File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
I keep hearing about two types of film on here. Velvia and Ilford Black & White. I was looking around on Wolf Camera at the film on there since right now I am just using Kodak Gold and the results aren't very good. :/ Anyhow I noticed the Velvia is listed as "Slide Film" where as the Ilford B&W is listed as "Print Film". What is the difference? Sorry for being such a photo noob.
>> Anonymous
Don't get slide film. It is less tolerant of mistakes. Not good for a beginner.
>> Anonymous
Googling "slide film" and "print film" will probably be quicker and take less effort than writing that whole post took.
>> Warren !WSxruxpIJs
In short:

Print film will produce a negative. That is, the processed film has tones that are opposite of what you see (highlights are dense, shadows are thin). The negative is then either scanned to create a digital file or printed directly onto reversal materials that result in a print that looks like the original scene. Print films can be either B&W or color.

Slide (aka transparency) film creates a direct positive. Properly exposed, the processed film resembles what you photographed in terms of color and tone. Once processed, it can be processed or printed directly onto materials made for printing from transparency.

Transparency film is wonderful, but it can be very finnicky in terms of exposure and handling. If you're a raw beginner, print film is recommended.
>> studioeeg
http://www.photographyreview.com/Learnguidesfilmcrx.aspx
>> Anonymous
What are the advantages of slide then? It doesn't seem like there is any point to it unless you want to make an old fashioned slide show.
>> Anonymous
>>111349
OP Here. From what I read they look sharper and have more vibrant colours. I think that's the focus of Velvia which is the print film I came accross. I think Velvia is known for being really colourful.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>111349
Slide film has much better color reproduction than color negative film. With slides, the color you see on the slide is the color you get. With print film, there's an extra step in there to correct the weird brownish base color of the negative.
>> Lynx !!KY+lVSl0s2m
>>111354
Velvia is slide film bro.
And any black and white besides kodak 400cn is gonna need to be processed at a proshop or at home. Good film is expensive, but try some kodak portra, it can be developed just like your kodak gold.
>> Warren !WSxruxpIJs
>>111354
There are a number of reasons to use transparency film, though in recent years with advances in negative films they have become far less critical.

Sharpness, contrast, and color fidelity were all reasons to shoot transparency over negative. Color reproduction is still one reason to do transparency, as it removes a lot of the difficulty in having to properly color balance the scan or print. With a transparency, you automatically have a color-accurate original, whereas with negative film, things are a lot more relative in terms of color balance.

Velvia is a TRANSPARENCY film (not negative/print), and is primarily known for its punchy, saturated colors, especially when applied to landscape photography. It is also extremely sharp.
>> Anonymous
>>111359
Yeah I meant to say Slide film. I flubbed that one. My explanation makes sense if you replace film with slide I think. lol.

>>111359
So if I was to buy this Ilford Delta Walgreens wouldn't be able to process it. What about Ritz Camera or Wolf Camera? Wouldn't they be able to handle it?
>> studioeeg
     File :-(, x)
some people like slide film because you can cross process the film. Meaning you develop the E6 Film in C41 chemicals which gives you a weird color range.

this is a photo I took with slide film developed into C41
>> Anonymous
>>111365
That's pretty sweet
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
     File :-(, x)
Not a perfect comparison, since they're different fire hydrants in different lighting conditions, but here's a quick example of color neg vs. Velvia.

I believe this was Kodak Somethingorother. HD? Gold? ISO400, whichever. Taken with a Canon QL17 GIII rangefinder.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
     File :-(, x)
And here's another fire hydrant, this time on Fuji Velvia 50.

