One last question (Page 2): Any of the choices. Really depends on the purpose.

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

Any of the choices. Really depends on the purpose.

drmike99 Loc: Fairfield Connecticut

rjaywallace wrote:

Color positive (as well as lots of b&w) - at this time it seems less expensive than slides and more widely available.

Color positive and slides are the same thing.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

With slide film you only have a 5 stops dynamic range. If your exposure is not accurate you will not have a good image. That is critical!
Using color negative film you have still a decent choice of several types of film and you enjoy having 7 stops of dynamic range. That alone makes a difference.
If you are going to have the film develop and printed by a technician you are going to be as his mercy. If the negatives are digitized you can work with them and now printing a digital file with a calibrated monitor will assure you good quality.
Are you sure this is your last question?

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Neither or me. My choice for films are Ilford FP4+ and Delta 400. Though, recently, I have developed a series of test negative to establish development curves for HP5.

For color, I prefer to use digital.
--Bob

safeman wrote:

For you are shooting film, color positive or color negative? Why?

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

safeman wrote:

For you are shooting film, color positive or color negative? Why?

I don’t use film. But I digitize lots of it. Slides are MUCH easier to reproduce than color negatives, provided the originals were exposed properly. B&W negs are much easier to work with digitally than to print conventionally.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

safeman wrote:

For you are shooting film, color positive or color negative? Why?

I shoot a lot of Fuji velvia, I like the color rendition, but most I like about it is that I can watch them on a big screen (projection), especially the MF slides are impressive when watched that way!

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

speters wrote:

I shoot a lot of Fuji velvia, I like the color rendition, but most I like about it is that I can watch them on a big screen (projection), especially the MF slides are impressive when watched that way!

Love Velvia. Best "Blacks" and snappiest contrast of any slide film I've ever used. Images really "pop."

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

camerapapi wrote:

Are you sure this is your last question?

Ouch! Let's give the Newby a break, papi.

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

Color negative. Portra 160 and 400 in 120. More latitude and I really prefer the more subtle colors. Mostly I shoot b&w film or plates.

BebuLamar

Since I stated before that I don't shoot B&W. I only did a few B&W back in the late 70's when I attended a photography class at the local college. I have no skill for B&W whether it's film or digital. I initially in the late 70's when I started I shot slides because that would ensure what I got reflected what I did when I made the shot. Before the the 80's began I started shooting color negatives as I wanted prints and so I started the color darkroom as well. Up until late 2013 I still shot color negative films and made prints myself in the darkroom. When I bought my first DSLR in December 2013 I sold my entire darkroom setup (as the request of my wife) in early 2014. I still shoot film off and on but switched to slides because now I no longer have the controls of doing my own prints any more. Slides are more critical but it made for more fun when I use it. I still have 2 Kodak projectors for those slides.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

burkphoto wrote:

I don’t use film. But I digitize lots of it. Slides are MUCH easier to reproduce than color negatives, provided the originals were exposed properly. B&W negs are much easier to work with digitally than to print conventionally.

That's understandable. Improperly exposed slides were easily recognized and discarded. We only scan the keepers.

But it's harder to recognize a deficient negative since, when it is printed or scanned, exposure errors are easily offset.

I also agree that scanned negatives are easier to work with than wet prints.

BebuLamar

selmslie wrote:

That's understandable. Improperly exposed slides were easily recognized and discarded. We only scan the keepers.

But it's harder to recognize a deficient negative since, when it is printed or scanned, exposure errors are easily offset.

I also agree that scanned negatives are easier to work with than wet prints.

I set an exposure standard for my negatives. When I make the scan I can tell whether it's exposed well or not although the bad ones can be correct at least to certain degree.

drmike99 Loc: Fairfield Connecticut

speters wrote:

I shoot a lot of Fuji velvia, I like the color rendition, but most I like about it is that I can watch them on a big screen (projection), especially the MF slides are impressive when watched that way!

I have a fully functional Carousel for 35mm slides. What I’d love is a Mamiya Cabin MF (6x7) projector but can’t find one. They used to be $1300 new.

ecurb1105

rjaywallace wrote:

Color positive (as well as lots of b&w) - at this time it seems less expensive than slides and more widely available.

Colour transparency, slides, chromes, positives. Not colour negatives.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

BebuLamar wrote:

I set an exposure standard for my negatives. When I make the scan I can tell whether it's exposed well or not although the bad ones can be correct at least to certain degree.

In the lab I worked at, in 2003, we had nine $55,000 Kodak Bremson HR500 Scanners. We could scan usable files from two f/stops underexposed to almost three stops overexposed. To my critical eyes, +/- 1.33 stops from normal there was no visible difference. The film was Portra 160NC.