Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Another thread about film (ot)

Subject: Re: [OM] Another thread about film (ot)
From: "John A. Lind" <jlind@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 01:17:48 +0000
At 04:30 12/13/01, Mark Lloyd wrote:
So I should purchase like 50 rolls, put 45 of them in
a freezer somewhere and use the film up as I go along.
Sounds like a plan. How long does expired film stay
fresh if its kept in a freezer the entire time except
the time its in the camera?

Film will essentially stop aging in a freezer. However, it cannot be kept for many years in deep freeze. Background cosmic radiation, which defies lead shielding (gamma rays) will eventually fog the film, but that does take a very, very long time. For most non-professionals with a "day job", 50 rolls at a whack is a lot of film! I use quite a bit and buy about 10 rolls at a time. Depends on what I'm planning and what's already on hand. The most I ever ordered at one time was 25 rolls of film for shooting my cousin's wedding. It was about twice what was needed, but it covered two film speeds just in case I had too much trouble with the slower film and needed to switch to the higher speed. Stuffed the rolls left over into the reefer and gradually used them up over the year that followed.

Also I'm thinking about getting a roll of slide film
'just for kicks' since I don't own much of anything
for slides except my parent's 50 year old Kodak slide
projector thats been stuffed in the closet since 1984.

Get a 24 exposure roll of Elitechrome 100 or 200 (not the "extra color"), Kodachrome 64, or Fuji Sensia 100 locally and shoot it to see what you think. All three are general purpose with moderate saturation, but they all have their own "character" in contrast and color rendition. You'll find that each slide film is somewhat unique in this regard (along with saturation) giving a wide range of choices about the "look" you want your photographs to have. It has less latitude than negative film, so it's more demanding of exposure accuracy. If you get hooked on slides, it's unlikely you'll switch back to color negative except for special applications (i.e., portraits). A projector isn't essential, but an inexpensive light table and 8X loupe to sort out what you want printed is if you don't have a projector. If you do end up getting a projector, make certain you get a good lens for it. A poor projector lens will make a superb slide look terrible. I have an ancient semi-thrashed and basic Kodak Ektagraphic boat anchor that was rather cheap used (a commercial Carousel), and got a Schneider-Kreuznach lens for it. Made a dramatic improvement over the original Kodak lens it came with.

Is it costly to make prints from slides, if you expose
them correctly will prints from lsides look better
than prints from color negative film. What slide film
would you recommend for someone who has no experience
whatsoever in shooting slides.

There are two common methods for printing slides. One makes an "internegative" by photographing the slide using special color negative film and then printing the internegative using color negative paper. The other, generally preferred method is printing directly from the slide onto "reversal" paper. Direct printing has worked out much better for me (there are a few who swear by the internegative process).

The cost per print is higher using either method, although the local Wal-Mart is doing this in their one-hour lab now for $0.58 per 4x6. These are for the other half's photo albums and they'll continue to get my business for small prints if they keep doing decent work. I believe they're doing very high res scans and printing them on a dye sublimation printer; OK for small prints, but not for large ones. Cost before that from a nearby pro lab was about $1.50 per 4x6.

Printing from slides is trickier because there is a slight contrast increase compared to the slide. Very high contrast slides often don't print well and lose some detail in highlight and/or shadow depending on print exposure. This happened with my TOPE 8 Kodachrome, but with that image the loss of very marginal shadow detail and some of the brightest highlights didn't matter. It is easier in another regard; the slide is a much better "witness" for what the image should look like compared to a color negative.

The higher cost per print is offset by not having all the slides printed, just a few of the best ones. Decent prints from slides have a very unique, vibrance unlike any color negative print I've seen. I can pick out the 4x6 slide prints in my other half's photo album by just glancing at them. It's one of the reasons gallery work in color is almost exclusively done using slide films. Which prints look better, color negative or color slide is a matter of opinion (I've just expressed mine).

For large prints, an 8x12 Ilfochrome super high gloss display print costs about $16, not counting shipping cost. I have mine done by a lab in Texas; none of the pro labs near me does Ilfochromes. BTW, Ilfochrome is one of the print materials of choice for galleries and museums. Ilfochrome's AZO dyes have a very unique glow that brings a good image to life, and it has exceptional display archival under 24x7 gallery illumination. If I don't want to spend that much on an Ilfochrome, the Slide Printer in Denver makes 8x12 super high gloss display prints on Fuji "R" (reversal) paper for about $6 each. IMO they're not quite as nice as a good Ilfochrome, but still have a glow to them and they are very archival for 24x7 display.

-- John


< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz