Originally posted by pureanalog 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.