Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Why Slides, not Digital or Prints?

  1. #1

    Default Why Slides, not Digital or Prints?

    Apart from better color and ablility to view it on projector, any there any other advantages of taking Slide photography.

    Why are there people who still prefer slides even though that they are much more expensive to buy and develop?

    Are they better than Digital photos and Normal Prints?

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default Re: Why Slides, not Digital or Prints?

    Originally posted by morganoh
    Apart from better color and ablility to view it on projector, any there any other advantages of taking Slide photography.

    Why are there people who still prefer slides even though that they are much more expensive to buy and develop?

    Are they better than Digital photos and Normal Prints?
    Contrary to popular belief, slides are cheaper to shoot as you don't have to print every single one. You can process slides at RGB Colour for just $4.80 per roll without mounting, $8.90 with mounting. Cheapest slide is $6.00 a roll. Total is max $15.

    If you shoot negs, at the typical $0.35 per 4R, print 36 and it will cost $12.60, plus the developing charge of $3.50, it comes up to $16.10. Plus the cost of the cheapest film slightly less than $20.

    Slides also show the picture "as is", without any post processing by the photog or the lab, and is therefore more 'true' in a sense. And of coz, some magazines like National Geographic still insists that slide scans are better quality than digital camera output.

    Regards
    CK

  3. #3

    Default Re: Re: Why Slides, not Digital or Prints?

    Originally posted by ckiang


    Contrary to popular belief, slides are cheaper to shoot as you don't have to print every single one. You can process slides at RGB Colour for just $4.80 per roll without mounting, $8.90 with mounting. Cheapest slide is $6.00 a roll. Total is max $15.

    If you shoot negs, at the typical $0.35 per 4R, print 36 and it will cost $12.60, plus the developing charge of $3.50, it comes up to $16.10. Plus the cost of the cheapest film slightly less than $20.

    Slides also show the picture "as is", without any post processing by the photog or the lab, and is therefore more 'true' in a sense. And of coz, some magazines like National Geographic still insists that slide scans are better quality than digital camera output.

    Regards
    CK
    Is there any diff between a $6 slide film or a $12 slide film?
    What is your recommendation for a $6 roll?

    Thanks

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default Re: Re: Re: Why Slides, not Digital or Prints?

    Originally posted by morganoh


    Is there any diff between a $6 slide film or a $12 slide film?
    What is your recommendation for a $6 roll?

    Thanks
    $6 slide film = Kodak Elitechrome 100 Extra Colour.
    Difference among different films are things like colour saturation, speed, etc.

    Regards
    CK

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Zimbabwe
    Posts
    1,056

    Default

    I think slides and prints are different as light passing through as opposed to light reflected off a printed surface really makes a difference...

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Behind a lens
    Posts
    2,312

    Default

    One advantages of slide over print is that the slide result will be more accurate. Print is normally tweak by the shop.

    Have you got 2 photos from same/different shop but with different level,contrast?

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    453

    Default

    Slides if properly exposed, is very very very very beautiful

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •