Slide film shooting and hopelessness

[George Mann]

Slide film shooters, do you ever feel that it has become a waste of time (let alone cost) to even attempt to find something worth shooting in your neck of the woods? Do you agonize over it to the point of taking your digital camera out instead?

How many times are you willing to use expensive slide film to repeatedly shoot the same scenes and subjects?

Has it ever made you seriously evaluate the continued use of film?

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Slide film shooters, do you ever feel that it has become a waste of time (let alone cost) to even attempt to find something worth shooting in your neck of the woods?

I've moved some 6 times since I picked up slide film, so my woods keep changing. Last one was for 10 years and in that time I yes, enjoyed this a little bit. However - photography is light and the same subject can either sing or cry at any given lighting. Changing seasons helps too as the scenery keeps changing. That said, doing BW reversal requires heaps of testing, so go out and do test shoots of familiar subjects I did. This actually can improve your photography - training yourself is training.

Do you agonize over it to the point of taking your digital camera out instead?

No. I'm aware that I do this for the love of film and projection. If I cannot project at superb quality, cannot buy E-6 for a price that is reasonable or reverse my own BW Slides - I'm not even interested in shooting like at all. Large format and glass plates one day - that tickles my curiosity a bit, but digital - no. Just no. I don't like the digital workflow and the endless possibilities, leaving me wanting something I don't even know what. I like to do it in camera, not post. Soo - no slides, no photography to me. Plenty of other chores to enjoy - like vinyl collecting and book reading, or trying to be an Extreme Metal vocalist...

How many times are you willing to use expensive slide film to repeatedly shoot the same scenes and subjects?

As many as required and when light commands it. Therefore I moved to BW slides - waaaaay cheaper than E-6. Sharper and punchier too. Especially when comparing BW slide next to Ektachrome E100 that displays very, very poor performance in terms of sharpness, detail retention and color balance.

Has it ever made you seriously evaluate the continued use of film?

Yes, 10+ years ago. But then I picked up BW reversal and grew as a photographer.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I use a 1" sensor pocketable digital camera when shooting family, parties and traveling. I reserve film use locally with my MF and LF cameras and don't shoot too much but continue to shoot chromes which are easier to scan than negatives.

 

[BrianShaw]

The questions still have validity when the word “slide” is removed, or even if the word “film” is removed.

 

[Romanko]

Slide film shooters, do you ever feel that it has become a waste of time (let alone cost) to even attempt to find something worth shooting in your neck of the woods? Do you agonize over it to the point of taking your digital camera out instead?

If you feel extra pressure when shooting slides I would recommend taking a break from it and use color negative, BW or digital.

I always take my digital camera and use it as a light meter, a back-up and for "visual notes". I shoot mostly MF and save Ektachrome for important shots. I sometimes regret not taking a duplicate image on slide film. I hope to shoot more slide film now when I have extra roll film holders for my Horseman 985.

Has it ever made you seriously evaluate the continued use of film?

Yes. I continue shooting film because I like the medium (will all its limitations), my cameras and the analogue workflow.

 

[ic-racer]

How are you using the slide film. Are you projecting? If so, are there even any digital projectors? So I wonder how one could even compare the two?

 

[perkeleellinen]

I shoot mostly slides and I project the results. No digital camera here. I photo mostly friends and family, people around me doing things. There's always new stuff going on and people grow. I sometimes try experiments with slides and they're fun to project. I don't do any local landscape work, I find my local area quite boring after living here for so long.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

How are you using the slide film. Are you projecting? If so, are there even any digital projectors? So I wonder how one could even compare the two?

Digitized film through scanning can be shown on any digital display device such as a smart TV, monitor, cellphone, etc. Although I no longer have a film projector, watching photos on my 75" TV is very gratifying. I dump the shows on a memory card connected to the USB jack on the smart TV for playback on demand. Another advantage is you can add titles, credits, music and narration right into the slide show and add short video clips as well. Also, I can upload to Youtube so family, friends others can see them as well.

Example of 35mm slides:

 

[DREW WILEY]

What if your "slide" is 8x10 inches in size? That might make a real difference in how you go about shooting Ektachrome. Then you've got something really worth enlarging into a big wall print, and not just a little fuzzy screen image. Of course, you might soon be broke; but that's another matter.

 

[George Mann]

How are you using the slide film. Are you projecting? If so, are there even any digital projectors? So I wonder how one could even compare the two?

I view them directly on a lighttable with a loupe.

 

[gary mulder]

We Photographers have a backlog opposite to Musicians after the performance we are stuck with the residue. That holds us back from making new work. Kill your darlings. Make room for progress.

 

[MattKing]

Consider reserving one camera body for use with slide film, and carrying it along with your other kit.

