Professional Web Applications Themes

Prints or slides for hobbiest - Photography

Hi there, I was wondering what the net wisdom was regarding the merits of prints vs. slides for modern emulsions. To put this question in context: What I do: * Mostly travel shots, some portraits (indoors and outdoors) * Prosumer camera and lenses * Nikon LS-40 scanner to scan for web * Display in albums and on the web ([url]www.davidjennings.net[/url]). Looking to start framing a few photos. What I know: * Pros generally use slides (Velvia seems pretty popular) * Photo libraries and magazines prefer slides I'm looking to get my photos up to frame-worthy quality but I have no ...

  1. #1

    Default Prints or slides for hobbiest

    Hi there,

    I was wondering what the net wisdom was regarding the merits of prints vs.
    slides for modern emulsions. To put this question in context:

    What I do:

    * Mostly travel shots, some portraits (indoors and outdoors)
    * Prosumer camera and lenses
    * Nikon LS-40 scanner to scan for web
    * Display in albums and on the web ([url]www.davidjennings.net[/url]). Looking to start
    framing a few photos.

    What I know:

    * Pros generally use slides (Velvia seems pretty popular)
    * Photo libraries and magazines prefer slides

    I'm looking to get my photos up to frame-worthy quality but I have no
    ambitions about submitting to photo libraries. One argument for slides is
    that you avoid the final printing process but since I'm also scanning off a
    negative that's less of an issue. If I switch to slides then I lose the
    ability to keep my photos in albums which is nice for friends and relatives.
    The question is, are slide films sufficiently better than print to make that
    sacrifice worthwhile?

    Any thoughts greatly appreciated.

    David.


    David Jennings Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Prints or slides for hobbiest

    "David Jennings" <newsdavidjennings.removeme.net> wrote in message news:<3f169ca5$1duster.adelaide.on.net>...
    > Hi there,
    >
    > I was wondering what the net wisdom was regarding the merits of prints vs.
    > slides for modern emulsions. To put this question in context:
    >
    > What I do:
    >
    > * Mostly travel shots, some portraits (indoors and outdoors)
    > * Prosumer camera and lenses
    > * Nikon LS-40 scanner to scan for web
    > * Display in albums and on the web ([url]www.davidjennings.net[/url]). Looking to start
    > framing a few photos.
    >
    > What I know:
    >
    > * Pros generally use slides (Velvia seems pretty popular)
    > * Photo libraries and magazines prefer slides
    >
    > I'm looking to get my photos up to frame-worthy quality but I have no
    > ambitions about submitting to photo libraries. One argument for slides is
    > that you avoid the final printing process but since I'm also scanning off a
    > negative that's less of an issue. If I switch to slides then I lose the
    > ability to keep my photos in albums which is nice for friends and relatives.
    > The question is, are slide films sufficiently better than print to make that
    > sacrifice worthwhile?
    >
    > Any thoughts greatly appreciated.
    >
    > David.


    From your desriptions, negative film seems the better choice for your.

    If you want to use slides, a projector is required to share them with
    others (unless you make prints, for which negative films are better
    anyway).
    Michael Scarpitti Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Prints or slides for hobbiest


    "David Jennings" <newsdavidjennings.removeme.net> wrote in message
    news:3f169ca5$1duster.adelaide.on.net...
    > Hi there,
    >
    > I was wondering what the net wisdom was regarding the merits of prints vs.
    > slides for modern emulsions. To put this question in context:
    >
    > What I do:
    >
    > * Mostly travel shots, some portraits (indoors and outdoors)
    > * Prosumer camera and lenses
    > * Nikon LS-40 scanner to scan for web
    > * Display in albums and on the web ([url]www.davidjennings.net[/url]). Looking to
    start
    > framing a few photos.
    >
    > What I know:
    >
    > * Pros generally use slides (Velvia seems pretty popular)
    > * Photo libraries and magazines prefer slides
    >
    > I'm looking to get my photos up to frame-worthy quality but I have no
    > ambitions about submitting to photo libraries. One argument for slides is
    > that you avoid the final printing process but since I'm also scanning off
    a
    > negative that's less of an issue. If I switch to slides then I lose the
    > ability to keep my photos in albums which is nice for friends and
    relatives.
    > The question is, are slide films sufficiently better than print to make
    that
    > sacrifice worthwhile?
    >
    > Any thoughts greatly appreciated.
    >
    > David.
    >
    >
    Personally, I get better scans from slides than negs. Then, I can make a
    print using my Epson 1270, or I can burn the file to CD and take it to my
    local pro shop--they'll make me an 8x10 for $8. Less, if the right fellas
    are working!

