Question:
I realise this may be a bit off-topic for rec.photo.equipment.35mm, and I’m sure it has been asked somewhere before, but the web at my uni has been down for a few days now and I can’t search on deja. So my query is… If slides are best for projection, and print-film best for printing, why have I heard the old story about magazines preferring slides? After all, a magazing produces a ‘print’ in its pages. I shot a few sunsets on E100VS, and had 12" by 16" prints made.. I lost a bit of contrast (it was direct, not cibachrome printing), but they still look great. Would the print look better had I shot it on negative film? Ultimately, I guess my question is, if my only concern is to make large (average 12" by 16"), framed prints for display, is there any real benefit in me shooting travel/scenic/landscape/outdoor portraits on pro slide film such as Velvia, Provia F, E100VS etc.? If not, maybe I should save my money for better glass! Thanks again, Nick.
Response:
Understood. This is what alot of people have told me. Why then do professionals shoot slide film? A pro landscape photographer sells her/his work for magazines, exhibition prints, etc, and I’ve never heard of a pro travel photographer supporting themselves by charging people to watch a slide show. A major proportion of slides shot by professionals all around the world must eventually end up as a print. If print film is better for prints, why is slide film so popular? Just curious… Nick chalice(at)zip.com.au – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I shot a few sunsets on E100VS, and had 12" by 16" prints made.. I lost a bit of contrast (it was direct, not cibachrome printing), but they still look great. Would the print look better had I shot it on negative film? I would shoot print if that’s what you want. Some people seem to rave about cibachromes, (which I’ve never tried), but any direct (i.e., no interneg) stuff I’ve ever had done has always been disappointing, and a big waste of time/money IMO. YMMV. It’s hard to compare, because the way I shoot, I judge a scene by how I’d like to reproduce it, and anything I’d like on a slide will rarely print well, and stuff that prints well doesn’t always make a good slide… k. — Altered Perceptions —Keven Fedirko <image merchant
Response:
I’m sure your print would have been better if you had used negative film. If your goal is prints, shoot negative film. One of the reasons that magazines wanted slides (I’ll bet most are digital these days) is that they’re easier to evaluate; just throw a bunch of them on a lightbox and pick out the ones they want to use. Slides get converted to negatives (actually 3-color separations) before a printer can use them. Paul
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I realise this may be a bit off-topic for rec.photo.equipment.35mm, and I’m sure it has been asked somewhere before, but the web at my uni has been down for a few days now and I can’t search on deja. So my query is… If slides are best for projection, and print-film best for printing, why have I heard the old story about magazines preferring slides? After all, a magazing produces a ‘print’ in its pages. I shot a few sunsets on E100VS, and had 12" by 16" prints made.. I lost a bit of contrast (it was direct, not cibachrome printing), but they still look great. Would the print look better had I shot it on negative film? Ultimately, I guess my question is, if my only concern is to make large (average 12" by 16"), framed prints for display, is there any real benefit in me shooting travel/scenic/landscape/outdoor portraits on pro slide film such as Velvia, Provia F, E100VS etc.? If not, maybe I should save my money for better glass! Thanks again, Nick.
Response:
Understood. This is what alot of people have told me. Why then do professionals shoot slide film? A pro landscape photographer sells her/his work for magazines, exhibition prints, etc, and I’ve never heard of a pro travel photographer supporting themselves by charging people to watch a slide show. A major proportion of slides shot by professionals all around the world must eventually end up as a print. If print film is better for prints, why is slide film so popular?
When I sent requests for submission guidelines 2 yearrs ago, teh vast majority of magazine companies were still requesting slides. I’m not sure whether they are easier to work with physically or easier to do color seperations. They are definitely easier to judge in a hurry, since prints can be adjusted. I would suspect that some companies have or will switch over to digital files, and then it won’t matter. But since they request slides, that is what pros will shoot. Meghan Friesians in the Northwest http://www.zoocrewphoto.com/friesian.htm
Response:
Begin Quote If slides are best for projection, and print-film best for printing, why have I heard the old story about magazines preferring slides? End Quote Because a magazine image is not a print or a slide it is a magazine print. The technology used in magazines has changed a lot over the years and some prefer negatives and some prints. The technology is not the same used for prints from you one hour processor. — Dia ’s Muire duit Joe M
Response:
Begin Quote I shot a few sunsets on E100VS, and had 12" by 16" prints made.. I lost a bit of contrast (it was direct, not cibachrome printing), but they still look great. Would the print look better had I shot it on negative film? End Quote It would have looked different. You might have liked it more or less. This is getting out of science of photography where you get answers and into the art where you get opinions. Why not get a roll of slide film and a roll of negative film. Take a serious of like photographs and have a couple of pairs of prints made. That way you can evaluate the difference for yourself. Keep in mind that you may need to tweak your technique for the new media to get the best out of it, but it should give you an idea. — Dia ’s Muire duit Joe M
Response:
I realise this may be a bit off-topic for rec.photo.equipment.35mm, and I’m sure it has been asked somewhere before, but the web at my uni has been down for a few days now and I can’t search on deja. So my query is… If slides are best for projection, and print-film best for printing, why have I heard the old story about magazines preferring slides? After all, a magazing produces a ‘print’ in its pages.