The reds on both of these hydrants are about the same in real life.
>> Lynx !!KY+lVSl0s2m
>>111364
I worked at walgreens up until yesterday, we could send it out, back in 2 weeks for like 8$ a roll, but personally I don't trust anyone with my B&W film(unless you've seen the roll i souped up last night, forgot waht I was doing and left it in developser for 8mins instead of 6:30). It costs less to process it in my bathroom. I'm sure ritz and wolf (same company) can send it off, but I highly doubt they can do it onsite. Theres just too many different recipies for B&W film, each film and developer combination has specific instructions. If it's c41 film, it all processes the same, i believe slide is the same way with e6 films unless you're shooting kodachrome or something. I usually shoot kodak tmax 400 and develop in tmax, but I could just as easily develop in D76, ID-11, Ilfosol, DD, DDX, xtol or any of a few dozen developing chemicals.
>> Anonymous
>>111375

Cool. Velvia is famous for that saturated "velvia" look. I've heard the same sort of thing for superia too, I suppose.
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
     File :-(, x)
>>111373
Nasty green tint?
Also, gold 100 with polarizer.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeEastman Kodak CompanyCamera ModelKodak CLAS Digital Film Scanner / HR200Camera SoftwareKodak Digital Central Lab SystemImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution256 dpiVertical Resolution256 dpiImage Created2007:12:29 10:09:02Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1024Image Height1536RenderingCustom
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
     File :-(, x)
And then without. Different days, but the same lighting and time of day. The colors are so dull in comparison.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeEastman Kodak CompanyCamera ModelKodak CLAS Digital Film Scanner / HR200Camera SoftwareKodak Digital Central Lab SystemImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution256 dpiVertical Resolution256 dpiImage Created2007:12:18 13:11:10Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1024Image Height1536RenderingCustom
>> Anonymous
>>111389
>>111391

Probably not the best or fairest comparison. Kind of hard to see it but I think I can still spot the change even there.
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
>>111389
>>111391
try over exposing by a 1/3-1/2 a stop
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>111400
Oh god no. At least with this film, I definitely got more highlight detail underexposing a little. The shadows were dark blue with the autoexposure's choice, too.
Look at it this way: you see how glowy yellow the flowers are in the first? That's pretty much true to life, which is with the polarizer and a stop underexposure. And the shadows in the back are appropriately grey. Here's the same one, but what the autoexposure chose, still with the polarizer. Flowers are more orange, shadows are blue.
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
     File :-(, x)
woops, forgot to hit browse.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeEastman Kodak CompanyCamera ModelKodak CLAS Digital Film Scanner / HR200Camera SoftwareKodak Digital Central Lab SystemImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution256 dpiVertical Resolution256 dpiImage Created2007:12:29 10:09:02Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1024Image Height1536RenderingCustom
>> Anonymous
>>111420
ITT I am a fucking idiot for being in Reply mode.
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
>>111413
colour print film greatly benefits from been slightly overexposed, because it has such a great degree of latitude you dont have to worry about highlights and shadows been gained or lost to a large degree.
for example, rate your Gold 100 at ISO80 or 64 (50 if you want to be adventurous), trust me it works wonders, i do this to all my colour neg films.
>> Warren !WSxruxpIJs
>>111429
Most negative films, both B&W and color, are usually slower than their stated speed. With color films, I generally overexpose by 2/3 of a stop, and one full stop with B&W films. For example, I shoot NPS at EI 100, and TX at EI 200, as these are closer to the actual sensitivity of the film than the published ASA.
>> Anonymous
>>111430
So NPS is normally 160, you shoot it at 100 right? If I have this Kodak Gold at 200, should I set my camera for 166? It only has ticks for 200, 166, 133, 100 so on.
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
>>111434
i'm shooting my Superia 400 at 200 right now
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>111429
I'll give it a shot, but with other film. I'm actually worried that the camera is overexposing a little, some other shots gave me trouble with blown highlights that I didn't expect, and underexposing gave me noticeably more detail. As well as killing the ugly blue shadows. Then again, it was kodak processing, so maybe that's the culprit. These were just to make sure the camera worked, I'll be taking anything else to a better lab.
>> Warren !WSxruxpIJs
>>111434
If the stated film speed of the Kodak Gold is 200, you'll likely get better negatives exposing at an EI of 125 (or, in your case, 133).

