Tom T,
Slides may not be the CHEAPEST way to go. If you are willing to take a chance
with,
and put up with the poor quality results of the one hour or discount places,
and buy
off brand film then color negative film and processing is very inexpensive. A
more
fair comparison for me is to buy top quality consumer or pro level film and top
quality processing, the total cost for print film is very high in this case.
Some
folks are lucky enough to have found a place that does good work cheaply, other
are
not. I HAD a source for good inexpensive print processing, and decent scans as
well,
but the last six months or so things have gone downhill and the quality is now
unacceptable. Even at that it was still less expensive for me to shoot slides.
I do
spend more than you for film and processing than you, but I get pro film and pro
level processing so I don't have to worry about the processor screwing up a
roll of
film with a once in a lifetime shot. It is easy to evaluate the results, I know
immediately if I screwed up, don't have to second guess the printer. Many of us
still don't scan or print ourselves. I still prefer slides though, as it is
easy to
evaluate whether a slide is worth scanning or not in the first place. With
negative
film evaluation is more difficult.
Latitude is narrow, and at times can be problematic, but it also give you
creative
control you don't always have with print film.
As for the grain issue, I would disagree with that on two levels. The first is
that
there is more to life than fine grain, sharpness and acuity are equally, and
maybe
even more important and most people give slide films an edge here. As for actual
grain itself, I am not sure that print films have less grain than slide films,
the
best of both are excellent. It does seem that at very high speeds the grain is
less
objectionable in print films
Print films do have some advantages - both exposure latitude and color balance
latitude are better than slide film. There are more choices in print film,
especially high speed stuff. If you want inexpensive prints than negative films
have
an advantage.
I do shoot print film as well as slide film. The print film is usually used
when I
am photographing for someone else who will want prints or if my end product is
going
to consist of a lot of prints. For myself I almost always use slide film.
As for the digital end of things...
A lot of my complaints about digital are based on the fact that much of my
photography takes place in the back country (either cycling, backpacking, or
climbing) where access to power and batteries is an issue. four hours of camera
power is nothing in a cold wet environment! When I am out for a week (which
admittedly I don't get to do much) I could not physically carry enough battery
power
for a digital. Yes film is bulky and weighs a bit, but nothing compared to
enough
batteries to run a digital for a week! I also have the option of still shooting
if
my batteries do die (carrying an OM-1) and spare batteries weigh very little.
with
digital spares are heavy and you are dead in the water when they die.
Jim Couch
< 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 >
|