Printing with ink is totally different from photographic printing, so even if negatives might be superior for producing photographic prints, this doesn’t translate to any superiority in the totally different process of preparing for ink printing. OTOH, keep in mind that when things are printed in a magazine, quality is typically one of the LEAST important concerns — things like the convenience of being able to glance at a slide and get an idea of whether you’d even get as far as caring about its quality means a lot more in most cases. I shot a few sunsets on E100VS, and had 12" by 16" prints made.. I lost a bit of contrast (it was direct, not cibachrome printing), but they still look great. Would the print look better had I shot it on negative film?
You _lost_ contrast? This sounds VERY strange — the most common problem with prints from slides is that the contrast increases to the point that only rather flat, boring looking slides really print well as a rule. Ultimately, I guess my question is, if my only concern is to make large (average 12" by 16"), framed prints for display, is there any real benefit in me shooting travel/scenic/landscape/outdoor portraits on pro slide film such as Velvia, Provia F, E100VS etc.? If not, maybe I should save my money for better glass!
While slide film is more expensive, processing is cheaper, at least a a rule. If you only care about prints from a small percentage of the shots, slides will typically end up cheaper to shoot. In any case, it’s ultimately up to you — if you don’t see an advantage to slide film, and you end up paying no more to use print film instead, then you might as well shoot print film. It’s certainly a LOT easier to get at least reasonable results with print film than with slides… — Later, Jerry. The Universe is a figment of its own imagination.
Response:
It would have looked different. You might have liked it more or less. This is getting out of science of photography where you get answers and into the art where you get opinions. Why not get a roll of slide film and a roll of negative film. Take a serious of like photographs and have a couple of pairs of prints made. That way you can evaluate the difference for yourself. Keep in mind that you may need to tweak your technique for the new media to get the best out of it, but it should give you an idea.
Also keep in mind the different types of film within a media. I did some sunset photos with horses. I used two different types of slide film and got very different results. It was obvious that one was a warmer film and one was a cooler film. I would not use the cooler film again for a sunset, but it would be great for a stormy scene. Meghan Friesians in the Northwest http://www.zoocrewphoto.com/friesian.htm
Response:
The term "print" is a little different with magazines. You are talking about a photographic print or a print made on photographic paper. Print film will always provide better results. Magazines in the old days photographed chromes with a copy camera to produce color separations which were then used to apply ink to paper (not photographic paper.) Today we usually scan the chromes digitally and then use the digital code to control the presses instead of separations. In either case chromes provide better images for the purpose. I don’t want to get into an argument because I don’t have time but just take my word for it that chromes are better for making separations either in an analog or digital fashion. Good shooting. Fred Maplewood Photography – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If slides are best for projection, and print-film best for printing, why have I heard the old story about magazines preferring slides? After all, a magazing produces a ‘print’ in its pages.
