kpk@gitpyr.UUCP (Kevin P. Kleinfelter) (03/27/86)
Many thanks to those of you who responded to my query for info on
slides and prints from the same film. The following is a summary of
responses:
Special film:
Kodak 5247 -- movie film (surplus usually). Relatively cheap. Fair
quality. Funny ASA numbers. Few labs process it.
Color balance can be tricky.
Also available is processing as filmstrip (cheaper).
Prints are cheaper from the negatives than from slides.
Film is thicker; may have caused premature wear in one
camera.
Primary advantage -- cheap.
Primary disadvantage -- mail-order processing.
Polaroid Type 55 (maybe wrong number) -- provides both positive and
negative (but not slide and negative).
Special processing:
Vericolor film -- some labs regularly produce slides and prints from
Vericolor as a package deal. Again, color balance often
poor.
One person recommended Seattle Film Works, Seattle, WA which charges
$17.15 for negatives, prints, slides and new film (36 exp).
Seattle FilmWorks
P.O. Box C-34056
Seattle, WA 98124
ph: (208) 283-9074
Again, thanks for all the responses!
kpk@gitpyr.UUCPjer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (03/28/86)
> Special processing: > Vericolor film -- some labs regularly produce slides and prints from > Vericolor as a package deal. Again, color balance often > poor. I don't think this is very fair to Vericolor (the film I use most often)... First of all, what kind of Vericolor film do you mean? There is one kind of Vericolor film I have never used, and don't know anything about, which is sometimes advertised as "Vericolor Slide Film". However, Vericolor films are normally negative-working films. There are three commonly-used kinds, and all give much better color balance than most of the competitors, in my *opinion* (i.e., you may well disagree). The three kinds are: Vericolor III Professional Film, Type S (VPS) - the "S" stands for "short exposures," i.e., the kind of exposures you normally use. This is the only kind of the three that is available in 35mm (as far as I know). Kodak claims that the color rendition, etc. is the same as the ASA 200 Kodacolor film, though I don't think so, myself. It is rated at ASA 160, though a lot of people use it at ASA 125 or ASA 100. You can take it to your regular K-mart type processor and they will develop it with no problems. You can also do it yourself using the C-41 "hobby pak"; the instructions say not to reuse the developer with Vericolor III, but I reuse it and have no problems -- the note not to reuse it is if you require exactly identical performance from all rolls. Vericolor II Professional Film, type L (VPL) - the "L" stands for "long exposures," such as under dim artificial light, or in a studio using photoflood lamps. This film is supposed to be optimized for use under such lamps, in fact. I think the main advantage of it is that the reciprocity effects are well-documented and well-controlled; e.g., no "crossing-over", etc. In the Kodak film data sheets, this is the *only* color film that Kodak recommends for long exposures. Vericolor II Commercial Film, type S (VCS) - Using this film is a real experience, something everyone should try. This film is made for use in photographing things for advertisements, printing, etc., where high-contrast is required. For example, if you photograph wood (the only thing I've found that is "natural" which photographs well with it), the grain tends to stand out. If you photograph fruit, or food, or automobiles, the colors will be more "vibrant" and folks will be inspired to go buy whatever it is you photographed. :-) People photographed with this film look like they need a bath; plants photographed with it look like something from a science-fiction film. So, there you have your Vericolor films. I first started using VPS a good while ago when I decided to buy bulk color film to reduce my high film expenses (it costs around $1.10 for a 20 exposure roll if you bulk-load it yourself) because it was the only negative-working color film I could find in bulk at the time, but then I was really amazed by the color, which was "softer" and less harsh than the film I'd been using (the 3M ASA 100 film), so I've used it ever since except for situations requiring a fast film. If you like prints with Cibachrome better than prints from negatives, however, you probably won't like it, because the two are sort of opposites in terms of aesthetics. Note, however, the etymology of the name; "Vericolor" = "true color". Currently it seems to be the case that films with higher color saturation sell better, so everyone is making their consumer films that way (e.g., Kodak's new "VR Gold" films), while Vericolor stays out of that sort of thing. [Note - there is also a "Vericolor Print Film" which is used to make large prints on transparency material, e.g. for backlit displays. I've never used it, though, and so can't comment on it; it costs somewhere around $2.00-$3.00 per sheet, but sounds like it would be really interesting to experiment with.] [Note also that the original posting was talking about getting both prints and slides from the same roll, though; I just got sidetracked here. Personally, as I mentioned to the person who asked the question, I think that if you want slides, you should use Kodachrome, and if you want prints, you should use a print film. If you really use slides as your main medium, the cost of the prints from slides probably is not so bad -- you probably would not make all that many prints, since you are mostly going to look at the slides, and want the prints to hang on the wall, no? In such a case, the prints from slides, I think, turn out much better. The films made for one or the other are optimized for that particular use, and trying to use them for both always involves a compromise.] -- E. Roskos "I bought some sushi once. Took it home and cooked it. Pretty good... tasted a lot like fish." --Taxi driver in _Desperately_Seeking_Susan_