I haven't done a lot with slide film in the past, but I am looking
forward to it because of the sharper image and greater color range
(images on slides just look nicer!). So, I am interested in doing a lot
of experimentation and would prefer to do it on a quality, yet cheap
slide film. I have a couple of rolls of Provia and Velvia, but clearly,
this will not be a good film for massive experimentation unless I have
cash to burn.
So, the sporadic reviews of Fuji Sensia and Kodak Elite Chrome (ED and
EB .. what's the difference?) seem like they might fit this bill. Any
other suggestions? The Kodak product appears cheaper, should I use it?
All I can say is that I am going through some family slides that are 40
to 50 years old and many are simply stunning! All are on kodachrome.

Signature
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Rod Smith - 14 Sep 2005 15:47 GMT
> I haven't done a lot with slide film in the past, but I am looking
> forward to it because of the sharper image and greater color range
> (images on slides just look nicer!).
...
> All I can say is that I am going through some family slides that are 40
> to 50 years old and many are simply stunning! All are on kodachrome.
One thing to keep in mind is that Kodachrome has a reputation for better
archival stability than other slide films, most of which use the E-6
process. I don't know how much of a practical difference there is with
TODAY'S films and development, though; it's conceivable that the dyes and
processes for E-6 have improved to the point that they'd do as well as
modern Kodachrome. I know this wasn't one of the reasons you specified for
trying slide film (and I don't shoot enough of it to offer advice on what
to use), but as you mentioned the half-century-old slides, I thought I'd
mention it.

Signature
Rod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com
http://www.rodsbooks.com
Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking
Justin Thyme - 14 Sep 2005 23:24 GMT
> So, the sporadic reviews of Fuji Sensia and Kodak Elite Chrome (ED and
> EB .. what's the difference?) seem like they might fit this bill. Any
> other suggestions? The Kodak product appears cheaper, should I use it?
Personally I like Fuji Sensia, it has a much finer grain than the Kodak
equivalent (and I can buy it for around 33% less than the kodak film). Other
differences I've found are that the Fuji products tend to have a mild
blue/green colour cast, whereas the Kodak film has a mild red/orange cast. I
think Sensia might be designed for projection, because that blue/green cast
is not noticeable when projected through the warm light of a projector.
Kodak becomes very warm.
I have had a bit of trouble getting good scans of Fuji Sensia using a Fuji
Frontier scanner - the images tend to block up with blue, whereas Kodak
seems to scan much easier. I don't know if this is true of all scanners or
just the frontier.
As I said, I prefer Sensia, because it looks better projected than
Elitechrome, and I prefer projection.
IIRC, ED is 200 ISO and EB 100 ISO. There is also EBX which is 100 ISO with
higher colour saturation.
> All I can say is that I am going through some family slides that are 40
> to 50 years old and many are simply stunning! All are on kodachrome.
I don't know if modern E6 films will give the same archival properties as
Kodachrome. I know older E6 and E4 films weren't in the same class.
PunishSpammers@NOSPAM.com - 14 Sep 2005 23:59 GMT
> > So, the sporadic reviews of Fuji Sensia and Kodak Elite Chrome (ED and
> > EB .. what's the difference?) seem like they might fit this bill. Any
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> I don't know if modern E6 films will give the same archival properties as
> Kodachrome. I know older E6 and E4 films weren't in the same class.
PunishSpammers@NOSPAM.com - 15 Sep 2005 04:22 GMT
> > So, the sporadic reviews of Fuji Sensia and Kodak Elite Chrome (ED and
> > EB .. what's the difference?) seem like they might fit this bill. Any
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> I don't know if modern E6 films will give the same archival properties as
> Kodachrome. I know older E6 and E4 films weren't in the same class.
I will second the Fuji Sensia. My wife, an artist pro shooter, uses this
film often when she want's less color and more of a natural look,
landscapes and the like. She often uses Kodak Elite Chrome Extra Color
for water shots or street scenes where she is going for an effect more
than documentation. Both films can be found for a good price.
Smitty - 20 Sep 2005 02:00 GMT
Well Thomas...I hate to bust your bubble but print film has a much
greater tonal range that Slide film. But your right about one thing.
Many slide films have a high color saturation for example Velvia,
Provia, and E100VS. Also much higher contrast which can be good or bad.
High contrast means you may not have much detail in the shadow areas. In
spite of all that I shoot slides 10 to one over print film except for
weddings.
Smitty
> I haven't done a lot with slide film in the past, but I am looking
> forward to it because of the sharper image and greater color range
> (images on slides just look nicer!).
Thomas T. Veldhouse - 20 Sep 2005 13:19 GMT
> Well Thomas...I hate to bust your bubble but print film has a much
> greater tonal range that Slide film. But your right about one thing.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> spite of all that I shoot slides 10 to one over print film except for
> weddings.
I have also discovered that slide film has MUCH finer grain. A
comparison of Kodachrome from 1962 with Agfa Color Ultra 1000 from 2005
revealed that the old Kodachrome had several times as fine of a grain
structure as the Agfa film. I haven't yet contrast it to the Fuji
Reala.

Signature
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Justin Thyme - 20 Sep 2005 22:30 GMT
>> Well Thomas...I hate to bust your bubble but print film has a much
>> greater tonal range that Slide film. But your right about one thing.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> structure as the Agfa film. I haven't yet contrast it to the Fuji
> Reala.
I've Compared Sensia 100 and Superia 100 by scanning on a Fuji Frontier. At
it's highest scan setting, which results in about 7MP in the resulting scan,
the Frontier is not yet picking up the grain in Sensia, however the grain
structure is clearly visible in the Superia.