Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/06/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 09:17 PM 6/21/98 -0400, you wrote: >in my area so I have never seen the results from it. I thought all >publications still insist on slides for stock photography. How do they >get transfers which seem great to the printed page? I was disappointed >by the computer generated prints in that they lacked depth and >"transparency" which is exactly what we covet with our expensive Leica >gear. Not all publications require slides now. Not even National Geographic, though that by far is still the preference. I just did a freelance job for a New York ad agency, and they required slide film. So it's still there. But not from knowledge, or qualitative differences between films any more. There are neg films that are fabulous in quality, and with the right program (Photoshop) and printer (very expensive dye-sub) you can make prints the equal or better than most custom labs can do. And in that context, negative film is actually better in some ways. It handles contrast much better than slide film. Shadow detail is much better in harsh conditions. Much easier to control. But there is a beauty in slides that I still love. My more pleasing to edit. Easier to find in an archive (non-computer) and they have a look when projected that is magic. I've seen some modern slide films that are amazingly good compared to the past. Astia is very nice. Neutral and handles contrast very well. But it's EXPENSIVE! With masking and internegs and other tricks, slides can be made into prints with Ilfochrome and other methods. But if you shoot slides, you really are missing the fun if you don't have a projector. And a good one! If you want prints as the end result, get to know some good negative films. - -- Eric Welch St. Joseph, MO http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch 98% of all statistics are useless.