workflow with e-6
I am wondering what the best work flow is from using slides. Are a lot of people scanning their own stuff, having a lab do it and how many are using a computer to work with slides after being processed?
When using slides in the past I wasnt worried about bringing them into a computer so just wondering what opinions everyone has here on this topic?
I shot slides almost exclusively until last year when it become difficult to get them developed locally. Getting the chems here to do them myself isn't that easy so I've mostly been shooting negatives for the past while and mostly black and white since that is the easiest to develop and print at home for me.
But when I mostly shot slides I enjoyed them projected, on the light table, some Ciba/Ilfochrome and Fuji R prints.
I did scan them too though I'm not sure we should discuss much about scanning here on apug. I preferred to scan them myself rather than have the lab do them and often took them out of the slide mounts to get the whole image as the mount masks a fair bit out.
I like working with transparency films, but as noted, processing is becoming an issue. When my local lab quite running E-6 I bought a Kodak kit, but I still have my stockpile of unprocessed film to work through.
The hybrid nature of minilabs has made printing from slides much easier, since the machines don't care whether you're starting with a positive or negative now. But that's a hybrid process that is OT for APUG.
Sides are great projected, it's how they are meant to be viewed after all. Just admiring on a light table works too, but is kind of limiting. However, rigging up a projector can be a bit of a pain, and projectors for anything larger than 2x2 mounts are not common.
My preference is the hybrid approach, my current house doesn't have a good space for projection, and my projector has lived in the attic now for a long, long time.
I should add I have two projectors, one a nice Ektagraphic with a beautiful fixed lens, automatic timer function. A proper screen makes images of great brightness, contrast and color. Projection is the best way to view them, it is how they were intended to be viewed.
For processing I have a few methods that I use. For regular 35mm mounted slides I just send them out via the local Drug Store, yes it takes almost two weeks but it is easier on me plus I just like their mounts better. If I shoot stereo (3D) I will process and mount them myself, if I have a lot of stereo slide film I will send it out to a lab I trust to not cut it (read not Fuji). There are labs that offer Stereo mounting but it is prohibitively expensive, I can cut and mount a roll in about 20 minuets so I do. I do have 2x2 mounts, but I mostly use them for mounting the singles I get sometimes when I try to get every frame out of a stereo roll and only get one of the two exposures.
I project all my slides to view them, with stereo slides I also use a hand viewer. I do scan some to share and for cataloging because it is easier to find something on the computer than by looking through slides one at a time. I purposely make low res scans for these "contact sheets" when I am sharing via the internet I make better scans. Honestly the only way to view slides is on a screen or in a viewer, but the screen is a lot more fun because everyone can see at the same time. With stereo slides there is the added bonus of seeing my family in those silly glasses *L*.
If I want scans, I scan my own, I let a lab scan once, it won't happen again.
"Would you like it if someone that painted in oils told you that you were not making portraits because you were using a camera?"
"Shouldn't it be more about the joy of producing and viewing the photo than what you paid for the camera?"
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I use 135 slides, develop them myself, and scan them with a 135 film scanner.
Developing at home is easy but requires some space. Having a Jobo CPP-2 or similar film processor makes the entire process easier, and requires some more space. You don't strictly need running water in the room where you develop slides, but it can be practical to have it near, especially for the final wash of the CPP.
Scanning with a dedicated film scanner yields very good results. Drum scanner yield even better results, but desktop scanners are OK for many demanding applications. Stock photography agencies will generally accept scans obtained with a film scanner. Some agencies will require a drum scan though.
If you plan to scan film and you use medium format I suggest you look at MF film scanner. They cost more than 135 film scanner and they are less available on the market, but you will get the most of your MF film with them. Using MF and then scanning with a flatbed scanner does seem self-defeating to me.
Some people would routinely slightly under-expose slides to make colours more "vibrant" when projected. I have personally never followed this practice anyway if you intend to scan my advice is to expose for the declared sensitivity, measure exposition just not to burn important highlights and let the rest fall where it may. This kind of slide will give you the best scan.
I use a Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED, with "VueScan" software. I scan each slide at maximum resolution (4000 dpi) with multi-pass (16 times) and multiexposure. I generate a "linear DNG" that I develop with Lightroom first, and correct later with ColorPerfect (a Photoshop plugin). The rest of the work is made in Photoshop.
You will find further details on the brother forum dedicated to hybrid techniques, at hybridphoto.com.