for risk. Cost to process C41 at home is about $3.00/roll.

Working the numbers for Ektachrome with home development provides a not quite so painful total of about $19.00 USD per roll. Yes, still painful, but possibly worth the occasional discomfort. I am choosing to ignore the low cost to do the same with B&W.

Now the disclaimers:

• I already own the required tanks, reels, thermometers and such
• I am well-equipped, scanner-wise
• I have the means for the required temperature control
• I have darkroom experience going back 50 years

I will definitely give the new Ektachrome a try and we will see whether the expense is warranted.


Steve

[photocles]

Slide is also what you need if you do stereo.

Now there's something I would like to try! Ok, maybe slide film isn't dead to me just yet!