    If you want prints, shoot negs, if you want to scan and make occasional
    prints, shoot slides.
    mc


    Matt Clara Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Prints or slides for hobbiest

    >
    >
    > Personally, I get better scans from slides than negs. Then, I can make a
    > print using my Epson 1270, or I can burn the file to CD and take it to my
    > local pro shop--they'll make me an 8x10 for $8. Less, if the right fellas
    > are working!
    Try [url]www.ezprints.com[/url]. They make _beautiful_ 8x10's for $3


    Mike Marty Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Prints or slides for hobbiest


    "Mike Marty" <mikemcs.NOSPAMwisc.edu> wrote in message
    news:bf6e8m$dpu$1news.doit.wisc.edu...
    >
    > >
    > >
    > > Personally, I get better scans from slides than negs. Then, I can make
    a
    > > print using my Epson 1270, or I can burn the file to CD and take it to
    my
    > > local pro shop--they'll make me an 8x10 for $8. Less, if the right
    fellas
    > > are working!
    >
    > Try [url]www.ezprints.com[/url]. They make _beautiful_ 8x10's for $3
    >
    Thank Mike, I'll check 'em out!


    Matt Clara Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Prints or slides for hobbiest

    I shoot one or the other or both depending on the situation.
    Don't limit yourself to a certain film type.
    bg

    "David Jennings" <newsdavidjennings.removeme.net> wrote in message
    news:3f169ca5$1duster.adelaide.on.net...
    > Hi there,
    >
    > I was wondering what the net wisdom was regarding the merits of prints vs.
    > slides for modern emulsions. To put this question in context:
    >
    > What I do:
    >
    > * Mostly travel shots, some portraits (indoors and outdoors)
    > * Prosumer camera and lenses
    > * Nikon LS-40 scanner to scan for web
    > * Display in albums and on the web ([url]www.davidjennings.net[/url]). Looking to
    start
    > framing a few photos.
    >
    > What I know:
    >
    > * Pros generally use slides (Velvia seems pretty popular)
    > * Photo libraries and magazines prefer slides
    >
    > I'm looking to get my photos up to frame-worthy quality but I have no
    > ambitions about submitting to photo libraries. One argument for slides is
    > that you avoid the final printing process but since I'm also scanning off
    a
    > negative that's less of an issue. If I switch to slides then I lose the
    > ability to keep my photos in albums which is nice for friends and
    relatives.
    > The question is, are slide films sufficiently better than print to make
    that
    > sacrifice worthwhile?
    >
    > Any thoughts greatly appreciated.
    >
    > David.
    >
    >

    BG250 Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Prints or slides for hobbiest

    x-no-archive: yes

    "Michael Scarpitti" <mikescarpitti> wrote in message
    news:2fd2ff8c.0307170512.b1817e0posting.google.co m...
    > > I was wondering what the net wisdom was regarding the merits of prints
    vs.
    > > slides for modern emulsions.
    No doubt that slides have more luminance, and colors can be dramatic when
    viewed on a screen (or even in a handheld viewer) . . .

    BUT . . .

    You have to balance that against the inconvenience of pulling out the
    projector, setting up the screen and dimming the lights, just so you can
    view the prints.

    When I got into 35mm, in the early 70s, slides were a lot cheaper than
    prints, and I shot slides more for economy than anything else. And most of
    those slides are hardly ever viewed nowadays, because it's just too much of
    a pain to set everything up. My prints, in albums, are often viewed and
    enjoyed.

