Why did studio photographers use slide film back in the day?

[Dazzer123]

Hi folks,

I'm wondering: with the difficulties involved in shooting slide film (limited dynamic range), why was it a popular choice for studio photographers in the 90's and earlier?

To maybe answer my own question i've been looking at Sinar 31 (download here: )
.....and something that strikes me is that the very limited dynamic range of slide is closer to the even more limited dynamic range of print media.

So maybe the idea was that a successful slide exposure was more likely to translate well to print?

Especially curious to hear from anyone who was working with slide in the studio in the 90's and before.

Thanks!

 

[koraks]

So maybe the idea was that a successful slide exposure was more likely to translate well to print?

That was a large part of it, yes. It did away with the inherent trouble of color balancing the results from color negative film. The image on the slide was precisely how the photographer intended it to be; no second guessing about filtration settings etc. necessary. Another part was that slide film had superior characteristics in terms of fineness of grain for instance, so it was technically very well suited to form a strong link in the imaging chain.

The problem of dynamic range was mostly worked around because a lot of the work was done in a studio environment will full control over lighting conditions.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Well didnt used much slide film on my days but when I asked my father back then, he told me it was because of the color range you could get from it, Light for fashion/marketing photography was quite controlled so over/under exposing a shot wasnt much of a problem risk.

Not sure if the answer was correct but it has correct for a lot of photographers of the time.

Marcelo

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

That was a large part of it, yes. It did away with the inherent trouble of color balancing the results from color negative film. The image on the slide was precisely how the photographer intended it to be; no second guessing about filtration settings etc. necessary. Another part was that slide film had superior characteristics in terms of fineness of grain for instance, so it was technically very well suited to form a strong link in the imaging chain.

The problem of dynamic range was mostly worked around because a lot of the work was done in a studio environment will full control over lighting conditions.

+1 to studio lights conditions.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

That was a large part of it, yes. It did away with the inherent trouble of color balancing the results from color negative film. The image on the slide was precisely how the photographer intended it to be; no second guessing about filtration settings etc. necessary. Another part was that slide film had superior characteristics in terms of fineness of grain for instance, so it was technically very well suited to form a strong link in the imaging chain.

The problem of dynamic range was mostly worked around because a lot of the work was done in a studio environment will full control over lighting conditions.

Again +1 on no guess work around the color calibration. For fashion/marketing, color was a big issue.

 

[Dazzer123]

Nice!

About film grain: i guess this was mostly an issue for large posters, because 4x5 (and bigger) has got such high resolution, there will be no grain visible in a magazine, regardless of which film type is used, correct?

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Nice!

About film grain: i guess this was mostly an issue for large posters, because 4x5 (and bigger) has got such high resolution, there will be no grain visible in a magazine, regardless of which film type is used, correct?

Well, again, we are talking about very controlled environtment conditions so slow/fine grain film could be used.

 

[MattKing]

Art directors liked/required it as well - they could see exactly what the photographer produced, without the intervening contribution of a colour printer.
And as a result the publication infrastructure for things like books, magazines and catalogues was designed to deal with that material.
For similar reasons, National Geographic photography was almost all Kodachrome for a significant time. National Geographic's in house Kodachrome lab was for a number of years the highest volume 35mm slide Kodachrome lab in the world.
(The other high volume Kodachrome labs had total volumes that were higher, but like all such labs during Kodachrome's heyday, a substantial portion of their volume was movie film - primarily Super 8).

 

[koraks]

Nice!

About film grain: i guess this was mostly an issue for large posters, because 4x5 (and bigger) has got such high resolution, there will be no grain visible in a magazine, regardless of which film type is used, correct?

Yes, although lots of commercial work was also shot on medium format film. And fashion work certainly was shot on 35mm as well starting from around the 1980s or so, when more relaxed/informal styles became fashionable. But I think the main rationale in terms of resolution, grain etc. was to limit the impact of the film on the end result. Ensuring that it wouldn't be the weakest link in the imaging chain.

 

[Dazzer123]

Ah-ha, so it was also for the convenience of the people downstream in the chain, to easily and quickly view the image with the correct color.

Perhaps silly question: is there no way to optically view a negative with the correct colors, other than be printing through color filters in an enlarger? (i'm talking pre-digital)

 

[Pieter12]

Ah-ha, so it was also for the convenience of the people downstream in the chain, to easily and quickly view the image with the correct color.