Response:
I guess I have it in my head that all serious outdoor photographers (excepting weddings, B+W etc) shoot slide film. My scenario is that I am about to go travelling – East Coast USA then Asia. Would a travel photographer wanting to make fairly large prints of photographs with strong, accurate colours, fine grain and sharpness shoot slide film like kodachrome, velvia etc, or would they pack RG 100, Supra, Portra etc? If print film, would they use a "warmer" print film for sunsets? Printing from slides IS expensive. But so many people rave (on these newsgroups at least) about the quality of Velvia, Kodachrome, E100VS etc, that a good proportion of them must be getting prints from them that are as good, if not better, than corresponding print film. I know I should test myself, but right now I’m without a camera, so I thought I’d ask first! Why do YOU shoot slides? For projection? For publication? Only slightly perplexed, Nick – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It would have looked different. You might have liked it more or less. This is getting out of science of photography where you get answers and into the art where you get opinions. Why not get a roll of slide film and a roll of negative film. Take a serious of like photographs and have a couple of pairs of prints made. That way you can evaluate the difference for yourself. Keep in mind that you may need to tweak your technique for the new media to get the best out of it, but it should give you an idea. Also keep in mind the different types of film within a media. I did some sunset photos with horses. I used two different types of slide film and got very different results. It was obvious that one was a warmer film and one was a cooler film. I would not use the cooler film again for a sunset, but it would be great for a stormy scene. Meghan Friesians in the Northwest http://www.zoocrewphoto.com/friesian.htm
Response:
One quick answer will be the Grain. Slide has finer grain than the negatives which lead to sharper image (no, not that company:-) ). But it is actually: portable, easier to store (you can throw the one that you don’t like) and most of all, proof that you are a good shooter since you can’t do anything once you release the shutter (yes you can with photoshop, but still). Those above are enuff reasons to shoot slide. Jon – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I realise this may be a bit off-topic for rec.photo.equipment.35mm, and I’m sure it has been asked somewhere before, but the web at my uni has been down for a few days now and I can’t search on deja. So my query is… If slides are best for projection, and print-film best for printing, why have I heard the old story about magazines preferring slides? After all, a magazing produces a ‘print’ in its pages. I shot a few sunsets on E100VS, and had 12" by 16" prints made.. I lost a bit of contrast (it was direct, not cibachrome printing), but they still look great. Would the print look better had I shot it on negative film? Ultimately, I guess my question is, if my only concern is to make large (average 12" by 16"), framed prints for display, is there any real benefit in me shooting travel/scenic/landscape/outdoor portraits on pro slide film such as Velvia, Provia F, E100VS etc.? If not, maybe I should save my money for better glass! Thanks again, Nick.
Response:
[snip] Why do YOU shoot slides? For projection? For publication?
[snip] Mainly projection. Hey, you can’t blow up a picture up to 1.8 m (70 inch). It’s fantastic!! And the colors… The other main factor, why I’m using slides is, that nobody is messing around with my results… (Sure they could mess up during the developing of the slides and ruined them… but so far never happend to me luckely) Sure sometimes, I make a print of a slide. The prints are quite good. But, it’s still not the same as a projection. -Leonhard
Response:
Meghan could you tell the film name and brand. warm=? cold=? It may help somebody. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Also keep in mind the different types of film within a media. I did some sunset photos with horses. I used two different types of slide film and got very different results. It was obvious that one was a warmer film and one was a cooler film. I would not use the cooler film again for a sunset, but it would be great for a stormy scene. Meghan Friesians in the Northwest http://www.zoocrewphoto.com/friesian.htm
Response:
I guess I have it in my head that all serious outdoor photographers (excepting weddings, B+W etc) shoot slide film. My scenario is that I am about to go travelling – East Coast USA then Asia. Would a travel photographer wanting to make fairly large prints of photographs with strong, accurate colours, fine grain and sharpness shoot slide film like kodachrome, velvia etc, or would they pack RG 100, Supra, Portra etc? If print film, would they use a "warmer" print film for sunsets?
At this point in time, I doubt you’d find many people who’d pack Kodachrome under many circumstances at all — offhand, I can’t think of a situation in which Kodachrome would be any longer be my film of choice. Personally, for travel photos I’d probably take Provia 100F — it’s fairly neutral in color rendition, has good saturation, it’s sharp and VERY fine-grained. I’d probably take at least a few rolls of Velvia as well — when you’ve got plenty of light (or can use a tripod) and want _really_ saturated colors, it’s definitely the best there is. It’s been over 10 years since I shot enough Kodak film to notice, so I can’t honestly comment much on it. I don’t shoot print film enough to notice either, but my immediate reaction is that worrying much about a print film’s color balance is basically silly: they can adjust the color balance enough during printing to make things look cold, warm, or just about anything else you like. Completely accidental differences in color balance from mini-labs is often much larger than the differences between different slide films. — Later, Jerry. The Universe is a figment of its own imagination.
