This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Hurrah, got some slides back from Peak Imaging today, and having painted stark matt white the walls of the lounge in Straggler Mansions, I was able to project direct to wall.
Bugger the megapixel count, this is where it's at kids When you can pick up a second hand high quality projector for £35 (with a free guidebook thrown in - thanks Chris!) and an Olympus Mju II for a fiver, the "cost saving after the initial investment" with digital cameras, pales somewhat, especially if you fancy seeing your pictures fill a wall rather than a 19" monitor.
One in particular had me in awe.
I do think I'll be shooting a fair bit more slide film this year.
Bugger the megapixel count, this is where it's at kids When you can pick up a second hand high quality projector for £35 (with a free guidebook thrown in - thanks Chris!) and an Olympus Mju II for a fiver, the "cost saving after the initial investment" with digital cameras, pales somewhat, especially if you fancy seeing your pictures fill a wall rather than a 19" monitor.
One in particular had me in awe.
I do think I'll be shooting a fair bit more slide film this year.
In reply to Blue Straggler: Due to the oil price hike......Fuji have just raised film price by 20%. ;-(
In reply to Blue Straggler:
i can't sing enough praise for slide film really.
as an art student it really makes me cringe to see people wasting huge amounts of money on mediocre quality digital prints from low quality images they took on midrange DSLRs,
i recently got a 26x40 inch cibachrome print from a slide for a similar price to what someone paid for a digital print of the same size, the quality doesn't even come close (not to mention how much less my old slr cost in comparison to a digital equivalent)
/rant
i can't sing enough praise for slide film really.
as an art student it really makes me cringe to see people wasting huge amounts of money on mediocre quality digital prints from low quality images they took on midrange DSLRs,
i recently got a 26x40 inch cibachrome print from a slide for a similar price to what someone paid for a digital print of the same size, the quality doesn't even come close (not to mention how much less my old slr cost in comparison to a digital equivalent)
/rant
" the quality doesn't even come close "
What criteria are you basing this on? They are totally different animals.
Personally (having shot 35mm and 645) I use digital for my work now because I think it gives better quality images.
What criteria are you basing this on? They are totally different animals.
Personally (having shot 35mm and 645) I use digital for my work now because I think it gives better quality images.
In reply to andrew sandercock:
I think the discrepancy is probably more down to the printing.
> (In reply to Blue Straggler)
>
> i can't sing enough praise for slide film really.
>
> as an art student it really makes me cringe to see people wasting huge amounts of money on mediocre quality digital prints from low quality images they took on midrange DSLRs,
>
> i recently got a 26x40 inch cibachrome print from a slide for a similar price to what someone paid for a digital print of the same size, the quality doesn't even come close (not to mention how much less my old slr cost in comparison to a digital equivalent)
>
> /rant
>
> i can't sing enough praise for slide film really.
>
> as an art student it really makes me cringe to see people wasting huge amounts of money on mediocre quality digital prints from low quality images they took on midrange DSLRs,
>
> i recently got a 26x40 inch cibachrome print from a slide for a similar price to what someone paid for a digital print of the same size, the quality doesn't even come close (not to mention how much less my old slr cost in comparison to a digital equivalent)
>
> /rant
I think the discrepancy is probably more down to the printing.
In reply to andrew sandercock:
My view is that I like slides at the moment because I can view big images WITHOUT shelling out for a huge print.
My view is that I like slides at the moment because I can view big images WITHOUT shelling out for a huge print.
In reply to Blue Straggler:
I've only just started using transparency film, and very exciting it is too. I have some B&W transparency film to use, courtesy of Cragrat - I'm *still* saving it for something special, whatever that may be.
Can you get projectors for 120-sized transparency film?
I've only just started using transparency film, and very exciting it is too. I have some B&W transparency film to use, courtesy of Cragrat - I'm *still* saving it for something special, whatever that may be.
Can you get projectors for 120-sized transparency film?
In reply to CJD:
Really? I'd assumed you'd dabbled in it quite a lot, but you know what they say about assumptions! Was it you that was asking about Agfa Scala? I was thinking about this last night as some of my slides would have been nicer in b&w. I imagine there's some sort of optic you can get to do this (they sell them for a ludicrous £150 to stick on your viewfinder to show what a scene will look like in b&w!)
