> > 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
> 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.