Response:
Nick, if you take some opinion from an amateur. Lately I’ve been discussing this issue too with a lot of professionals. The way I see it: If I take negatives I need to build up an equipment that gives myself control over output: film scanner and photo inkjet printer. Results from labs are unreliable, sometimes even trash. Right now I do a lot of experimenting for the right combination of film and lab. Anyway I need a lab for (photographic) printing most of my work because it takes too much time scanning and inkjet-printing all the shots. I will try slides ("dias" as we say here in Germany) especially for nature photography and holiday shooting. Literally _all_ photos in a German magazine called "NaturFoto", which I have here on my desktop, are made with slides (mostly Fujiichrome Sensia, Velvia or Provia). As far as I see it the labs can do no or not so much wrong when developing. Many pros adviced me to take slides for the purpose of nature photography. Professional prints from slides are expensive but look _very_ good. Well, as I said, still learning with my new F80. Peter Nick Davis schrieb: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I realise this may be a bit off-topic for rec.photo.equipment.35mm, and I’m sure it has been asked somewhere before, but the web at my uni has been down for a few days now and I can’t search on deja. So my query is… If slides are best for projection, and print-film best for printing, why have I heard the old story about magazines preferring slides? After all, a magazing produces a ‘print’ in its pages. I shot a few sunsets on E100VS, and had 12" by 16" prints made.. I lost a bit of contrast (it was direct, not cibachrome printing), but they still look great. Would the print look better had I shot it on negative film? Ultimately, I guess my question is, if my only concern is to make large (average 12" by 16"), framed prints for display, is there any real benefit in me shooting travel/scenic/landscape/outdoor portraits on pro slide film such as Velvia, Provia F, E100VS etc.? If not, maybe I should save my money for better glass! Thanks again, Nick.
– Privat: http://www.eisenburger.de Job: http://www.gelbeshaus.de
Response:
Fred, If a chrome and a finished print of the same image were sent to a magazine for publication, which do you think would separate better for the final image in the magazine? Jeff
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The term "print" is a little different with magazines. You are talking about a photographic print or a print made on photographic paper. Print film will always provide better results. Magazines in the old days photographed chromes with a copy camera to produce color separations which were then used to apply ink to paper (not photographic paper.) Today we usually scan the chromes digitally and then use the digital code to control the presses instead of separations. In either case chromes provide better images for the purpose. I don’t want to get into an argument because I don’t have time but just take my word for it that chromes are better for making separations either in an analog or digital fashion. Good shooting. Fred Maplewood Photography If slides are best for projection, and print-film best for printing, why have I heard the old story about magazines preferring slides? After all, a magazing produces a ‘print’ in its pages.
Response:
Hi Nick, Having done both cibachrome and color negative printing, I can tell you that printing from a color negative is much easier as well as much cheaper. The main problems with printing directly from slides are: (1) the extremely high contrast of the paper; (2) the extremely long exposure times. If you have a lot of time and money, go for the slides. Otherwise, if a print is the ultimate goal, use color negatives. Oh, yes, you can always make internegatives from slides on to color negative film, but that defeats the purpose of your choice at this stage. Francis A. Miniter – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I realise this may be a bit off-topic for rec.photo.equipment.35mm, and I’m sure it has been asked somewhere before, but the web at my uni has been down for a few days now and I can’t search on deja. So my query is… If slides are best for projection, and print-film best for printing, why have I heard the old story about magazines preferring slides? After all, a magazing produces a ‘print’ in its pages. I shot a few sunsets on E100VS, and had 12" by 16" prints made.. I lost a bit of contrast (it was direct, not cibachrome printing), but they still look great. Would the print look better had I shot it on negative film? Ultimately, I guess my question is, if my only concern is to make large (average 12" by 16"), framed prints for display, is there any real benefit in me shooting travel/scenic/landscape/outdoor portraits on pro slide film such as Velvia, Provia F, E100VS etc.? If not, maybe I should save my money for better glass! Thanks again, Nick.
