It sometimes seems like all pro photographers who are still using film shoot on slide film. Is this for technical reasons or for practical reasons?
One reason is that a lot of publishers prefer (or in many cases, will only accept) transparencies rather than prints.
If you’re going to try and sell your work, that’s a big consideration.
Color balance for one.
Negatives have to printed which causes an extra variable.
Many pros use lights of a specific color temp for which there are specially made slide films.
Also, there are still sharpness and contrast considerations for using certain chromes.
But, for some subjects, negatives are the preferred medium. Weddings or portraits, for instance.
And, sometimes it just comes down to personal preference.
Color saturation – slides (E-6) were designed to be projected - and so have tremendous color satuation/density - when you are talking about enlargements, you want all the color you can get.
Weddings and portraiture are exceptions - for “people” shots, you want soft images - low-contrast films and paper (very few people look good in bright lights, and even fewer in film which captures every nuance of color - damned few people have perfect skin, teeth, and hair).
Ever notice that b/w positive (slide) films are almost non-existant? Very little demand for them - real photogs shoot b/w negatives, color positives
To expound on the earlier answers… You also remove one HUGE generation of reproduction when you shoot transparencies . I’d much rather scan a piece of original film instead of a slice of photo paper on which that film was pressed upon with a piece of glass and exposed upon and developed by a human. You’re introducing another tier of variables when you use a print instead of a neg or a transparency. Dozens of unpredictable variables related to developer chemistry, clean glass, dependable power supply, an adequate vacuum frame, PAPER grain (as opposed to original film grain), etc.
Stockton, why would you have to scan a photo? Any drum scanner will work with negative materials just as easily as reversal transparencies. Slides had an advantage when color separations were done mechanically but this is no longer the case. The industry is changing to digital, both cameras and scanners, more rapidly than anyone anticipated so I’m not sure all the old answers are still valid. I know a working newspaper PJ who only shoots color negatives or digital, never slides.
FTR I still shoot slides when shooting medium format and even then it’s only for some portraiture when I know they’ll want a print bigger than 16x20. A big crystal clear 6x7cm chrome is a beautiful sight. I also shoot digital and while I won’t say that a 6mp digital (Nikon D100 in my case) is the absolute equal of 35mm film in every respect it replaces 35mm film for nearly all of my work. I started shooting when Kodachrome was still king for ultra fine grain but it’s almost unobtainable and you can’t get it processed in the US any more. E-6 films are great but no equal to Kodachrome 25. Now I’d much rather shoot digital where I have more control over the raw camera image than was ever possible with film.
Padeye. Bull, the outlab my photolab works with will still do Kodachrome. It takes them over a week to get aroudn to it, but they’ll do it. I would imagine that there is at least one good fully custom photolab or outlab in Phoenix that can still handle it.
Heres some anecdotal evidence/explanation for the OP. Working near Kent State, which has a fairly good art programme, most of the slide film I process is from art students. They need to reproduce the color in thier work, of any medium, as best as they possibly can. Slides also allow them to display, turn in, or review thier work without sacrificing quality and without having to drag full art pieces around with them.
Many people also appreciate that they can look at a slide and see what the image looks like, it can be tricky to look at two negatives and decide which one looks better.
Slides are also easier to handle and less likely to get damaged than negatives, there is a plastic or cardboard holder around them. Although a determined idiot can get around such safeguards.
I’m only going by what Kodak has said about no US labs being available and I’m not aware of any non-Kodak lab processing Kodachrome. It’s almost academic since it’s difficult to get Kodachrome anymore but where is this outlab you’re referring to?
I agree with all the things you say about slides and that’s why I shot them for a long time but the times, they are a-changing. I still shoot E-6 materials when it’s the best choice but now digital gives me vastly more control and better workflow.
I’m out of my depth here, but please speculate what happens to print/slide films in a decade from now when high-end digital cameras are capable of, say, 20 megapixels.
Padeye, did you actually READ my post? I have a DS737 drum scanner at my disposal. I do NOT want to scan a print. I was merely mentioning the extra generation of degradation introduced by printing a photo.
