"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. Most of this can be attributed to "operator error" however there >are those moments when everything should have been perfect but leave me >quite displeased when I get the results back from the lab. Of coarse, some >shots are better than others but generally I have not been impressed with >what comes back. The greens are not nearly as green as I remember them. >Same with the blues and reds.. There's just something missing.
What kind of film have you been using? >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). >I am completely illiterate as to how you turn color slides into jpgs or any >type of viewable picture for that matter. A basic film/slide scanner to start with. Add a color inkjet printer and you can do your own prints, too. >Is it worth the switch? I think so, personally. >What kind and how much of an investment in equipiment can I expect to have >to make? I'd say you could probably get a cheap scanner and printer for around $300.00 or so. >I'm not sure is I want to give up the convenience of being able to look at >a fisnished product like you can with film. > >Someone please enlighten me or send me down the right path at least. Once >again, any and all help is very much appreciated! You do indeed get to look at a "finished product" when you shoot negative film, but it's been "finished" by someone else - often with just a machine making the decisions regarding exposure and color balance. How accurately the results represent what's on the actual negative can vary tremendously. I've just been going through a roll of negatives that my girlfriend's sister shot. She thought she had nothing worth keeping on the roll because all the prints looked awful. (She wants some prints anyway because of the sentimental/personal value of the content of the photos - family stuff.) It turns out that a lot of the shots are just fine. The lab that made the prints just did a horrible job. 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