Response:
Or find a place that has a Fuji Frontier digital minilab. Most busier Ritz camera’s have them now. They can do great looking prints from slides in 1 hour and economically ($0.99 for 4×6, same price as from negatives for larger prints, up to 10"x15"). Mark : Hi Nick, : Having done both cibachrome and color negative printing, I can tell you that : printing from a color negative is much easier as well as much cheaper. The : main problems with printing directly from slides are: (1) the extremely high : contrast of the paper; (2) the extremely long exposure times. If you have a : lot of time and money, go for the slides. Otherwise, if a print is the : ultimate goal, use color negatives. Oh, yes, you can always make : internegatives from slides on to color negative film, but that defeats the : purpose of your choice at this stage. : Francis A. Miniter
: I realise this may be a bit off-topic for rec.photo.equipment.35mm, and : I’m sure it has been asked somewhere before, but the web at my uni has : been down for a few days now and I can’t search on deja. So my query : is… : : If slides are best for projection, and print-film best for printing, why : have I heard the old story about magazines preferring slides? After all, : a magazing produces a ‘print’ in its pages. : : I shot a few sunsets on E100VS, and had 12" by 16" prints made.. I lost : a bit of contrast (it was direct, not cibachrome printing), but they : still look great. Would the print look better had I shot it on negative : film? : : Ultimately, I guess my question is, if my only concern is to make large : (average 12" by 16"), framed prints for display, is there any real : benefit in me shooting travel/scenic/landscape/outdoor portraits on pro : slide film such as Velvia, Provia F, E100VS etc.? If not, maybe I should : save my money for better glass! : : Thanks again, : : Nick.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I guess I have it in my head that all serious outdoor photographers (excepting weddings, B+W etc) shoot slide film. My scenario is that I am about to go travelling – East Coast USA then Asia. Would a travel photographer wanting to make fairly large prints of photographs with strong, accurate colours, fine grain and sharpness shoot slide film like kodachrome, velvia etc, or would they pack RG 100, Supra, Portra etc? If print film, would they use a "warmer" print film for sunsets? At this point in time, I doubt you’d find many people who’d pack Kodachrome under many circumstances at all — offhand, I can’t think of a situation in which Kodachrome would be any longer be my film of choice.
There are still lots of railfans who shoot nothing but Kodachromes. I have much better luck with Ektrachrome E100S and E100VS but to each their own. Those I know who shoot Kodachromes insist that nothing does a better job on reds and yellows. — Kevin Kuehl
Response:
Also keep in mind the different types of film within a media. I did some sunset photos with horses. I used two different types of slide film and got very different results. It was obvious that one was a warmer film and one was a cooler film.
It couldn’t have been due to the rapidly changing light? — http://www.spinics.net/photo
Response:
Printing from slides IS expensive.
Out of curiosity I just checked the prices at a local pro lab. The price is the same for printing from a negative or a slide. — http://www.spinics.net/photo
Response:
SNIP< Ultimately, I guess my question is, if my only concern is to make large (average 12" by 16"), framed prints for display, is there any real benefit in me shooting travel/scenic/landscape/outdoor portraits on pro slide film such as Velvia, Provia F, E100VS etc.? If not, maybe I should save my money for better glass!
Normally, I would say if you want prints, use negative film. As you have found, Ilfochromes have contrast problems (masking helps, but I seem to recall that the price goes up). On the other hand … If you are giving a single negative to a printer, and it is of a sunset, you need to provide some guidance to the person making the print. I gave a single negative of a flower to a lab years ago, and the print came back completely wrong because they had no clue what the colors were. When I had a slide printed, the guy running the shop showed me a print he’d torn up because a wooden fence came out lavendar, clearly wrong. He looked at the slide to get the colors right; it _was_ lavendar. By having the source there, he was able to get the color right. Twice. :- — Philip Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed http://www.PhilipStripling.com/ | civex.com is read daily.
Response:
[snipped] If slides are best for projection, and print-film best for printing, why have I heard the old story about magazines preferring slides? After all, a magazing produces a ‘print’ in its pages.
Nick, Magazines prefer slides simply because that’s the standard way. No, I’m not being flip here. Decades ago someone somewhere decided to base their reproductions on positive images (a slide is a positive), rather than negative images. That practice spread. It could easily have gone the other way. Now the industry is geared to commercial color positives for magazines, billboards, catalogues, etc. Could a magazine reproduce a color negative for their pages? Sure. But the press processes are designed to use a positive, so anything else would be costly for them. The print that ends up in a magazine isn’t the same kind of print you’d typically hold in your hand. Magazines take the positive and make spearation negs from it. These separations are then used for the magazine reproduction, which uses ink. Separations from a positive can be used to make a traditional photo, too, but making a high-class print using top-notch separations costs a LOT of money if you can’t do it yourself. It’s the best way to make a print from a positive, though. Making and printing separations is an art form of its own. Go to some museums and art exhibits that show photography. Sooner or later you’ll come across some photos that were made using this process. I shot a few sunsets on E100VS, and had 12" by 16" prints made.. I lost a bit of contrast (it was direct, not cibachrome printing), but they still look great. Would the print look better had I shot it on negative film? Ultimately, I guess my question is, if my only concern is to make large (average 12" by 16"), framed prints for display, is there any real benefit in me shooting travel/scenic/landscape/outdoor portraits on pro slide film such as Velvia, Provia F, E100VS etc.? If not, maybe I should save my money for better glass!
