Greetings.
> I have visited many of your web pages out there and the
> one thing that appears consistant is that mnay of the pictures
> that I find so awe-inspiring are those taken using color slides.
Don't be deceived by false correlations (sorry, I'm part statistician). While
your conclusions may be accurate, it may not always be the slide film itself
that makes the photos / websites worthwhile. Rather, it may be the case that a
photographer who uses slides is often of a different calibre since slides are
occasionally required for publication purposes. Their use of slides (i.e.,
professional minded) may also speak to the extent to which they meticulously
design their sites, edit their photos, etc... which *in turn* corresponds to
the quality that you see in their photos on the web. So it may not be the photo
medium... but rather the photog. Heck. Look at some of phillip greenspun's
(sp?) photos on the web (thats the photo.net guy). I've seen some great stuff
on the web that I thought was slide film, but found out it was simply a good
application of Kodak Royal Gold 100 or 200 and/or just a well-done scan (some
of Mark Cassino's macro shots quickly come to mind). I've also seen (and
produced) some crudy slides scans.
With that said, I *am* a big fan of slides and have used only slides
since "turning amateur" two years ago. I went straight to slides for all of the
usual reasons; most of which deal with the elimination of a middle man wrt how
your exposures turn out. It was also more cost effective (36exp roll +
development via mailer < $7) And once I did, I was hooked. The images just
absolutely DANCE on the light table. It's incredible... but (as your inquiry
suggests) getting past the light table is often the problem.
> Sorry to be so winded
uh.... yeah. me, too.
> What does it take to switch
> to color slide and be able to enjoy the results?
> I am completely illiterate as to how you turn color
> slides into jpgs or any type of viewable picture
> for that matter. Is it worth the switch?
Depends on what you shoot and why. For me, it makes sense. I like nature stuff
(animals included) and for now, my only goal = jpegs viewable on the web. I
very seldom print anything nor need prints to pass around. And I can store
slides very easily (big binders with plastic pages hold hundreds of slides).
But for someone like Cory Waters who shoots primarily family stuff, and needs /
prefers prints for the grandparents and such, switching to slides made almost
no sense at all.
Whether store-bought, or done at home, prints from slides are expensive any way
you look at it. And often times, the quality suffers if you try to go the cheap
route. I had some done at Wolf once which where just atrocious! and I think it
costed about $1 per 4x6" print.
> What kind and how much of an
> investment in equipiment can I expect to have to make?
1. light table.
2. lupe for viewing slides with magnification
3. 2400 dpi or more film scanner
4. quality printer
I'd say that those are the four basics, with the first 3 being essential. 1
thru 3 can likely be had for $300 or less, total. With the advent of digital
slrs, the price of a decent beginner scanner (e.g., HP photosmart s20, if there
are any left) has dropped like a stone.
You can make a list and buy everything, or do it over time. I did it over time.
I started out with nothing. Just a reversed 50mm lens that I already owned (for
magnification) and holding the slide up to the light. Crude, but effective.
Eventually I bought a light table (Portatrace brand). Then a lupe (Pentax).
Neither one was very expensive, but both quite effective.
To get past the light table, you need the scanner. There are a billion threads
on that in the archives, plus lots of dedicated websites, so I won't bother.
But basically, you scan, select output type and, viola, you have your file.
As for printing, the easy answer is: see Mark Roberts. That, my friend is an
art, if you ask me. He and I essentailly have the same printer (epson 1270 or
1280), but I've yet to figure the ins and outs of getting superb prints,
whereas Mark and many others can write a book on it.
> I'm not sure is I want to give up the convenience of
> being able to look at a fisnished product
> like you can with film.
But it can be 10x more rewarding when you print it yourself and it comes out
*exactly* as desired. I think the key is how many you plan to print from each
roll (not to mention for what/who, and what size). WRT printing, I think the
point to where it is no longer economical to use slides is reached rather
quickly (if you are not selling prints).
OTHER OPTIONS:
1. Admittedly, colors and sharpness tend to be rendered much better in slide
film. But (if your final goal is web design) also keep in mind that another
option is to try to milk more out of what you already have. If you are going to
buy the scanner anyway, then buy one that takes both types of film. Play with
the images that you already have. Scan 'em yourself. Print 'em if you need /
want to. And see what you think. Maybe you'll like what you get and wont have
to switch your medium.
2. find a better lab. For the occasions when I did use "regular" film, I had a
lab (a wolf actually, but a smaller, local one) that I was happy with. They'd
print my roll, and if necessary, print it again and again until the colors
were "right". There is something to be said about smaller outfits and customer
service.
3. Go digital.
But again, if you want prints to flip through, then I can't really see slides
being the answer.
One last note: The need for accurate exposure for slides cannot be overstated.
You should also read about such things on the web somewhere to see if slides
are for you. I'm bad with on-the-fly exposure, and come across tons of times
when I don't trust my in-camera matrix meter. As a result, I now pretty much
live with a hand-held meter around my neck.
HTH,
- jerome
