Re: slide vs neg

[P3D John W Roberts <roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 02:01:05 -0500
>From: P3D John Ohrt  <johrt@xxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: slide vs neg

>One of the best ways of displaying an enlarged negative is as a backlit
>transparency.  So if contrast, resolution, and accuatance are your
>concern, the best way to achieve a film positive is to enlarge/contact
>print a film negative to a negative medium.

But that would spoil four of the best selling points of transparency 3D:
 1) Exclusivity. If I make a regular 3D slide, then it's all mine. Any
    attempted duplicate would have significantly lower quality, so the
    original is just for me and the select group of people I choose to
    show it to. With the ability to crank out large numbers of Realist
    transparencies that are just like the first one, it's no longer
    unique - practically anybody can have one. Even worse, some wise
    guy might figure out how to make distribution of Realist or 7-p
    transparencies into a paying commercial enterprise, and then we're
    at grave risk of not being able to keep the worldwide usage down to a
    cozy 10000 people. Why, there might even be enough interest generated
    to inspire the production of more modern Realist-type cameras, and then
    there goes the neighborhood!
 2) Limited lifetime. When the only copy of a classic photograph is the
    original, then everyone knows its days are numbered - it will only
    last until it gets lost in the mail on a circuit, or the heat absorber
    in somebody's projector is defective, and even under the best conditions,
    the number of hours of "projector lifetime" is sharply limited. Knowing
    this, everyone cherishes and appreciates the slides all the more. Every
    smudge and scratch is regarded with fondness, as a sign that this slide
    is truly a beloved work of art. But if the transparencies are made
    from a negative that's kept safe somewhere in archival storage, then
    much of this feeling of mortality is lost. If the slide got lost in the
    mail or melted in the projector or dropped in a mud puddle, no problem! 
    I'll just run up another one - half the excitement of working with 3D
    slides is lost right there.
 3) Demonstration of a high level of photographic skill. With the narrow
    exposure latitude of conventional slides, any time I see a well-exposed
    slide, I know that the photographer was very skilled at getting the
    exposure just right. With a transparency made from a negative, it may
    look great, but for all I know it might have been exposed two stops off
    from the nominal value! Even composition and color balance will be more
    adjustable. People who are less expert will still be able to get good 
    results, and a little bit of the craftsmanship will have gone out of 
    3D photography.
 4) The adventure of finding the film. There's always a certain level of
    suspense, especially on a vacation trip, as to whether it will be
    possible to find some slide film for sale in time to take advantage
    of that once-in-a-lifetime photographic opportunity. But most of that
    sense of adventure is lost with negative film - almost anywhere you go,
    it's hard to avoid tripping over yet another display of negative film.

So I don't know, John - it may be true that making transparencies from
negatives will give better results for the 3D transparency crowd than
shooting conventional slide film, while offering many of the conveniences
of negative film, but you're asking them to give up so many of the 
other benefits that go with using slide film!

:-)  ;-)   :-)   ;-)   :-)   ;-)   :-)   ;-)   :-)

John R


------------------------------