Lucky you!
Yes
> (In reply to Blue Straggler)
>
> I've only just started using transparency film
>
> I've only just started using transparency film
Really? I'd assumed you'd dabbled in it quite a lot, but you know what they say about assumptions! Was it you that was asking about Agfa Scala? I was thinking about this last night as some of my slides would have been nicer in b&w. I imagine there's some sort of optic you can get to do this (they sell them for a ludicrous £150 to stick on your viewfinder to show what a scene will look like in b&w!)
> and very exciting it is too. I have some B&W transparency film to use
Lucky you!
>
> Can you get projectors for 120-sized transparency film?
> Can you get projectors for 120-sized transparency film?
Yes
In reply to CJD:
Yes, but can be quite, erm, very, expensive. Sometimes cheap ones come up second hand, if you do not need any automation. I don't know much about them, but it seems cheap 6x6 projectors are much easier to find than 6x7.
Anyway, I'm sure other people here have better information than me.
Jon.
>
> Can you get projectors for 120-sized transparency film?
> Can you get projectors for 120-sized transparency film?
Yes, but can be quite, erm, very, expensive. Sometimes cheap ones come up second hand, if you do not need any automation. I don't know much about them, but it seems cheap 6x6 projectors are much easier to find than 6x7.
Anyway, I'm sure other people here have better information than me.
Jon.
In reply to Blue Straggler:
I really like slides aswell, I've got both digital and lide projectors though, so the putting big pictures on the wall thing is less of a draw for me, although it is really nice, my Rollei smells nice when its projecting, the automation is busted though.
I really like slides aswell, I've got both digital and lide projectors though, so the putting big pictures on the wall thing is less of a draw for me, although it is really nice, my Rollei smells nice when its projecting, the automation is busted though.
In reply to Blue Straggler:
it was indeed me asking about agfa scala - the aforementioned B&W transparency film.
it was indeed me asking about agfa scala - the aforementioned B&W transparency film.
In reply to Blue Straggleron't want to piss on anyone strawberries but you can get digital projectors now if you want to fill up walls. I currently have a D80 which ain't bad but I'm hankering after a D3 (the price will come down and a 2nd hand one with <20k actuations will do me) that'll blow yer 120 film away with it's megapixel equivalent
In reply to Bokonon:
sob - one of my worst moments during my degree was showing slides of my work to my group, and the projector bursting into flames...
I do quite envy art students now - all that 'take at least three of the same slide of each piece of work to document it' seems a bit farcically faffy in this digital age.
sob - one of my worst moments during my degree was showing slides of my work to my group, and the projector bursting into flames...
I do quite envy art students now - all that 'take at least three of the same slide of each piece of work to document it' seems a bit farcically faffy in this digital age.
In reply to obi-wan nick b:
Well yes of course.
But digital projector + D3
vs.
"you can pick up a second hand high quality projector for £35 (with a free guidebook thrown in - thanks Chris!) and an Olympus Mju II for a fiver"
Well yes of course.
But digital projector + D3
vs.
"you can pick up a second hand high quality projector for £35 (with a free guidebook thrown in - thanks Chris!) and an Olympus Mju II for a fiver"
In reply to obi-wan nick b:
yeah, but you don't get the glorious smell of film burning when it all goes wrong with a digital projector... er...
yeah, but you don't get the glorious smell of film burning when it all goes wrong with a digital projector... er...
In reply to Blue Straggler:
A man after my own heart. I do love seeing slides projected; it makes a mediocre photo look good and a good photo look fantastic.
A man after my own heart. I do love seeing slides projected; it makes a mediocre photo look good and a good photo look fantastic.
In reply to Blue Straggler:
I've only deviated from film to slide the once - although a lot fiddlier (I enjoy building subject specific albums), the quality of slides lends itself to high quality enlargment. Very lively colours, great depth. But oh, the choice though... film or slide? maybe I need three camera bodies now, I already have two I take out (colour and B&W films).
I've only deviated from film to slide the once - although a lot fiddlier (I enjoy building subject specific albums), the quality of slides lends itself to high quality enlargment. Very lively colours, great depth. But oh, the choice though... film or slide? maybe I need three camera bodies now, I already have two I take out (colour and B&W films).
In reply to obi-wan nick b:
An expensive DSLR may well have resolution equivalent to or better than 35mm (I'm not sure they are up to 120 yet though). But the problem is that digital projectors most certainly do not. The quality I have seen from digital projectors is not even close to that of slide projectors both in dynamic range and resolution. Simply put, the quality you get from a digi projector would not be acceptable from a slide projector.
And they are a hell of a lot more expensive.
An expensive DSLR may well have resolution equivalent to or better than 35mm (I'm not sure they are up to 120 yet though). But the problem is that digital projectors most certainly do not. The quality I have seen from digital projectors is not even close to that of slide projectors both in dynamic range and resolution. Simply put, the quality you get from a digi projector would not be acceptable from a slide projector.
And they are a hell of a lot more expensive.
In reply to CJD:
one of these might be handy for your 120 slides great name as well.
http://tinyurl.com/5s935z
one of these might be handy for your 120 slides great name as well.
http://tinyurl.com/5s935z
In reply to CJD:
My memory could be deceiving me, but I seem to remember that if you're shooting black and white then negatives are generally felt better. For one thing when you print you can choose what contrast paper to use (god it's been absolute years since I did that!) and dodge and burn etc. Whereas with a slide you're stuck with what you decide about contrast/how the film works etc. I know positive paper exits but I have no experience with it. Saying that I would still like to experiment with black and white slide film at some point.
Where slides make a massive difference, for me, is colour landscapes--especially using Velvia 50 film. The colours are simply stunning. All the photos in this album where taken on velvia film http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/gemma.mehmet/Africa2006 and then subsequently scanned in but not very well.
In fact it was those two months in Africa which made me switch to digital. Despite what was said earlier on this thread about equipment being cheaper, what wasn't mentioned is the cost of film/processing compared to digital. After the two months we had 40 rolls of Velvia (bought at about £5/roll) that needed developing, some with some pushing, at about £10/roll! It took us months to get our photos back, guess what Christmas/birthday presents were that year.
As much as I love the quality of slides, I'm convinced that in the long run digital works out cheaper despite the initial outlay. Also you'll only have a small selection of photos that you want printed.
Mehmet
> I'm *still* saving it for something special, whatever that may be.
My memory could be deceiving me, but I seem to remember that if you're shooting black and white then negatives are generally felt better. For one thing when you print you can choose what contrast paper to use (god it's been absolute years since I did that!) and dodge and burn etc. Whereas with a slide you're stuck with what you decide about contrast/how the film works etc. I know positive paper exits but I have no experience with it. Saying that I would still like to experiment with black and white slide film at some point.
Where slides make a massive difference, for me, is colour landscapes--especially using Velvia 50 film. The colours are simply stunning. All the photos in this album where taken on velvia film http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/gemma.mehmet/Africa2006 and then subsequently scanned in but not very well.
In fact it was those two months in Africa which made me switch to digital. Despite what was said earlier on this thread about equipment being cheaper, what wasn't mentioned is the cost of film/processing compared to digital. After the two months we had 40 rolls of Velvia (bought at about £5/roll) that needed developing, some with some pushing, at about £10/roll! It took us months to get our photos back, guess what Christmas/birthday presents were that year.
As much as I love the quality of slides, I'm convinced that in the long run digital works out cheaper despite the initial outlay. Also you'll only have a small selection of photos that you want printed.
Mehmet
In reply to Mehmet Karatay:
it's more that I'm saving it as I'll have to send it away to get it processed, and the only place I've found so far that does it is in America! There's a Scala group on Flickr with some cracking images: http://www.flickr.com/groups/scala/pool/
it's more that I'm saving it as I'll have to send it away to get it processed, and the only place I've found so far that does it is in America! There's a Scala group on Flickr with some cracking images: http://www.flickr.com/groups/scala/pool/
In reply to Mehmet Karatay:
Sorry! That comes from me sharing CJD's miserly ways with film
I was going to throw in something about getting hold of cheap slide film and getting it processed and mounted for about £6 a pop at Peak Imaging but that would have annulled the succinctness of the OP.