Just a note about terms. Published film speed is designated as an ISO or ASA number. If you expose your film at a speed other than the manufacturer's published speed, the speed you are using is designated as EI, standing for Exposure Index. To that end, a film might have a published ISO of 160, but in use may be given an EI of 100.
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
>>111441
are you judging from prints or scanned negs? because never judge from prints, as they have their own exposure settings from been printed, sometimes the operator pushes or pulls to try make an ok image (but almost always fails) this is primarily why i never get prints made.
there is no difference between a Kodak or a Fuji lab i've found, all the variables are in the print exposure (being human interference)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
What do you think about exposure compensation on these? I would think they were over exposed. Should I really set it to 133? I'm using a crazy old Pentacon Praktikca with a very ambiguous light meter.
>> Warren !WSxruxpIJs
>>111452
The proof is really in the negative. One can't necessarily look at a print or a scan and know from that alone how good the exposure was.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>111365
All films can be cross processed, not just slide film.

>>111447
Then print yourself?

Related: We finally got a colour darkroom at our academy, is it worth the try? Colour paper is kind of expensive.
>> Warren !WSxruxpIJs
>>111457
Some people love working in a color darkroom. I've always just preferred to scan my color negs and work with them digitally. But then, I've never had easy access to a color darkroom either. You might consider just picking up a small package of paper (sample, maybe?) and giving it a try for the hell of it. Who knows, you might love it.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>111460
ITT: People talk about Neggs
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
>>111457
i normally dont print, if i ever do, i just slap it onto a CF card and go to my local store and print it on their new HP system, comes out great.
>> Anonymous
>>111462
What the fuck Neopets.
>> Anonymous
>>111457
My university has the equipment for a colour darkroom, but unfortunately it's broken.

It's a damn nice all electronically controlled colour enlarger, but somehow it got broken and they haven't fixed it. They might have the chemicals, but it's likely they went bad since the machine broke.

On a related note, I have some Fujichrome reversal paper, for making prints directly from slides. Does anyone have experience with this process?
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
     File :-(, x)
>>111447
The prints look better than the scans, they have better contrast. The scans are low contrast, with a pretty good gap at the dark end, I edited these for contrast. So if a kodak picture cd is scanned from the negs, it seems even more likely to me that they were overexposed. Here's one that was shot with the autoexposure, unedited, if you want to see the histogram.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeEastman Kodak CompanyCamera ModelKodak CLAS Digital Film Scanner / HR200Camera SoftwareKodak Digital Central Lab SystemImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution256 dpiVertical Resolution256 dpiImage Created2007:12:29 10:09:02Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1024Image Height1536RenderingCustom
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
I love my slide film :)

One of the other advantages is it's more cost effective, so you don't have to pay for the prints.

I guess everything else has been explained and I found the thread too late :(
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>111576
If you have any good comparison examples, that might be useful.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>111584

comparision from what vs what? All I can do is post some of the shots I took on slides, since up until two weeks ago I use exclusively slide film- Astia, Provia, Velvia.
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>111587
Different slide films? Any different black and white films you've shot? Anything that seems to show the films' characteristics, just more examples means a better sense of what a film looks like.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>111452

those are all underexposed, which is why the colors are so muddy.

>>111588

velvia = very saturated color reproduction
provia = reasonably accurate color reproduction
astia = very mild color reproduction.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
     File :-(, x)
>>111588

Okay, I can do that.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNikonCamera ModelNikon SUPER COOLSCAN 5000 EDCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:08:06 21:13:26Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width992Image Height621
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNikonCamera ModelNikon SUPER COOLSCAN 5000 EDCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:08:08 10:52:30Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width952Image Height632
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
     File :-(, x)
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
     File :-(, x)
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
     File :-(, x)
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
     File :-(, x)
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
     File :-(, x)
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>111599

Velvia 50

>>111600
Velvia 100

>>111602
Provia 100

>>111603
Tmax 400

>>111604
Ilford XP2, straight off the negative (notice the pinkish tint)

>>111605
Kodak 160 VC

>>111607
Kodak 160 NC

>>111606
Astia 100

None of these were post processed, all straight off the slide or print
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution4000 dpiVertical Resolution4000 dpiImage Created2007:12:29 20:40:45Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width531Image Height981
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:01:01 13:40:12Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width714Image Height1200
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
     File :-(, x)
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>111609

Ilford XP2 converted to greyscale in photoshop (it naturally takes on the pinkish tint)

>>111610
Full digital color

>>111611
Digital color converted to black and white
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>111599
This looks useful. Thank you.