Slide film? Negative film? What's the difference?

[bieber]

So, my only experience with film was shooting a handful of rolls of color negative film in an EOS Rebel before I got my 20D, and now I find myself hearing about slide film in some older photographic articles and such. What I'm wondering is, what exactly is slide film, and why would you use it over negative? Or, conversely, why would you choose negative over slide?

[ScottE]

Slide film produces a positive image that look like a picture and can be projected on to a screen. You choose slide film because you can project the image. A projected colour negative does not look like a real picture. You also choose slide film because as long as you expose properly the image on the slide looks exactly the way the print should. When you take it to a photo printer they should be able to produce an image that looks exactly like the slide. When you take a colour negative to a printer there is a high possibility that they will get the colour balance and/or the exposure wrong when they make a print. Because of this I eventually gave up using negative film and used mostly slide film before I went digital.

[PhotosGuy]

A slide is a transparency that can be viewed on its own. Art directors like them, & the larger 4X5" & 8X10" variety, 'cause they aren't influenced by the lab dufus who makes the print, & they have fewer layers than neg film, which means a bit more sharpness. OTOH, neg film has more exposure latitude.

[DrPablo]

Slide film is meant for direct viewing, i.e. projection or viewing on a light table. Print film (aka negative film, including B&W) is meant for printing. There is a process by which you can produce prints from slides called cibachrome.

Because slide films are meant for direct viewing, the slide itself has a huge contrast range and exceptionally accurate color. Some are very saturated (like Velvia and Kodak E100VS), some are very 'natural' like Astia.

Negative films are meant for printing, which means they're designed so that you have a lot of latitude to modify contrast and color when printing. Because of this, the contrast and color in the print depends heavily on your processing technique.

When you choose one or the other is complicated, but in general you get far more dynamic range, far more flexibility, and higher ISO speeds from negative films. But you get unbelievably beautiful color (including color gradients), gorgeous contrast, and exquisitely fine grain from slide films.

Nowadays, a lot of people print their negatives digitally (i.e. scan and print) rather than printing traditionally. Negatives are a bit easier to scan than slides, because slides just have an inherently much greater density range than negatives.

Attached are a couple shots of mine that illustrate the difference. The cathedral shot is with large format negative print film (Kodak Portra 160VC), which allowed me to capture an 11 or 12 stop dynamic range quite handily. The slides I shot there were completely blown out. The second shot is with medium format slide film (Velvia 100F), which shows the tremendous colors possible with that film.

http://www.pbase.com/drpablo74/image/73583781.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/drpablo74/image/75107457.jpg

[Glenn NK]

Colour slide film is also called "positive" - as opposed to a negative in which the colours are reversed (or negative) from their actual colour.

I shot positives from 1962 until 1982 before I tried colour negative film.

[DrPablo]

Colour slide film is also called "positive" - as opposed to a negative in which the colours are reversed (or negative) from their actual colour.

I shot positives from 1962 until 1982 before I tried colour negative film.

Slide film is what's called reversal film, though, and that's because of the bleach-redevelopment part of the processing. You can actually make a direct positive slide out of any negative or B&W if you process it correctly.

[airfrogusmc]

And one of the best of the trans films was/is Kodachrome. Its the only archival trans or neg film. I shot for years with Kodachrome 25 which was the most natural of any color trans film I tested. 64 is also very good put the reds in 25 were much more acurate. I shot a good deal of Kodachrome 64 120 also. That paired with die transfer AHHHH color doesn't get better. Commercial guys shot allot with trans films and they were able to make the switch to digital because trans films had narrow exposure latitude much like digital and if you lost the highlights its just like digital they're GONE.
Kodachrome 64 120
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/airfrogusmc/Road/03NearStaunton.jpg
Kodachrome 25 35mm
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/airfrogusmc/Road/73DoorNorthSideChicago.jpg
Kodak stop making 25 a few years back. I think you can still buy 64.

[Apollo11]

My mother used Kodachrome in the late 50's/early 60's. The exposure latitude was very, very shallow with this film. This fact, coupled with the fully manual cameras of the day made it difficult to get a correct exposure. When the exposure was nailed, though, her slides are still breathtaking. Seeing her pictures through the years inspired me to try slides after many years of shooting film. My first roll was Kodachrome 64. Instantly, I was hooked. At least half of my film shooting became slides, mainly Fuji Velvia and Sensia. With slide film, clouds look real enough to touch. Depth and dimension are almost 3D in appearance. Clarity and color is virtually incomparable. The closest I’ve seen to matching the quality of slide film is the current digital age, and viewing digital pictures on a good monitor.

For the most part, too, slides do not fade or age. You can look at a slide of somebody taken 30 years ago, and except for the styles (clothing, cars, hair, etc,) you'd think they were recently shot. This is especially true when seeing slides of babies or toddlers, as children’s clothing and hair styles stay sort of the same through the decades (you never see a toddler in pin-stripped bell-bottoms or earth shoes, or triangular sideburns!) Slides showing adults you know, but photos of them when they were children, are mind-blowing, as the colors and crispness would lead you to believe they were just taken.

For an experience you'll cherish, pick up a roll or two of Fuji Velvia. Take some shots of loved-ones, children, old folks, pets, flowers, and/or your current vehicle. In as little as 5 years, so much will have changed with the subjects that you took. You’ll look at these images and be amazed, and thankful that you took them. And then in 10 or 20 years, they will be even that much better!

[airfrogusmc]

I have allot of E-6 that have lost some punch. Its going to happen brcause of the nature of the film. The dyes are not in Kodachrome flm but are added when the film is processed. This also make the emultion thinner thus sharper. All E-6 films have the dyes in the emulsion.

If you store you transparencies properly they will last but Kodachrome will outlast them all. I have 25-30 year old Kodachromes that have very little if any loss of color. I can't say that for the E-6 stuff. And Kodachrome 25 was the king of them all especially the PKM ( Professional Kodachrome 25). The most acurate color film I ever tested.

[airfrogusmc]

Also meant to say that knowing what types of film to shoot in what situations and for what kind of effect you as the photographer are looking for is important. Chomes are contrasty by nature and shouldn't be used if large subtle tonal ranges are disired. Probably a low contrast negative film would be a better choice for the later.

[EOSAddict]

Sounds like I need to start scanning my several thousand E-6 transparencies going back to 1986!

[DrPablo]

I'm going to a game at Fenway Park today with my Hasselblad and three film backs. It's gray and gloomy today, so for color pictures I'm going to use a slide film that boosts color and contrast.

Velvia 100F or Velvia 50 (if available) will be fantastic for flat, dull lighting. It really shines for situations like that. I might choose Provia 400F, which is just as high contrast but the colors are a bit more natural.

But for later in the game, when the sky is dark, the lighting will be decidedly high contrast with bright overhead stadium lighting, a black sky, and dark shadows in the crowds.

So at that point in the game, I'll switch to a negative film, probably Portra 400VC. This way I can overexpose to get some shadow detail without concern for blowing highlights (nearly impossible with negative films). I might even pick up Fuji Pro-Z (ISO 800) color film instead for the same reason.

So it's all about having the right tool for the job.