In a message dated 1/4/2003 12:27:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> As to slides or negatives, if you go the slide route, be prepared to > print them yourself. Any other process is unsatisfactory or very > costly per print (only show pieces are worth doing). The actual > printing stage itself can be done on a digital lab (Fuji Frontier, > Agfa D-Lab, etc) but the scan and corrections need to be done by you. > > There is a very different look to slides and negatives. The look you > are trying to achieve can be affected by your choice. Slides tend to > have dramatic punch and color. They are very effective when heavy > emphasis is desired and when you want to turn heads (so to speak). > Negatives have a much more subtle, soft look to them. They tend to > pick up the subtle gradations more. This has a less punchy look but > an overall dreamy angle. I have personally found that most shots > where people are the subject look better on negative film. Many > landscape shots look better on slide film. There is not a single > right answer here. > > It has been suggested (and a very good one) to get a good scanner and > Photoshop or derivative (Paint Shop Pro, Picture Window, etc). This > is a good suggestion for both slides and prints. I tend to have my > 35mm negatives just developed ($2.29/roll) and then scan them. The > good ones are then corrected and given back to the lab to digitally > print or print at home. Slides are the same except they cost more > ($5.50/roll). It is quite amazing to compare what the scanner brought > out of the negative vs. what the lab printed. One reason for that is > the negative can record more range than the paper that it is printed > on. William could probably elaborate a bit more on that front. > > So for me, I have found a good lab that works well with me. It costs > much more than the local Walmart, but they work much better with me. I > have a scanner and scan my 35mm stuff. I either take negs > in that I > want printed or digitally correct them myself first. > > HTH, Bruce I am catching up with the other posts from this thread since Mr. Robb's treastise. ;-) Yes, re more dramatic color with slides. I am not sure yet about this. What I am going to do is try slide film this year -- well, for a couple of months or so. I think I need a basis of comparison. Also just for the experience. I may favor the softer color look. Haven't decided. Don't know what my "style" is yet. For instance, I like John Shaw's photography, OTOH, sometimes I think it looks sort of unreal. Too dramatic, not subtle. When I "go digital" down the road -- well, I've been reading everyone's comments. I could use a digital camera and get a good printer, etc. Or I could use a dedicated film scanner. Or I could use a dedicated slide scanner. Or I could a scanner with attachments. But, as you said, cost is a major factor. None of those things are cheap (at this point). And printing a lot of pictures oneself isn't cheap no matter how one does it. A good printer costs. Photographic paper costs. Inks cost. Plus repairs cost. Right now I will continue on the path of scanning prints in on my adequate scanner for the PUG and having my film developed. Whether I will continue with the local drug store or switch to a lab -- don't know. The lab is more expensive. But certainly for blow-ups, I will use it. And I was happy with the drug store until recently, but they blew the last roll. I am on an okay path for now. I am approaching photography like I approached doing art work. Start at the bottom, learn the basics and work your way up. If you are going to paint, first learn to draw. If you are going to go digital, first learn how to take pictures using a film camera (preferrably a SLR). (Who knows? Maybe when I go digital it will only be a scanner and printer.) Thanks for all your info. Thanks everyone! This has been an extremely enlightening discussion. Full of fantastic info. Hey, this is a good place to ask questions! Later, Doe aka Marnie :-)