    You will probably find that you are oriented one way or the other. In my
    particular case, I prefer prints 95% of the time. There is no one right
    answer--like virtually everything in photography it is a trade-off. Your
    assessment may be exactly the opposite of mine, and that doesn't make me
    "wrong . . ."

    Confused yet?? :-)


    Jeremy Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: Prints or slides for hobbiest

    > I was wondering what the net wisdom was regarding the merits of prints vs.
    > slides for modern emulsions. To put this question in context:
    >
    Depends what other equipment you have/planning to get.

    Making prints from negatives is cheaper. With slides, you are either
    have to invest in a home digital lab (GOOD printer + GOOD film scanner
    + Misc. = can run you over $1,000) or pay higher price fro slide
    prints. The other thing about slides is that they come mostly in very
    slow speed, like 100 and that is not very versatile solution for an
    amateur photographer. Remember that pros have expensive lighting
    setups, assistants, multi-flash units and a ton of experience. Alot
    of them travel just to find a location with the "right" light. Most of
    us don't have that luxury. I think you should stick with print film.
    Igor Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: Prints or slides for hobbiest

    On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 17:55:09 +1000, "David Jennings"
    <newsdavidjennings.removeme.net> wrote:
    >Hi there,
    >
    >I was wondering what the net wisdom was regarding the merits of prints vs.
    >slides for modern emulsions.
    This question has been asked for decades, and I asked it many times
    myself in the pursuit of excellent images.

    There are many issues, like sharpness/graininess of the film, cost,
    retouchability, speed, color rendition, contrast, stability of the
    dyes, compatibility with the agencies, and so on.

    But I finally learned that it is simpler than that. If you primarily
    want prints, shoot print film. If you mostly want slides, shoot slide
    film. These days I would add, if you will be viewing on the monitor a
    lot, use a digital camera.

    Avogadro
    Avogadro Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: Prints or slides for hobbiest

    "David Jennings" <newsdavidjennings.removeme.net> wrote in message news:<3f169ca5$1duster.adelaide.on.net>...
    > I was wondering what the net wisdom was regarding the merits of prints vs.
    > slides for modern emulsions. To put this question in context:
    >
    > What I do:
    >
    > * Mostly travel shots, some portraits (indoors and outdoors)
    > * Prosumer camera and lenses
    > * Nikon LS-40 scanner to scan for web
    > * Display in albums and on the web ([url]www.davidjennings.net[/url]). Looking to start
    > framing a few photos.
    >
    > What I know:
    >
    > * Pros generally use slides (Velvia seems pretty popular)
    > * Photo libraries and magazines prefer slides
    >
    > I'm looking to get my photos up to frame-worthy quality but I have no
    > ambitions about submitting to photo libraries. One argument for slides is
    > that you avoid the final printing process but since I'm also scanning off a
    > negative that's less of an issue. If I switch to slides then I lose the
    > ability to keep my photos in albums which is nice for friends and relatives.
    > The question is, are slide films sufficiently better than print to make that
    > sacrifice worthwhile?
    Traditionally, the advantage of negative film was that it cost a lot
    less to make prints from them.

    With affordable high quality film scanners, you can now make prints
    from slides just as easily as the same setup with negative film.
    Maybe even more easily.

    Given this new equivalence between the two types of film, you need to
    look at the other issues. With slides its easy to look at the raw
    film though a loupe. With a negative, you can't really see anything
    unless you scan it. (The print they give you from the photofinisher
    doesn't really allow you to appreciate what's going on in the
    negative.)

    Slides are easier to handle because of the frames. But paper frames
    aren't as good as plastic frames. Negatives can be really inexpensive
    to get developed, except the cheap developing will scratch all your
    negatives. I haven't had so many problems with slide developing, they
    slides don't seem to get scratched as often.

    The grain is different between slides and negs, but it's hard to say
    which can make a bigger enlargement. Slides can be hard to scan
    because of the dark shadows that the scanner can't penetrate and the
    "pepper grain." But negatives can be hard to scan because of the
    color translation issue.

    With negative film, you have a better selection of fast film. Fuji
    800 print film can be pretty good. But now there is Provia 400F that
    you can push one stop to 800.

