Neutrino
Question 1:
Although there are already plenty of posts across the internet regarding the shelf life of transparency film, I still wanted to get your opinions here, particularly with regard to my personal situation.
€
I only stumbled into the world of analogue photography a few years ago. Back then, I ordered some transparency film quite early on to try out. Unfortunately, I’ve used very little of it, as I ended up taking more photos with colour negative and black-and-white film. However, as I’m actually always impressed by the quality of transparency film, I’d now like to work with this medium more again. Specifically, these are the following films in 35mm format: Velvia 50, Velvia 100, Velvia 100F and Provia 100F. A few expired in July 2013 and a few in December 2012. They were stored in the fridge for most of the time. Can I still use them for photography without any concerns? Do I need to make an exposure compensation?
€
Question 2:
Is it possible to elicit a little more dynamic range from a transparency by performing an overexposure and then performing an underexposure during development, in other words, to tone down the contrast slightly? I’d like to do this for two reasons: better rendering of highlights and shadows, and to simplify the scanning process, as my scanner naturally struggles with the darker areas and often produces noise there that can only be partially eliminated even with multiple scans. I use slides exclusively for hybrid workflows, so I don’t care how they look when projected.
€
Urnes
Hello,
I haven’t undergone any exposure to slide film for a long time, but I’ll have a go at answering.
Re 1.) The 2013 film is fine. I used to work almost exclusively with short rolls or expired film. I wouldn’t expect any significant problems with the 2012 film either, especially as the films were kept in the fridge. However, it’s always better to freeze it; that preserves it for years. With an old slide film, you probably won’t achieve much with exposure compensation. The films simply lose their colorants over time, until eventually they only produce a monochrome purple image.
Re 2.) It might be enough if you simply add a third to half a stop without changing the development. We used to always do the opposite to increase the contrast – that is, work with an underexposure of a third to half a stop – and made sure that the overall contrast remained between 4 and 5 stops.
Regards, Sven.
hagee
Hi Neutrino!
?
As Sven has already said, both films should still be in good condition, so they shouldn’t show any undesirable changes yet. Since these films have ‘expired’ and the financial loss is therefore limited, I’d suggest taking a series of exposures, provided the subject allows it. I would take exposure bracketing at intervals of +1 stop and +0.5 stops from the normal exposure. That should ensure there’s at least one scan-able transparency in the batch.
?
Personally, I find scanning transparency film easier than colour negative film, but that might just be down to the scanner. Overall, I have less post-processing to do on slides than on colour negatives, and I always expose according to the camera’s recommendation, supplemented by safety shots depending on the subject’s contrast.
?
For irreplaceable subjects, I recommend using fresh film.
?
Best regards,
Hans
AchimBauer
Hello Neutrino,
?
I used to often use layered transparencies that my regular supplier (who is no longer in business due to his age) gave me for free,
and it always worked out fine as long as I didn’t overdo it.
As for pulling, I have no experience with it, but I can tell you right now that it won’t be much use, because it’s hard enough to get a standard development, and using a professional lab to experiment is a good option if your wallet is so well-stocked that it doesn’t hurt when it’s a bit lighter.?
But you’ve got the films anyway and they’re already paid for, so just give standard development a go.
If the result’s right, get some crisps and a bottle of beer and bring back the old days with those dreaded ‘Daabenden’.
?
Regards, Achim?
analog-andy
Overexposure of slide film followed by the appropriate negative development always results in a reduction in contrast!
(Underexposure of slide film followed by the appropriate positive development always results in an increase in contrast!)
Slide film that has not been frozen and has passed its expiry date will eventually lose contrast.
IMPORTANT: I have yet to come across a transparency where the nominal sensitivity is actually accurate; for example, Velvia 50 requires approx. +1/2 stop of exposure – Provia 100 requires approx. +1/3 stop of exposure (best to test this yourself).
CORRECTION:
Exposure bracketing on transparency should be carried out in plus and minus third-stop increments.
-
Allow previously frozen films to thaw slowly in the fridge!
Neutrino
Thank you very much for your replies.
€
It’s reassuring to hear that the expired films are still usable. I’ll do my best to get through all of them before the end of the year.
€
€
Personally, I find scanning transparency easier than colour negative film
€
€
I generally do too, as long as the slide isn’t too dark or has too much contrast. Especially when it comes to colours, it’s so much easier than with colour negatives. I could go mad with those on a regular basis. But that’s another topic altogether, and one I’d like to start a separate post about here. Among other things, that’s also the reason why I want to get back into slides more.
€
Most of the time, I simply adjusted the exposure of the shots as the camera suggested (Minolta SRT 101b, Minolta X300). That usually resulted in the slides being too dark. Although the slides don’t actually look in need of underexposure when viewed through the viewfinder, it can turn into a nightmare when scanning. The camera’s exposure meter is actually accurate. I’ve compared this using both a handheld light meter and other analogue and digital cameras. It’s mainly a problem with scenes featuring the sky. That’s why I’ve got into the habit of taking the exposure reading without the sky in the frame, plus perhaps doing a bracketed exposure series. That actually works quite well. The problem that then arises is that the sky is almost completely blown out. Hence the question of whether there are any ways to reduce the contrast. I don’t project the images anyway.
