Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,571   Posts: 1,545,621   Online: 988
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Greenville, South Carolina
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    38

    Slides from C-41

    Well I was just "thinking" along these lines since I do only slides and print film is easy to find. That is why I asked. It's always easier to go to a local store than to order. No more slide film in stores anywhere in this area. I've been around my state and haven't seen any either. As far as I know slide film can only be ordered.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Woonsocket, RI USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,725
    It's been a while since I used Dale Labs or Photoworks, but a while back I scanned all my old negatives. I also scanned the slides I got from these places in the 1980s, and I discovered that the scans of the slides were substantially less sharp than the slides of the negatives. This isn't really surprising, but it leads me to recommend that you not try going the slides-from-negatives route if you mainly want slides for projection. (There may be exceptions if you need some particular feature of this combination, though.) The slides-from-negatives route seems appealing to me as a way to cut costs (it's cheaper than getting prints from all negatives) or if you mainly want prints but also want to do an occasional slide show.

    That said, this is based on my experiences 20-25 years ago. It's conceivable (but unlikely) that with today's products and technologies you'd get better results using slides-from-negatives than you'd get shooting slide film directly. It could be worth shooting a couple of test rolls to see for yourself what you'd get.

  3. #13
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,276
    Images
    148
    Could you explain:
    Quote Originally Posted by srs5694 View Post
    It's been a while since I used Dale Labs or Photoworks, but a while back I scanned all my old negatives. I also scanned the slides I got from these places in the 1980s, and I discovered that the scans of the slides were substantially less sharp than the slides of the negatives. This isn't really surprising, but it leads me to recommend that you not try going the slides-from-negatives route if you mainly want slides for projection. (
    Do you mean the scans of the negatives are much sharper than the scans of the slides made from the same negatives ?

    Ian
    Last edited by Ian Grant; 06-27-2008 at 09:56 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: Typo

  4. #14
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,036
    Images
    65
    Actually, negatives are generally quite a bit sharper than slides. This is due to the edge effects introduced by DIR couplres which enhance sharpness. Reversal films go to completion and therefore have less sharpness.

    This high sharpness was developed for the motion picture industry.

    PE

  5. #15
    DWThomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE Pennsylvania
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,240
    Images
    65
    A few decades back there was a place in Seattle that heavily marketed a film that they would process to slides and prints, presumably using a cine-type process to get the slides. At the time, it seemed an attractive idea, but I tried a few rolls and concluded I could never get good slides and good prints at the same time. It seemed as though optimizing exposure for one resulted in less satisfactory results in the other. Adding in the factor of a week or more turn-around for processing (which could only be done by them), I soon gave it up and stuck with C-41 or E-6 processed locally.

    DaveT

  6. #16
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,400
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by DWThomas View Post
    A few decades back there was a place in Seattle that heavily marketed a film that they would process to slides and prints, presumably using a cine-type process to get the slides. At the time, it seemed an attractive idea, but I tried a few rolls and concluded I could never get good slides and good prints at the same time. It seemed as though optimizing exposure for one resulted in less satisfactory results in the other. Adding in the factor of a week or more turn-around for processing (which could only be done by them), I soon gave it up and stuck with C-41 or E-6 processed locally.

    DaveT
    That was Seattle Film works, and the film was re-spooled cine film.

    That film had a rem-jet backing, so you would not be popular with any photofinisher who missed that fact and ran it through their C41 machines.

    As cine film is optimized to print onto film, rather than paper, the contrast (in particular) is not well suited to paper prints. It works, and has a particular character, but isn't optimal.

    The slides you would get from Seattle Film works were probably better, but they did suffer from the two stage, vs single stage process, when it came to sharpness.

    Anyone here ever had to clean out a processor contaminated by unwanted rem-jet (PE, you are exempt from the question)?

    Matt

  7. #17

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Woonsocket, RI USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,725
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant View Post
    Do you mean the scans of the negatives are much sharper than the scans of the slides made from the same negatives ?
    Yes. I suppose it's another question of whether slides shot directly would be sharper than slides made from negatives.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Woonsocket, RI USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,725
    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    That was Seattle Film works, and the film was re-spooled cine film.
    Note that Seattle FilmWorks (SFW) is now known as PhotoWorks (one of the two outfits I referenced earlier). They're still in business, although they no longer deliver respooled ECN-II (cine) film; their house brand is now C-41 film -- Ferrania, to be precise, the last time I checked. Dale Labs, the other outfit I referenced earlier, offered similar services using ECN-II film in the 1980s, but switched to C-41 film in the 1990s, the same as SFW/PhotoWorks.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Phoeinx Arizona
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,343
    I shot several rolls of Seattle Film Works in the mid to late 70s, dont recall why I even experimented with it, had a poor reputation even then. All of my Seattle Film Work slide film is badley faded. I have the negatives somewhere, at some point I intend to dig them up and see how they print. I dont recall if the negative film has a mask or not.

  10. #20
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,036
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by srs5694 View Post
    Yes. I suppose it's another question of whether slides shot directly would be sharper than slides made from negatives.
    No, they may not be sharper. See my note above.

    PE

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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