    So you see, it boils down to a personal preference rather than one
    being definitely better.
    Gordon Gekko Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: Prints or slides for hobbiest

    The discussion probably isn't over yet but I just wanted to say thanks to
    everyone that's contributed so far. Lots of information and lots of
    different angles and all of it helpful.

    You're all right that there's no "right" answer, but this discussion is
    giving me a better feeling for the trade-offs.

    I'm going on a short trip to the outback (I live in Australia) in a couple
    of weeks. I think I'll take a bit of both and see how it works out.

    Cheers,

    David.

    "Gordon Gekko" <gordongekko222> wrote in message
    news:d07edc6d.0307171732.408495b9posting.google.c om...
    > "David Jennings" <newsdavidjennings.removeme.net> wrote in message
    news:<3f169ca5$1duster.adelaide.on.net>...
    >
    > > I was wondering what the net wisdom was regarding the merits of prints
    vs.
    > > slides for modern emulsions. To put this question in context:
    > >
    > > What I do:
    > >
    > > * Mostly travel shots, some portraits (indoors and outdoors)
    > > * Prosumer camera and lenses
    > > * Nikon LS-40 scanner to scan for web
    > > * Display in albums and on the web ([url]www.davidjennings.net[/url]). Looking to
    start
    > > framing a few photos.
    > >
    > > What I know:
    > >
    > > * Pros generally use slides (Velvia seems pretty popular)
    > > * Photo libraries and magazines prefer slides
    > >
    > > I'm looking to get my photos up to frame-worthy quality but I have no
    > > ambitions about submitting to photo libraries. One argument for slides
    is
    > > that you avoid the final printing process but since I'm also scanning
    off a
    > > negative that's less of an issue. If I switch to slides then I lose the
    > > ability to keep my photos in albums which is nice for friends and
    relatives.
    > > The question is, are slide films sufficiently better than print to make
    that
    > > sacrifice worthwhile?
    >
    > Traditionally, the advantage of negative film was that it cost a lot
    > less to make prints from them.
    >
    > With affordable high quality film scanners, you can now make prints
    > from slides just as easily as the same setup with negative film.
    > Maybe even more easily.
    >
    > Given this new equivalence between the two types of film, you need to
    > look at the other issues. With slides its easy to look at the raw
    > film though a loupe. With a negative, you can't really see anything
    > unless you scan it. (The print they give you from the photofinisher
    > doesn't really allow you to appreciate what's going on in the
    > negative.)
    >
    > Slides are easier to handle because of the frames. But paper frames
    > aren't as good as plastic frames. Negatives can be really inexpensive
    > to get developed, except the cheap developing will scratch all your
    > negatives. I haven't had so many problems with slide developing, they
    > slides don't seem to get scratched as often.
    >
    > The grain is different between slides and negs, but it's hard to say
    > which can make a bigger enlargement. Slides can be hard to scan
    > because of the dark shadows that the scanner can't penetrate and the
    > "pepper grain." But negatives can be hard to scan because of the
    > color translation issue.
    >
    > With negative film, you have a better selection of fast film. Fuji
    > 800 print film can be pretty good. But now there is Provia 400F that
    > you can push one stop to 800.
    >
    > So you see, it boils down to a personal preference rather than one
    > being definitely better.

    David Jennings Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: Prints or slides for hobbiest

    My vote, for the imaging that you do, would be a good digital camera. If
    you're going to scan anyway I suggest you compare a good digital camera file
    vs. a scan from 35 mm film for yourself. Night and day difference and makes
    a better 8x10 than a 35 mm frame. Plus the convenience of changing ISO any
    time you want. I use a D1x at work and then come back to my film Nikon 35
    mm for my personal stuff and it's incredibly frustrating now to be unable to
    change my ISO anytime conditions change.