€
Overexposure of di-material followed by appropriate negative development always reduces contrast!
€
€
Have you tried that before? Does it work well?
AntiLynd
I must say, I don’t quite understand why, if you don’t want to project them anyway, you don’t simply solve your contrast problem by switching to negative film. Not that transparency doesn’t have a few advantages in certain areas when it comes to scanning, but I’d be interested to know exactly why you’re so set on this :)
But of course I don’t want to tell you what to do. What I really would like to talk you out of, however, is: just because you don’t want to project at the moment, making your slides unsuitable for projection for all eternity. Because that’s what it boils down to, if I understand you correctly. I say this because I’ve just done the opposite: after years of avoiding slides, sticking solely to B&W prints and colour negative scans, I dug the projector out again and was completely blown away by the quality it delivers.
Nevertheless, here’s another classic tip for reducing contrast: pre-exposure. Here, for example, is some information on the subject (relating to black-and-white film, but there’s no reason why you shouldn’t try it with colour as well):
http://wolfgangmothes.de/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF_TIPPS/16 Pre-exposure FAF .pdf
analog-andy
Overexposure of Dia film followed by the appropriate underdevelopment always results in a loss of contrast!
- - -
Have you ever tried this? Does it work well?
- - -
That’s how it is! … otherwise I wouldn’t have written this (the same applies to negative film). But be careful not to overdo it, otherwise the contrast will quickly become too flat...
analog-andy
<"Most of the time, I simply used the exposure settings suggested by the camera (Minolta SRT 101b, Minolta X300). As a result, the slides usually turned out too dark. Although the slides don’t actually look in need of underexposure when viewed through the viewfinder, scanning them can turn into a nightmare. The camera’s exposure meter is actually accurate. I’ve compared this using both a handheld light meter and other analogue and digital cameras. It’s mainly a problem with scenes featuring the sky. That’s why I’ve got into the habit of taking the exposure reading without the sky in the frame, plus perhaps doing a bracketed exposure series. That actually works quite well. The problem that then arises is that the sky is almost completely blown out. Hence the question of whether there are any ways to reduce the contrast. I don’t project the images anyway.">
The light meter in analogue cameras is calibrated to Kodak mid-grey.
In other words, if the part of the subject being metered is lighter than medium grey, this light meter will determine a value that leads to underexposure... if the part of the subject being metered is darker than medium grey, this light meter will determine a value that leads to overexposure...
So manual corrections are necessary!!
Urnes
In practical terms, this means that with Minolta cameras, you need to add 1–1.5 stops of exposure for shots with a large proportion of sky. If that doesn’t work, you’ve simply exceeded the film’s dynamic range; developing to reduce contrast is only ever a stopgap solution.
€
Regards, SVen.
analog-andy
In practical terms, this means that with Minolta film, you need to add 1–1.5 stops for shots with a large proportion of sky. If that doesn’t work, you’ve simply exceeded the film’s dynamic range; a contrast-reducing development process is always just a stopgap solution.
€
Regards, SVen.
Exposure 1–1.5 stops more on slide film € – well, there certainly won’t be any detail left in the sky then!!
analog-andy
In practical terms, this means that with Minolta cameras, you need to add 1–1.5 stops when shooting scenes with a large proportion of sky. If that doesn’t work, you’ve simply exceeded the film’s dynamic range; a contrast-reducing development process is only ever a stopgap solution.
€
Regards, SVen.
Expose 1–1.5 stops more on slide film € – Well, there’ll be absolutely no detail in the sky then!!
Urnes
The Minolta uses either integral or centre-weighted metering. If the sky is in the wrong place, the cameras simply don’t read the exposure correctly. If you’ve then underexposed the slide film by a third to half a stop to make the colours pop, you’ll need to compensate for that in reality, especially if you’re using a wide-angle lens. The camera’s exposure meter isn’t actually calibrated to 18% grey in reality; every manufacturer has its own K-value, which it uses to correct the exposure to optimise the image result for its customers. Furthermore, with Minolta’s X-series, there was a factory tolerance in the exposure meters of up to half a stop between different bodies. So if you were working with several bodies, you would either test them first and enter a correction factor, or have them synchronised at the manufacturer’s service centre.
…
And. Clearly, the best approach is to measure the contrast and then adjust the exposure precisely.
…
Regards, Sven.
Quinquaginta
Hello,
I
regarding your first question:
You can certainly still use the films without any problems. Even if the films haven’t been stored in a cool place but at room temperature, 1–2 years past the expiry date is generally not a problem.
For example, I was once given some Provia 400X and Astia 100F from the estate of a deceased photographer; the expiry date had passed two years earlier and they had been stored at room temperature. The films were perfectly fine.
