Do you still shoot 35mm transparency and why?

I've shot about fifteen rolls of 35mm transparency this year. Sadly, my preferred Kodak Elite Chrome stock is about to run out, so it will be over to Fuji. I use transparencies for holiday, travelling and industrial archaeology recording (some of which overlap). I use transparencies as these lend themselves to showing to groups, sometimes four or five family members, sometimes 25+ for club/group lectures and occasionally 100 or so. Though transparencies can work out expensive, in practice I don't get the opportunity to shoot transparency-type subjects too often, so the expenditure is by necessity limited. Other (arty, or so I like to think!) work is b/w, home processed.
Steve

I prefer slide film when doing landscape photography which is mostly what I take. Otherwise I do black and white, mostly because that seems to be the only film that has any variation in it anymore. The Kodak Chromes are gone, Fuji is the only company left, and they are paring back their offerings. Fall foliage shots are by far the best way to show off what chromes can do. When I can afford it, I would love to get a large format camera and see what chromes do at 8x10.

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...554#post946554

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by madgardener

I prefer slide film when doing landscape photography which is mostly what I take. Otherwise I do black and white, mostly because that seems to be the only film that has any variation in it anymore. The Kodak Chromes are gone, Fuji is the only company left, and they are paring back their offerings. Fall foliage shots are by far the best way to show off what chromes can do. When I can afford it, I would love to get a large format camera and see what chromes do at 8x10.

---

Besides costing a metric arse-ton of money to create? ;)

They're impressive on a light box but that's hardly a good display medium. And even if you put them on a backlighted frame or the like, E6 will fade pretty rapidly if continuously lighted. You can get, or used to could get and I think maybe still can, RA4 material for backlit display.

Or of course you can scan and do anything you can do with any other scan, but then there's not that much advantage to the 8x10 over the much more affordable to produce 4x5 (or maybe, depending on the scanner, medium format, but a flat bed does a decent job with LF. Not a drum scan, sure, but pretty good none the less.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Cole

Besides costing a metric arse-ton of money to create? ;)

---

Awww now Roger... Don't be scaring everyone off.

8x10 Fujifilm Provia 100F at B&H is only US$11.00/sheet, less shipping. And 8x10 E-6 processing at, say, E-Six Lab in your own Atlanta, is only an additional US$6.00/ sheet. No shipping as you could likely deliver and pick it up yourself.

That's only US$17.00/sheet. Not inexpensive, to be sure. But if you already own an 8x10 camera and don't have a 250-exposure motor drive attached to it, that's not really very much. Especially just to be able to say you've done it once or twice.

I'm considering giving it a try when we have our annual 3-week summer and the rains momentarily pause sometime next August.

;)

Ken

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MattKing

I've been shooting 120 transparency film since Kodachrome went away.

But I have a medium format projector.

---

I haven't shot any normal 35mm slide film since Kodachrome went away (since January 2011....uhhh I mean, December 2010... Yea that's it.... I swear I didn't make a deal to be shooting after the deadline....hehe)

but I've shot a bunch of 120 slide film (Velvia and some of my frozen Ektachrome epp stock) and a few rolls of Provia/Velvia 35mm but in a panorama camera.

Hardly ANY color negatives, and mostly expired B&W

I'd say 5% CN
35% transparency
60% B&W neg

0% B&W transparency but I REALLY want to do some, just haven't put in the time for the research yet...

And why? I guess it's sort of a silly reason, I just like the way it looks on a light box, it's easy to tell which image is the one I want best, and it's a bit harder to shoot properly, I think that's part of it too, I like the challenge and it forces me to be more accurate and hone my skills just a bit more.

But again, not really 35mm, only MF these days, so I guess I'm with the poster of the thread, I hardly shoot any true 35mm... Sad days ahead boys(and girls).


~Stone

http://www.stonenyc.com
http://stonenyc.tumblr.com
http://www.modelmayhem.com/stonenyc
http://www.facebook.com/stonenycphoto
http://www.twitter.com/StoneNYCphoto
http://pinterest.com/stonenycphoto
stone@stonenyc.com

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Whoops, sorry for all the tag lines, still getting used to this app...


~Stone

http://www.stonenyc.com

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StoneNYC

Whoops, sorry for all the tag lines, still getting used to this app...

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

---

see here:
http://www.apug.org/forums/forum39/1...st-titles.html

This may be due to the uploading device.