 

[runswithsizzers]

I hate to start out the year on a downer vibe, but isn't it ALL a waste of time? The only point in sticking around is to satisfy my curiosity about exactly how it will end. Will it be Putin's nukes, global wild-fires, plastic poisoning, climate caused crop failures, a killer bird-flu pandemic, or flesh eating zombies from outer space? I guess we will find out soon enough.

I am living in the same mid-size town I was born in 73 years ago -- and the same town I have been photograping in since 1970. I do tend to visit the same subjects over and over again, and I can't say the 20th photo I take of a subject is any more pointless than the first one (or any less pointless, either). I don't agonize over whether I should shoot digital for color, any more than I agonize over whether it's going to be zombies or nukes. Photography is just something I do to pass the time while waiting for the inevitable.

The last time I shot any slide film was in 2019 when I found two rolls in my freezer, one roll each of Velvia 100F and Astia 100F. I enjoyed shooting those, but I probably paid about $10US for each of those rolls. At $20-30US per roll (plus processing), I would enjoy shooting slides much less.

I do plan to make some diy black and white transparencies some day. A few years back, I sent a few rolls of B&W negative film to DR5, to be processed as slides. I loved the results, but dealing with DR5 was such an unpleasant experience, I decided I was done with B&W slides until I could figure out how to do the reversal processing myself. And I will do some b&w reversal processing at home one day, if the zombies don't get me first.

 

[retina_restoration]

Slide film shooters, do you ever feel that it has become a waste of time (let alone cost) to even attempt to find something worth shooting in your neck of the woods? Do you agonize over it to the point of taking your digital camera out instead?

How many times are you willing to use expensive slide film to repeatedly shoot the same scenes and subjects?

Has it ever made you seriously evaluate the continued use of film?

I've come to the conclusion that if I attempt to include cost in assigning value to what I do as a photographer, then it's going to appear pointless and a waste of money. I don't see any reason to pursue such a self-defeating mindset. "Cost" and "Value" have nothing to do with one another - or at least they shouldn't.

The last time I used transparency film was shortly after Kodak brought back Ektachrome. I did it solely for nostalgic purposes, and I enjoyed the result, but since 100% of what I do is geared towards making prints from film, slides don't really have a purpose in that work and I'm unlikely to use transparency film again.

Years ago I was talking with a very thoughtful friend, lamenting the fact that I felt that my photography lacked "purpose". He was quick to say that my photography didn't need to have any other purpose other than making photographs pleases me. Once you arrive at that realization there's little need to throw any obstacles in your path.

Creative people of all kinds often agonize over these questions, but none of that is helpful. The pleasure is in the doing.

PS: if you find you're tired of making the same old photographs over and over again, have a friend give you a short list of photographs they would like to see you make, and go make them - your way. Or choose some other exercise that breaks the mold and makes you choose something different. Brian Eno created the Oblique Strategies cards for this exact reason.

 

[Milpool]

Slide film shooters, do you ever feel that it has become a waste of time (let alone cost) to even attempt to find something worth shooting in your neck of the woods? Do you agonize over it to the point of taking your digital camera out instead?

How many times are you willing to use expensive slide film to repeatedly shoot the same scenes and subjects?

Has it ever made you seriously evaluate the continued use of film?

Shooting slides vs digital is a philosophical matter, so I would say if you are worried about the cost of film and/or the quality of your photographs from a cost/enjoyment perspective, why not take a break from film to regroup creatively? Instead of agonizing over whether to use film or digital just use digital for a while and focus on the seeing.

Incidentally for anyone in a creative rut or trying to improve the one little book I continue to recommend is Freeman Patterson’s Photography and the Art of Seeing. My two cents, this is the “instructional” book I find most likely to concretely improve picture-taking (if indeed such a thing is possible) and it never gets old. The companion book (of sorts) Photography for the Joy of It is also wonderful.

 

[George Mann]

Shooting slides vs digital is a philosophical matter, so I would say if you are worried about the cost of film and/or the quality of your photographs from a cost/enjoyment perspective, why not take a break from film to regroup creatively? Instead of agonizing over whether to use film or digital just use digital for a while and focus on the seeing.

I have been diversifying the types of formats I have been shooting lately only to find myself largely dissatisfied.

Incidentally for anyone in a creative rut or trying to improve the one little book I continue to recommend is Freeman Patterson’s Photography and the Art of Seeing. My two cents, this is the “instructional” book I find most likely to concretely improve picture-taking (if indeed such a thing is possible) and it never gets old. The companion book (of sorts) Photography for the Joy of It is also wonderful.

I read both books, and they did help for a time. Maybe I should take another look at them.

My biggest issue right now other than running out of new things to shoot is contending with our Colorado winter sunlight from hell (think of long, dark shadows cast on virtually everything).

 

[MattKing]

My biggest issue right now other than running out of new things to shoot is contending with our Colorado winter sunlight from hell (think of long, dark shadows cast on virtually everything).

Open shade and a warming filter are your friends!
For comparison, October light:

Year End

• MattKing
• Dec 31, 2017
• 8

Forest floor foliage, at the end of the year.
At the side of the path, near the pitch and put...