I
Regarding the second question:
Overexposure and adjusted shortened development (pulling) also results in a flatter gradation curve for transparency (within certain limits), allowing for wider dynamic ranges to be handled.
Experienced photographers have been using this technique for decades.
Here are some examples (scroll down a bit):
http://www.dia-spezial.de/html/dia-development.html
I
Another option is diffuse pre-exposure. This technique can also be applied very selectively to individual frames right in the middle of the roll (if the subject requires it), and increases the dynamic range by one stop. The procedure is the same as for black-and-white film. All you need is a camera with multiple exposure capability and a uniform small surface for the diffuse pre-exposure, such as a small grey card.
me
An excellent way to manage even the greatest subject contrasts with a wide range of subjects is the fill-in flash. Modern flash technology has made this much simpler and, with very little practice, allows you to take shots where the use of flash is completely undetectable and which look as though they were taken using only the available light.
me
And in landscape photography, a polarising filter can often help to manage the contrasts a little better (the sky can be ‘darkened’ slightly).
A graduated grey filter is another option.
I
But if you’re shooting slides, you should definitely make the most of the medium’s full potential, rather than just relying on scanning (which always results in a significant loss of quality in terms of detail reproduction):
- first by viewing them on a light table with a very good slide loupe (e.g. from Schneider or Rodenstock)
- and then, of course, by projection (the quality of slide projection is unrivalled; in contrast, a (scanned) image on a computer monitor simply looks rubbish).
I
You’re sure to find further helpful information and suggestions here:
http://www.aphog.de/wp-content/downloads/Diapositiv/Ein%20einzigartiges%20Bildmedium-das%20Diapositiv.pdf
I
http://www.aphog.de/?p=364
I
Best regards,
Henning
Neutrino
Once again, a big thank you for all the replies.
€
I don’t quite understand why, if you don’t intend to project the images anyway, you don’t simply solve your contrast problem by switching to negative film.
€
€
It wouldn’t really be a switch. I mainly shoot on negative film, but in my opinion slides have a completely different character. Reversal films have a much finer grain (or rather, dye particles), better resolution, etc. I simply prefer the image quality of slides for most subjects. That’s why I plan to expose more on slide film. Added to that is the simpler colour grading of the scanned image.
€
€
Well, I’ve already received a few useful tips regarding ways to reduce contrast. I also find the approach of pre-exposure interesting. With photographic paper, speed does increase with a subtle pre-exposure. Would that also be the case with slides?
€
€
Quinquaginta
Hello,
Yes, diffuse pre-exposure can also be used with film (whether slide or negative film) to increase its speed.
Best regards,
Henning
Neutrino
And in what areas does this apply? Or rather: to what extent can this make a film more sensitive?
Quinquaginta
A stop is usually achievable without any problems whilst maintaining good to very good quality. Depending on the shooting conditions and the film used, it is sometimes possible to gain 1 1/3 to 1.5 stops, although this usually results in a slight loss of quality.
€
BG,
Henning
Ulf-Benno
Dear Neutrino,
Dear photography enthusiasts,
?
I’ve already had quite a bit of experience with this subject. The Velvia mentioned is the finest reversal film there is. Unbelievable contrast, intense and accurate colours, and a wide exposure latitude make it the top product in this category. As it isn’t exactly cheap, I’ve almost always tried using over-exposed films. Three years past the expiry date is absolutely no problem, even at room temperature. Other top-of-the-range products such as Astia, RPX 50, Kodachrome and EPP, for example, have disappeared, so one has to be grateful for every roll of Velvia. I do not recommend pull processing or overexposure; rather, a slight underexposure.
A few years ago (2005–2007), clearance sales of slide film were held in electronics and other department stores. For 30 to 90 cents, I managed to bag nearly 100 rolls. Some even came with a development voucher. I then used up the last of them in 2012 – without any loss of quality. I exposed Sensia 100 – stored for 5 years – one after the other using an AgfaphotoCT from Japan. Even with identical subjects, no differences were discernible.
Only with a Kodak Elite 200 (stored for 6 years at room temperature) was a difference noticeable. The film was too bright, too flat and covered with a violet haze. The darker subjects were, however, usable. I conducted an unintended experiment with the very last roll of Orwochrom 100. Sixteen years after production (1994), the speed was higher, the contrast significantly lower, and the resolution poorer. But the colour was good. I looked for subjects suited to the film and obtained at least interesting results. So, with extreme overexposure, the speed increases slightly (by 1 to 2 stops). A fog develops that acts like pre-exposure. Sometimes this fog is simply coloured.
Incidentally, the new AgfaphotoCT also has a higher speed than stated on the packet; in sunny weather I always use ISO 200, otherwise 125.
So I reckon that transparencies still represent the last bastion in the battle against digital dominance. So get the frames and the slide projector out of hiding!!
?
Wishing you lots of fun with reversal films
?
Ulf Benno