    "David Jennings" <newsdavidjennings.removeme.net> wrote in message
    news:3f169ca5$1duster.adelaide.on.net...
    > Hi there,
    >
    > I was wondering what the net wisdom was regarding the merits of prints vs.
    > slides for modern emulsions. To put this question in context:
    >
    > What I do:
    >
    > * Mostly travel shots, some portraits (indoors and outdoors)
    > * Prosumer camera and lenses
    > * Nikon LS-40 scanner to scan for web
    > * Display in albums and on the web ([url]www.davidjennings.net[/url]). Looking to
    start
    > framing a few photos.
    >
    > What I know:
    >
    > * Pros generally use slides (Velvia seems pretty popular)
    > * Photo libraries and magazines prefer slides
    >
    > I'm looking to get my photos up to frame-worthy quality but I have no
    > ambitions about submitting to photo libraries. One argument for slides is
    > that you avoid the final printing process but since I'm also scanning off
    a
    > negative that's less of an issue. If I switch to slides then I lose the
    > ability to keep my photos in albums which is nice for friends and
    relatives.
    > The question is, are slide films sufficiently better than print to make
    that
    > sacrifice worthwhile?
    >
    > Any thoughts greatly appreciated.
    >
    > David.
    >
    >

    McLeod Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: Prints or slides for hobbiest

    Your LS-40 will scan slides and print film with equal quality ( I know, I own
    one ). You may, however, want to base your choice of film based upon what you
    are shooting. For landscapes and travel photography in good light, try a good
    slide film. I shoot almost exclusively with Provia 100F, but you should give the
    new Velvia 100F a try, especially in flat lighting. For portraits, take a look
    at Portra 160VC or 400VC. It handles flash tones very accurately, and is nicely
    saturated. In low light, look at Portra 800 or Fuji 1600. Here the extra
    lattitude can save you. I have gotten excellent scans with all of these. BTW, if
    you don't have one, get a Epson 1280 printer.

    Mark


    David Jennings wrote:
    > Hi there,
    >
    > I was wondering what the net wisdom was regarding the merits of prints vs.
    > slides for modern emulsions. To put this question in context:
    >
    > What I do:
    >
    > * Mostly travel shots, some portraits (indoors and outdoors)
    > * Prosumer camera and lenses
    > * Nikon LS-40 scanner to scan for web
    > * Display in albums and on the web ([url]www.davidjennings.net[/url]). Looking to start
    > framing a few photos.
    >
    > What I know:
    >
    > * Pros generally use slides (Velvia seems pretty popular)
    > * Photo libraries and magazines prefer slides
    >
    > I'm looking to get my photos up to frame-worthy quality but I have no
    > ambitions about submitting to photo libraries. One argument for slides is
    > that you avoid the final printing process but since I'm also scanning off a
    > negative that's less of an issue. If I switch to slides then I lose the
    > ability to keep my photos in albums which is nice for friends and relatives.
    > The question is, are slide films sufficiently better than print to make that
    > sacrifice worthwhile?
    >
    > Any thoughts greatly appreciated.
    >
    > David.
    Mark Tuccillo Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: Prints or slides for hobbiest

    Definitely? Idon't know... definitely!

    Lewis

    Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":

    [url]http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm[/url]

    Remove "nospam" to reply
    Lewis Lang Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: Prints or slides for hobbiest

    "Jeremy" <com> wrote:
     


    More uninformed nonsense from out-of-touch "Jeremy", who has obviously
    never heard of a loupe and lightbox, nor of a slide viewer.

    They even had these things in the 1970s, which is of course the decade
    in which Jeremy's ideas (no one could truthfully term them
    "knowledge") are rooted.


    T Guest

Similar Threads

  1. Syncing Slides
    By jaysemail in forum Macromedia Flash Flashcom
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 31st, 09:51 AM
  2. Button1 prints frame1, button2 prints frame2?
    By Henk Stolker in forum Adobe Flash, Flex & Director
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: February 24th, 08:33 PM
  3. Picture package prints incorrect sized prints
    By Michael Rosen in forum Adobe Photoshop Elements
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: October 21st, 01:07 AM
  4. Prints From Slides -- HELP
    By tony in forum Photography
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 2nd, 10:55 AM
  5. Slides
    By Peg keeney in forum Adobe Photoshop Elements
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: July 30th, 11:41 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139