Thought about putting my two cents in... I know I have been quiet here, I did not start to realize my potential in photography (not like there was much there) - the technical aspects, not the compositional - until I started shooting slides. Basically, to reiterate what has already been said, what you see is what you shot - save for the intrinsic properties of the film itself and given a reliable developer.
Recently I have taken some shots using print film - assignments of sorts. I find myself always going to the back of the prints to read what corrections the developers have done. Bracketing can be nullified in print film by the developer. You can more easily see the bracketing differences with slide film. I use my exposure skills when shooting triathlon finish line photos. We do one-hour developing to get the photos to the competitors in a timely manner. I know that when the developers do no corrections the exposure will be fine due to my exposure settings. This comfort has come from shooting slides. One of the best compliments I have ever received - on more than one occasion - has been the people in the lab commenting on my consistency in exposure. I have had about four people tell me that with the first shot on the roll if there is a correction needed it will be such for the rest of the roll. In this sense I would recommend using slide film. My two cents, for what it is worth, Cesar Panama City, Florida -- -----Original Message----- -- From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 3:43 PM -- -- "Patrick Wunsch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: -- -- >I've been dabbling in photography for a few years but my -- skill level may be -- >considered amateur at best. Everything I shoot has been on -- film to this -- >point and to a certain extent I have only been somewhat -- satisfied with the -- >results. -- >What does it take to switch to color slide and be able to -- enjoy the results? -- -- Patience, practice and attention to metering (a good deal of exposure -- bracketing will probably be helpful, especially at first). -- -- >Is it worth the switch? -- -- I think so, personally. -- -- -- When you shoot slide film you get back a transparency which can be -- viewed and judged directly (or with a loupe, at least!) What -- you got is -- what you see. -- -- After I get a roll of slides processed, the first thing I do -- is put them -- all up on a slide sorter (a kind of cheap, non-color-corrected light -- box). Then I immediately toss all the ones that are obvious rejects -- (glaring faults that can be seen even without using a loupe). This -- usually culls the lot down by 1/4 to 1/3 (even though my skills have -- been improving, my standards seem to have to have gone up -- proportionally). The remaining slides get scanned at medium -- resolution -- with all-automatic settings on the scanner. These scans -- usually make it -- easy to detect more subtle deficiencies like lack of sufficient -- sharpness for my tastes. If necessary, the remaining slides -- may go onto -- the light box for examination under a loupe and more -- critical evaluation -- of exposure accuracy (which will have been compensated for -- slightly by -- the automatic settings of the scanner). Because I'm shooting slides, -- this evaluation process is based on what's on the *film -- itself*, not on -- what's on a print made from the film. -- -- Personally, I usually keep about 12-16 slides from each 36-exposure -- roll. Never more than 20. I consider myself to be doing well if I get -- two shots on a roll that I think are worth making into prints. -- -- -- -- Mark Roberts -- Photography and writing -- www.robertstech.com --