I’d recommend using print film if there’s little or no chance that your color photos will end up being used commercially. Many pros will shoot positives because they know that they can place their images with a stock house. (A stock house is a middleman for photographers and commercial photo users, such as companies, magazines, etc.). So if shooting stock isn’t part of your plan, stick with good color negative film. If you do want to print from slides, try Ilfochrome (www.ilford.com). Ilfochrome is the successor to Cibachrome. It’s not cheap, but the results are good. You can also try having a good, commercial photo lab make an internegative of your slide, and then having that printed. But why spend that extra money, when you can shoot negatives in the first place? (Again assuming your shots won’t end up being used commercially.) If you’re serious about your photos and you can afford printing that’s better than the consumer-level labs, start looking for a commercial photo lab (the kind the pros use). It’ll cost more, yes, but the results will be much better. You don’t have to be a pro to use a commercial photo lab. Look in your phone book for "Photo finsihing–custom laboratories," or something similar. Try a few, and see which one you prefer. G’luck, Chris
Response:
There are still lots of railfans who shoot nothing but Kodachromes. I have much better luck with Ektrachrome E100S and E100VS but to each their own. Those I know who shoot Kodachromes insist that nothing does a better job on reds and yellows.
I am not surprised at all by this. The K14 films are still excellent end products. It is, as most know, the processing difficulties that resulted in many, myself included, abandoning it. Provia 100F is the first film that I have no reservations about . . . I no longer miss Kodachrome. Terence A. Danks Nova Scotia, Canada Wildlife and Nature Photography http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/danksta/home.htm
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Understood. This is what alot of people have told me. Why then do professionals shoot slide film? A pro landscape photographer sells her/his work for magazines, exhibition prints, etc, and I’ve never heard of a pro travel photographer supporting themselves by charging people to watch a slide show. A major proportion of slides shot by professionals all around the world must eventually end up as a print. If print film is better for prints, why is slide film so popular? Just curious… Nick chalice(at)zip.com.au
I can’t speak for anyone else, but here is why I shoot slides most of the time: Cost. I costs a lot less to have a roll of slide film developed and mounted than to have a print film developed and printed. I only make big enlargements of a few of my best shots. Storage. I can store slides in a binder where I can easily look for and locate a slide I want to find. I only have to store the best shots that I want to keep. With prints I have to keep copies of the good prints somewhere. Then I have to keep a separate cross referenced file with the negatives. I also have to store whole strips of negatives when I only really want one of the frames. Control over exposure and colour. With slides I get back exactly the shot that I took. With a print I get the labs best guess as to the exposure and colour balance. Prints. I have found that if you want to push the size limits for prints from 35 mm, the best results are from top of the line digital prints, scanned on a drum scanner and printed on a commercial digital printer. In my opinion this can get more out of you shot than a photo process from either slides or negatives. It doesn’t really matter whether you have a slide or a negative scanned, but with a slide the lab has a better idea of what you want the results to look like. Showing your photos. It is much easier to show projected slides to a group of people than a bunch of prints. On the other hand it is easier to show prints to one or two people. Fortunately Fuji machine prints from slides are getting quite reasonable in cost so it does not cost that much to have some 5×7 or 8×12 inch prints made of a selection of your favourite shots. These are more impressive to pass around than 4×6 inch prints. Magazines. I don’t care what editors want. I’m an amateur who shoots for the enjoyment of myself and my friends. Scott Elliot http://mypage.direct.ca/s/selliot
Response:
Posted in Canon 35mm | 
No Comments » | 
thx Billy S. — William J. Spiropoulos, Cowtown eccentric extraordinaire please remove the obvious spamblocker to email me 
Anders Miguel Cunha skrev: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi I want to buy a 35mm SLR, but need some advice. As I had an Nikon before someone stole it, I am considering another Nikon, maybe the F70 or the F60. I know that the F70 has one or two features better than the F60 – spot metering and 1/4000 s velocity, but also dislike his "control-panel"… you know, and read in this newsgroup that Nikon, maybe discontinue this model …Is it right ? In other way, I can look into the Canon EOS 50E, that has a great focusing system with eye-control and also has ultra-sonic lenses that focus better than the Nikon ones; am I right ? Now, as they cost almost the same, here in Portugal, what would be my best option ? Thanks in advance Miguel Cunha ( in Portugal ) 