I measure things in terms of a reward/effort ratio, where cost is factored into effort. I always get at least £10 worth of perceived reward, from a roll of slide film. Two slides alone from my recent set, gave me that much reward, just gazing at them last night
My retro mannerisms this year may well be coloured by the fact that I don't actually have a computer at the moment! (using a borrowed ancient sluggish iBook with a knackered 15" monitor, at Straggler Mansions...)
>
>
> what wasn't mentioned is the cost of film/processing compared to digital.
> what wasn't mentioned is the cost of film/processing compared to digital.
Sorry! That comes from me sharing CJD's miserly ways with film
I was going to throw in something about getting hold of cheap slide film and getting it processed and mounted for about £6 a pop at Peak Imaging but that would have annulled the succinctness of the OP.
I measure things in terms of a reward/effort ratio, where cost is factored into effort. I always get at least £10 worth of perceived reward, from a roll of slide film. Two slides alone from my recent set, gave me that much reward, just gazing at them last night
My retro mannerisms this year may well be coloured by the fact that I don't actually have a computer at the moment! (using a borrowed ancient sluggish iBook with a knackered 15" monitor, at Straggler Mansions...)
In reply to Blue Straggler:
or in short - I don't think I'd have ploughed through 40 rolls of Velvia in 2 months! Probably 6 at most. Then again I've not been so I don't know how snap-happy I might have been, and I've been known to blow a whole roll in an hour at a concert
or in short - I don't think I'd have ploughed through 40 rolls of Velvia in 2 months! Probably 6 at most. Then again I've not been so I don't know how snap-happy I might have been, and I've been known to blow a whole roll in an hour at a concert
In reply to Blue Straggler:
Don't get me wrong, I really do love slide film, I just can't afford it at the moment.
Also the 40 rolls in two months isn't a regular occurrence, but when the lights amazing, the scenery/animals are amazing, there's something photographic wherever you look and you know you won't be going back for a good number of years then the number of films you go through increases. There were two of us taking photos on the same camera, but I'm not sure if that makes a difference to the total number.
Mehmet
Don't get me wrong, I really do love slide film, I just can't afford it at the moment.
Also the 40 rolls in two months isn't a regular occurrence, but when the lights amazing, the scenery/animals are amazing, there's something photographic wherever you look and you know you won't be going back for a good number of years then the number of films you go through increases. There were two of us taking photos on the same camera, but I'm not sure if that makes a difference to the total number.
Mehmet
In reply to Mehmet Karatay:
When you are spending a thousand pounds on a trip then spending 20% on films for recalling the trip later is not a lot.
I used to take 10 films on holiday usually using 8 of them. when the trip is over all you have left is pictures and memories.
When you are spending a thousand pounds on a trip then spending 20% on films for recalling the trip later is not a lot.
I used to take 10 films on holiday usually using 8 of them. when the trip is over all you have left is pictures and memories.
In reply to sutty:
I am currently fretting about the whereabouts of four films from my Czech trip...
I am currently fretting about the whereabouts of four films from my Czech trip...
In reply to El Greyo:
Absolutely, anything more than 1024x768 in terms of resolution for digital projectors and your get into £600 or so, mine is a cheapy one and it cost me £400, added to that lower contrast, the technical quality of the image on the screen (wall) is nowhere near 35mm slide with a digi projector.
> (In reply to obi-wan nick b)
>
> An expensive DSLR may well have resolution equivalent to or better than 35mm (I'm not sure they are up to 120 yet though). But the problem is that digital projectors most certainly do not. The quality I have seen from digital projectors is not even close to that of slide projectors both in dynamic range and resolution. Simply put, the quality you get from a digi projector would not be acceptable from a slide projector.
>
> And they are a hell of a lot more expensive.
>
> An expensive DSLR may well have resolution equivalent to or better than 35mm (I'm not sure they are up to 120 yet though). But the problem is that digital projectors most certainly do not. The quality I have seen from digital projectors is not even close to that of slide projectors both in dynamic range and resolution. Simply put, the quality you get from a digi projector would not be acceptable from a slide projector.
>
> And they are a hell of a lot more expensive.
Absolutely, anything more than 1024x768 in terms of resolution for digital projectors and your get into £600 or so, mine is a cheapy one and it cost me £400, added to that lower contrast, the technical quality of the image on the screen (wall) is nowhere near 35mm slide with a digi projector.