Perhaps silly question: is there no way to optically view a negative with the correct colors, other than be printing through color filters in an enlarger? (i'm talking pre-digital)

No, there isn't. And I would not consider it a "convenience" for the people downstream, rather a requirement. They were the clients and end-users. That's who you were shooting for and they were the ones paying the bills.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Art directors, curators, editors, etc could spread out all 36 35mm slides on a light table and pick the ones they wanted quickly. There was no need to spend money and time on printing color negative pictures that might change exposure and colors with the next printing procedure and chemicals. The slides showed exactly what was there. If bracketed, you could immediately pick out the one exposed the best.

 

[infrar3d]

Art directors liked/required it as well - they could see exactly what the photographer produced, without the intervening contribution of a colour printer.
And as a result the publication infrastructure for things like books, magazines and catalogues was designed to deal with that material.

This is the answer, at least in my experience. It's what the Art Directors asked for, and it's what the prepress people preferred.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Slides could be copied and mailed to difference recipients with the photographer holding on to the original.

 

[Dazzer123]

No, there isn't.

OK! Can't you sort of fake it by shining 3 lights through the negative at angles, then applying the filters, then recombining, to get a hacky preview? Or does the orange color cast or other factors preclude that?

I just tried it with a negative and two iphone flashlights, and you can get two different silhouettes no problem.

EDIT: i guess the filter needs to come before you shine light through?!

 

[Pieter12]

OK! Can't you sort of fake it by shining 3 lights through the negative at angles, then applying the filters, then recombining, to get a hacky preview? Or does the orange color cast or other factors preclude that?

I just tried it with a negative and two iphone flashlights, and you can get two different silhouettes no problem.

EDIT: i guess the filter needs to come before you shine light through?!

Even if it would work, it would not be something any art director or photo editor would want to have to do. Machine prints would be better, but not really accepted as the norm in the day. Neither could be compared to the ease and certainty of looking at chromes on a light table. Even though chromes were shot, a dye-transfer positive print would be made if there was retouching involved for the final. That would be scanned or shot with a process camera.

 

[Pieter12]

Slides could be copied and mailed to difference recipients with the photographer holding on to the original.

I would never hire a photographer who did not give me the original. Stock photos were usually dupes though.

 

[Dazzer123]

How is a slide copied? Just another photographic process? Special machine?

 

[Pieter12]

How is a slide copied? Just another photographic process? Special machine?

There were dedicated machines or a slide-copying accessory could be mounted to an SLR, consisting of a bellows with a macro lens along with a holder for the slide and a piece of diffusion material to back-light the slide. Special films were used that were meant for duplicating. Or an internegative could be made. For 35mm, a dupe was never as good as the original.

 

[koraks]

Slides could be copied and mailed to difference recipients with the photographer holding on to the original.

Well, prints could easily be made as well, and a contact sheet also worked fine for selection. I really think the reason for the use of slides was the aspect of color fidelity.

Can't you sort of fake it

For starters, it's a negative. You can't invert light. Then, if you consider you'd have to filter out the orange mask with a filter of the opposite color, you'd realize that this would also result in a totally black preview.
So no, there is no way to preciew color negative except printing it.

How is a slide copied?

There is (was) dupe film. This mostly involved an internegative though. So a negative would be made from the original slide on an internegative film stock, and this negative would then be printed onto a positive duplication film stock. Contact printing and enlargement were both possible.
Some of these products still exist for use in e.g. the movie industry. If you browse Kodak's catalog, you can still find them. There used to be loads of these special purpose films; now there are only a handful left.

 

[Dazzer123]

There were dedicated machines or a slide-copying accessory could be mounted to an SLR, consisting of a bellows with a macro lens along with a holder for the slide and a piece of diffusion material to back-light the slide. Special films were used that were meant for duplicating. Or an internegative could be made. For 35mm, a dupe was never as good as the original.

I see, so just taking a photo of the slide with special gear. I guess another reason why large format would be used for the original.

 

[BrianShaw]

Duped slides too often paled in comparison to the original.

 

[Dazzer123]

For starters, it's a negative. You can't invert light. Then, if you consider you'd have to filter out the orange mask with a filter of the opposite color, you'd realize that this would also result in a totally black preview.
So no, there is no way to preciew color negative except printing it.

Of course, haha, it's a negative, silly me!

Irrelevant fact: in 3D programs like Blender, you can have negative light, so you can shine black light to darken things, increase ambient occlusion, it's quite strange!

 

[koraks]

Yes, conceptually, black light makes sense. In practice, I find it's best to keep a safe distance from anything that actively absorbs all light. It tends to absorp matter as well. I understand this can be dangerous, and possibly very confusing.

 

[Pieter12]

Yes, conceptually, black light makes sense. In practice, I find it's best to keep a safe distance from anything that actively absorbs all light. It tends to absorp matter as well. I understand this can be dangerous, and possibly very confusing.

I'm not afraid of the black cards in my studio. Maybe I should be.