Pumpkins And Squash

• MattKing
• May 11, 2017
• 3

Another from the day at the Corn Maze last fall. The saturation of the colours has at least...

 

[Milpool]

I have been diversifying the types of formats I have been shooting lately only to find myself largely dissatisfied.



I read both books, and they did help for a time. Maybe I should take another look at them.

My biggest issue right now other than running out of new things to shoot is contending with our Colorado winter sunlight from hell (think of long, dark shadows cast on virtually everything).

Well, Patterson would probably suggest his “sideways thinker” approach to the problem (how can I make something out of the sunlight from hell rather than be deterred by it) but you know that already.

Which formats have you been trying and what is it about them that has been dissatisfying relative to what you had been using? Are they technical matters or is it more like it doesn’t “feel right”?

 

[George Mann]

Well, Patterson would probably suggest his “sideways thinker” approach to the problem (how can I make something out of the sunlight from hell rather than be deterred by it) but you know that already.

Yes. But it results in ugly images.

Which formats have you been trying and what is it about them that has been dissatisfying relative to what you had been using?

Negative film and digital.

Are they technical matters or is it more like it doesn’t “feel right”?

Negative film fails to yield satisfying results (imperfect color and dull b&w images), and digital leaves me feeling unfulfilled.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Try Ektar 100 color neg film, along with conscientious use of a warming filter when overcast blueish sky is present. That will give you a look much like chrome films. Of course, color negs have to be inverted in order to view them. But they will inherently be low contrast if converted into black and white images. That's why black and white film negatives exist in their own right!

Much like Matt, I've been out in the gloomy wet woods lately. Here on the Calif. coast, it's actually the peak of "Fall" color right now. Not much sunlight either from hell or anywhere else. No problem. I just keep a KR1.5 warming filter on the lens. For less correction, I use a pink-amber skylight filter instead. These Ektar shots print wonderfully.

 

[George Mann]

A KR1.5 for Ektar, hmm.

 

[Taylor Nankervis]

One has to look carefully at the potential for subjects suitable for slide film. It is not universally suitable for every scene and lighting condition. Wastage occurs through over-enthusiasm and a lack of applied knowledge to getting the best from each exposure. Things like blue casts, blocked shadows, blown highlights, uneven lighting etc., etc., can all be put down to the photographer's imprudent choice of subject, time and lack of skill. My slides are not projected (last projection was in 1984), they are printed — an entirely separate subject and skillset.

There is no harm in returning to a scene or location several times. It is especially useful for example, if the exposure you made on your first visit presents something anomalous about the scene or the lighting, or the visual arrangement strikes you as presenting more opportunities. The key with re-visits is knowing when enough is enough — when more and more visits become a minstrel picnic rather than a productive exercise in imaging. I have returned to many locations repeatedly, often because the first or subsequent visits were blighted by the unexpected appearance of people, rubbish, storms, floods or droughts (each of these often altering the scene, for better or for worse). As recently as mid-December 2024 I decided I had finished with two locations after many years of repeat visits. Other scenes and subjects I passed over decades ago come to memory as likely presenting new opportunities.

Slide film is pretty damned expensive today, and it warrants care in choice of subject and precision of exposure. Forty years ago I sustained my photography consuming Kodachrome 200 through a Canon T90. Now, one roll of Fujifilm with processing costs I think a bit more than a slab of 12 rolls of 35mm Kodachrome 200! But we are talking about money of forty years ago!

As the expense of film increases, I do have occasion now and then — a jolting realisation, if you will, to evaluate a meaningful continuation of my work in analogue. I do not shoot nearly as many rolls per year now as I once did, symbolic of changing times, increased cost, having a family and competing leisure interests — road cycling bushwalking, mountain runner and casual relief teacher. So long periods now pass with the cameras doing nothing at all.

 

[DREW WILEY]

My apologies ... I should have said I'm using a KR3 filter at the moment, because it's really gloomy overcast Hound of the Baskervilles weather. Ordinarily, a KR3 is a bit too strong, and in most cases, a KR1.5 or 1B skylight would be preferable for general Ektar usage. So it all depends on just how much warming you really need.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I shot slide film including available light night photography for decades including bulk loaded 100' of Ektachrome in each time I went to Europe a number of consecutive summers. But when we started a family I moved to print film so that I could send photographs to family members and friends.

 

[Taylor Nankervis]

My apologies ... I should have said I'm using a KR3 filter at the moment, because it's really gloomy overcast Hound of the Baskervilles weather. Ordinarily, a KR3 is a bit too strong, and in most cases, a KR1.5 or 1B skylight would be preferable for general Ektar usage. So it all depends on just how much warming you really need.

KR1.5... that's a B+W designation... UV(0)??
Off the top of my head I am supposed to know it, but still a bit fogged from NYE and the first day of '25!!