I used to get through a whole lot of film :-P Even now I occassionally stumble accross hidden little cache's of the stuff! I'm slowly working my way through the 35mm but I don't have a medium format camera anymore so I'm never going to use that up!
The problem is it's all effort and I'm extremely lazy, no seriously I really am! If I give it to snax I don't even have to leave my house :-P
You coming to Newcastle on the 10th?
You coming to Newcastle on the 10th?
In reply to Richard Carter:
I tried to reply to your mail but it bounced back.
I'd love to but I'm climbing in the lakes...
I tried to reply to your mail but it bounced back.
I'd love to but I'm climbing in the lakes...
In reply to Blue Straggler: since you were talking of this i just thought about putting some in for processing..
can't decide what to do CD + print + processing is costly.. but i like the ability to put some online - whilst wanting to hold summat and see true colours (not monitor influenced)
what to do!??!!?!?! whaddya reckon
i've not got a projector as yet - since this was my first batch of slides..
can't decide what to do CD + print + processing is costly.. but i like the ability to put some online - whilst wanting to hold summat and see true colours (not monitor influenced)
what to do!??!!?!?! whaddya reckon
i've not got a projector as yet - since this was my first batch of slides..
In reply to gingerdave13:
I've never had prints done from slides at time of processing. Any print from a slide will not show the slide's true colour depth anyway so the print gives no advantage over the scan.
Why not process and scan, and treat yourself to a little slide viewer (you know, those handheld things with a cheap bulb and condenser, should find one for about a tenner, I find mine invaluable) or get a loupe and thin light panel (loupe: £5, light panel: £25; I don't have that stuff though)
I've never had prints done from slides at time of processing. Any print from a slide will not show the slide's true colour depth anyway so the print gives no advantage over the scan.
Why not process and scan, and treat yourself to a little slide viewer (you know, those handheld things with a cheap bulb and condenser, should find one for about a tenner, I find mine invaluable) or get a loupe and thin light panel (loupe: £5, light panel: £25; I don't have that stuff though)
In reply to Blue Straggler:
i got prints done from slides last time I had some done. I scanned the prints in using the flatbed at work.
i got prints done from slides last time I had some done. I scanned the prints in using the flatbed at work.
In reply to CJD: hmmm now that's a cunning plan - i wonder if the work scanner (big jobbie) is any cop at this...
In reply to gingerdave13:
the one I use to scan in all the pictures on my flickr (excluding the digital pics!) is a cheap and dirty Epson one that cost about £70 around 4 years ago. Seems to work a treat!
the one I use to scan in all the pictures on my flickr (excluding the digital pics!) is a cheap and dirty Epson one that cost about £70 around 4 years ago. Seems to work a treat!
In reply to CJD: one would hope (yer right) that a bigger newer one would be better for this - but somehow me no think so...
so maybe no prints and get digitised images then.
so maybe no prints and get digitised images then.
In reply to obi-wan nick b:
Most digital projectors are crap, and don't even come close to the cheaper 35m equivalents, the ones that do will cost you so much you won't be able to afford the electric to power it up. Yes the price of digital cameras will come down, but you are in effect buying something of ever depreciating value, whereas with my contax or RB67 the value is going to remain static or increase. and blow 120 film away??? I even doubt that the digital MF kit that I use comes close to blowing 120 away never mind a crappy little DSLR sensor. Sorry to wee in your cornflakes!
I use both film and digital, and everything from 35mm to 5x5 and digi compacts to MF Phase one backs on a 5x4 so i see the benefits and failures of it all. Side still kicks arse and is worth every penny.
Most digital projectors are crap, and don't even come close to the cheaper 35m equivalents, the ones that do will cost you so much you won't be able to afford the electric to power it up. Yes the price of digital cameras will come down, but you are in effect buying something of ever depreciating value, whereas with my contax or RB67 the value is going to remain static or increase. and blow 120 film away??? I even doubt that the digital MF kit that I use comes close to blowing 120 away never mind a crappy little DSLR sensor. Sorry to wee in your cornflakes!
I use both film and digital, and everything from 35mm to 5x5 and digi compacts to MF Phase one backs on a 5x4 so i see the benefits and failures of it all. Side still kicks arse and is worth every penny.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...