747 4-ever From Sweden, joined Feb 2001, 604 posts, RR: 21 Posted (11 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 817 times:
I'm using Kodak Gold ASA200,paper, but I'm considering to try taking some slides, I've asked in the photo store for Kodachrome and it costs 15 $, is it worth the price?
Psa188 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 445 posts, RR: 20 Reply 4, posted (11 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 710 times:
Check B&H in New York. They sell Kodachrome for about $10 a roll, including processing. K64 is still the best slide film, IMHO.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 5, posted (11 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 707 times:
he's not in the US which means two things:
1) hefty import charges when buying from the US (voiding even the 50% lower price at B&H) and
2) US mailers are useless as Kodak will not ship the processed slides back to you (continuous lower 48 states only for that).
CrewChief32 From Germany, joined Dec 2000, 418 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (11 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 703 times:
I use print film since I did begin with that hobby many years ago and I want to say that I am very satisfied with the results.
I use brand names like Kodak or Agfa, but also "no-names" like Perutz (they`re damn cheap), but I think it finally depends on the lab that does the development.
And I can think of atleast two resons why I prefer print films, one is the possibility of getting several prints from one negative in the same quality (for an album or for trading, for example) and the second is that you can go through an album, for example, and look at all the prints
quite easily.
Flygga From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (11 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 696 times:
The debate over prints vs. slides is all a matter of personal prefrence and what you want to do with your photos after you shoot them. It is easier to get good quality scans from slides than from prints. Personally however I prefer prints. The main problem with prints however, is the processing. Most 1 hour photo labs have terrible quality. I only use a professional film lab for my processing. You can really tell the difference in the results.
I prefer prints for the same reason CrewChief32 does. I like looking at my photo collection a lot. With slides you either have to look at them through a loupe or use a projector. In using a projector, the hot bright light, is not good for the slides if you do it too much.
YKA From Netherlands, joined Sep 2001, 766 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (11 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 683 times:
Slide film is the best choice for where proffessional results are required, such as getting photos accepted to airliners.net. Slides are also much easier to store and last much longer meaning that and your photo will never be subjected to the colour/brightness corrections that occur when prints are printed. Finaly, prints can also be made from slides, if you want your shot to hang on the wall.
On a final note, slide film should really only be used with SLR cameras though, since the exposure needs to spot on and p&s cameras with their comperatively slow lenes often rquire the flash to light the nearby objects while leaving the subject, such as an aircraft some distance away, underexposed. This is one aplication where print film should be used since lab workers can crank up the brightness to produce the final, more correctly exposed print.
Sponsor Message: 
From Sweden, joined Feb 2001, 604 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, 
From Mexico, joined Mar 2000, 5127 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 445 posts, 
From Germany, joined Dec 2000, 418 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
