Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 72,476   Posts: 1,597,589   Online: 1253
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 23 of 23
  1. #21
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    I think we should further define publishing practices.
    If the published materials are commissioned, and the photographer can work with the printer, negatives are probably a widespread choice and the best choice where accurate colour rendition is desired.

    I don't know which percentage of published pictures are sourced through agencies rather than commissioned. I suppose more than half though.

    I tell you my experience with photographic stock agencies. Before the advent of digital (which, in the stock agency sector, was a bit late, in 2006 most agencies were still collecting slides from photographers) agencies would normally not accept negatives. Not a myth, but an industry need, as the printer, who didn't necessarily know the subject, and who never has the photographer near him, could have great difficulties in filtering a negative and, as said above, that could open the way to colour mistakes which were much, much worse than the colour mistakes in slide film.

    Maybe the "myth" has been circulated by people, like me, who produces for stock agencies and so was "biased" toward slides anyway... but in any case, I think it cannot be denied that with a slide you always are "in the ballpark" for generic published material while with negatives you can easily be way, way off. This is not myth, and I suppose you agree with that.

    I agree that people prefer "nicer" than neutral colours. Kodachrome and Velvia were certainly not designed for accurate colour reproduction. Generally speaking, I find the colour rendition of other slide films, such as Astia, or some Agfa slide film of the past, quite good and certainly adequate for most work even when "neutral" colours are desired. Personally I have never liked the "Velvia shock" and were not a fan of Kodachrome either.

    Fabrizio
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  2. #22
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,262
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post
    Bcarlsonmedia,

    I have some out of date, various minor bands 35mm slide film that has been refrigerated or frozen its whole life. PM me if you are interested and we can talk details.

    Steve
    1 roll Opticolor 200 24exp
    1 roll Opticolor 200 24exp

    from REI age unknown
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Utah Valley
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    278
    Quote Originally Posted by Diapositivo View Post
    The cheapest slide film I've seen is Rollei CR200 in 100ft package. Never bought it (yet).
    I agree that this seems to be the least expensive E6 film you can buy new. Freestyle has the 36 exposure double pack for about 10 USD, and it comes in an awesome canister that holds two rolls.

    This film is weird though; it's really yellow. I've read in other threads that it was originally an aero-reconnaissance film or something?

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin