Wow thanks everyone for the quick responces.
Yes I was refering to only 35mm and yes a f6 is out of budget. I am a 19 years old student, my dad gave me the n80 with a few nice lens and I have learned using film. Origanally I planned on getting a modern dSLR but I have fallen in love with the look and challenges of film photography, this is why I want a f5. Not to mention all my perfectly good lens would be cropped and not work at all on anything less than a D7000. I also don't shoot often enough to make the inital cost of the dSLR and lens worth it. Over the last year I feel like I have become very competent with color negatives and am looking to get into slides.
Is the lattitude on the e100vs large enough for a slide beginner to get decent shots? Also I have a acer scanwit 35mm scanner. It makes a good image but i can never get the colors right with negatives. Provided that this scanner can scan slides decently, is color correction easier?
Again thanks for the help. I plan on being here for as long as possible.
Originally Posted by nikonF80
Getting them regularly though requires practice regardless of the meter type.
Technical questions on scanning are off topic here at APUG.
Originally Posted by nikonF80
With regard to shooting and getting good color on the film, color correction filters for you camera lens will help, in fact for slide film I'd say it is imperative to learn and regularly use filters if you want good color.
Only understanding of exposure, spot metering and knowing a film's characteristics is the most accurate type of metering. Anything else and you are letting the program decide on what is proper exposure. This of course is not always bad as evaluative metering allowed folks who don't understand exposure control or film characteristics to be able to get good exposure.
BTW, I have been going through a stack of 1957 and 1958 magazines and found something of interest. In 1957 there was no matrix metering - or for that matter even built-in meters, and yet photographers were able to properly expose slide film just fine. I knew that most all cameras then didn't have built-in metering but I didn't know that for 35mm, they only had slides and b&w film types to choose from as Kodacolor color negatives didn't become available until 1958.
I am sure Nikon's - and others, super advance metering systems work very well for what it is designed for but it is not more accurate as no system can possibly read a photographer's mind on how he intends to expose a scene because some photographers may not know it themselves . . . :whistling:
Originally Posted by markbarendt
I don't think that is a valid statement . Filters will fundamentally change the result on film; e.g. a polariser, used excessively, will do what? If used in moderation, what else will it do? And what effect if used in shade? The traps are many and numerous.
Understanding slide film and colour starts with the basics of exposing the film without filters in many different situations, especially contrasty light to understand latitude. Basics first. Remember the OP is moving from benign negative film to transparency. It's not a trick-free circus. As skills and knowledge progress, then introduce filters as required. I emphasised taking notes of each exposure to facilitate understanding.
I noticed an earlier post re this: my experience using graduated ND filters on evaluative/multi-pattern meters especially is to avoid this trap with those particular meter types, or switch to CWA only.
I should've clarified about the ND grad filters.
I wouldn't recommend using them with evaluative meters either.
I was trying to impart the idea of getting to know your materials and what they can handle and introducing filtering judiciously (spot or incident metering) when brightness range exceeds your media.
I usually am shooting people and if I had my way none of it would be posed so sometimes evaluative/matrix is the only way to go for ME.
poisson-du-jour, color correction filters are what I was suggesting, not polarizers.
The OP asked if it was easier to color correct slides. It is important that he understands that slides need that correction at the camera more than negatives do.
I'm not saying that negatives don't need filters, I'm just saying if you don't get the slide right in the camera you have an even bigger problem.
In terms of filters I currently only use a polarizer and a .6 ND filter (and of coarse a UV filter to protect my lens). I can see how others could be needed though; my normal method for correcting for bad lighting/ incorrect temperature is a slight overexposure to ensure all the color layers are exposed, anything else is fixed on the computer. Obviously overexposing is not possible with slides.
Originally Posted by Poisson Du Jour
I have alot to learn in terms of filtering. I will probably pick up a grey card and shoot unfiltered like you said to get an idea how the slides behave
I hope you're not using all three filters at once!? I saw just that recently with a strictly geekish type carrying a monster Canon and three filters stacked on the end of an L-series lens (!). :confused:
Anyways, slight over- and under-expose of transparency e.g. either through push or pull (post-exposure; this is essentially a compromise and not a universal fix for bad exposure decisions) or in-camera (exposure compensation or exposure indexing — iso 100 treated as e.g. iso 80 (+0.3) ) can work wonders in specific situations. This, like everything else, will come down to experience, and it's a wonderful teacher.
Haha of coarse not.
But yea in camera exposure compensation is how I usually make corrections.
Lastly- from what I read the developer plays no role in the final outcome of the picture. Is this true? This is a big pro of slides for me as I can't get good consistant results locally with negatives
Not true. Slides will not solve that problem.
Originally Posted by nikonF80
All film is affected by the quality of the chemicals, agitation, temperature, time in the soup...