Give me a neg or a transparency any day! Sheesh! I don’t actually rule my clients’ lives or input. I wish. We get photos sometimes. We deal with it.
There’s something not entirely satisfactory about that. Why not design negative film to have high color saturation? Perhaps the direct positive process is inherently higher-saturation.
Stockton, I did read your post which mentioned nothing about your drum scanner. You said
To me that comment seemed to imply that the same was not true of scanning negatives.
You don’t have to wait, it’s already started and it doesn’t take 20mp. A lot of photographers are quitting 35mm film in favor of 6mp DSLRs. Film isn’t dead yet but most expect film and processing prices to rise as it becomes a niche market in a digital world. If you don’t believe me just try selling a high end 35mm film body or enlarger.
FWIW I had a camera shop owner that always suggested using slide film as the first (or one of the first) rolls through a new camera as a check on if the metering was dead on or not.
His reasoning was that a slightly over/under exposed neg could be corrected in the printing, but with slides what the film saw you see.
Slides are probably better from an archival standpoint?
I can just hear the song in my head now… thanks! 
Our Fuji outlab did, and still does Kodachrome 25. I never had a problem getting it either. Many smaller camera shops still have some lying around, and larger stores had piles of it as it was very popular for it’s fine quality.
~aqua
Former Photolab chick.
In much of my work, I have the option to shoot slides or negs (or digital, but let’s leave that out of the equation for now.) I choose slides in MOST instances, but not all, because they simply look better to me. Slides just “pop” in a way that negative don’t. This is because they have a higher color saturation, higher contrast, and tend to reproduce a wider range of colors than negative film to print. Compare a well-exposed slide with a good color print from negative, and you’ll be able to tell the difference.
That said, there are times when neg is far preferable. Low-light situations that need to be hand held are those. Anything needing 800 speed film or higher, I shoot neg. Slide grain tends to suffer quite badly at high ISOs. Another is high contrast situations. Slide film does not have the exposure latitude of neg. If you’re in a high contrast scene, a significant portion of your photo will lose detail in the highlights or shadows, depending on how you expose it. Negative film has more leeway and will record more information on your negative, so you’ll be able to pull out some of the highlight details that’d be burnt out with negs.
Pro journos used neg film back in the days b/c of its quickness and flexibility (with slide, you basically either got the exposure right or you dont. with neg, you can screw up by 1-2 stops under and 2-3 over and still get a publishable photo). Also, printing from negs is a much easier process than printing transparencies (cibachrome/ilfochrome process if you want it done right.)
Also, if I’m shooting anything to scan myself, then I go neg. Slides, even with equipment like the Nikon LS-2000 or -4000 35mm neg scanners are really difficult to scan well. Scanners much prefer negs.
So, basically, it boils down to: they just look better.
Kodak’s list of Labs in the US processing Kodachrome
There is also a lab in Manhattan, New York Film Works, which may or may not still do it on premises. Their website (http://www.nyfilmworks.com/home/) is none too helpful, but I’ve had K64 processed there is the past.
K25, alas, is no more. 64 and 200 are the only available flavors in this emulsion.
As a former commercial scanner operator (Crosfield 645, 646) I’ll take a transparency mounted in oil over a print (relection copy) any day. Sharpness and better color are the main advantages.
Thanks Postcards. I had always been under the impression that only Kodak processed it and that may have been the case at one time.
My question: Why do art galleries and art contest judges require slides, which they hold up to the light or squint at on light boxes, when regular photos are a lot easier to handle and deal with and even to show customers?
Galleries and art shows want slides beacuse it’s easier for them to view all the entries at once, and it’s infinitly easier for them to handle and store everything. Considering that the originals could range in size from 4 X 6 to 20 X 24 (or larger) and that each entry may have pictures of varying sizes, the idea of everything being 2 X 2 inches is most attractive. It’s also less expensive to mail slides, and insurance isn’t necessary.
Viewing is usually done with a projector, or a good magnifier on a lightbox.