[pct-l] Re: slides vs. prints

[HShires@aol.com]

I'll weigh in on the other side of this debate.  There are a lot of good 
points about slides that one should really consider:

1) Longevity.  As someone recently noted, If properly stored the slide 
media will last a long time. Prints tend to fade and age more rapidly.
2) Color saturation.  Slides win this comparison easily.
3) Cost.  It's cheaper to purchase and develop slide film than it is to 
purchase and develop print film.
4) Storage.  Slides take up less space and are easier to store in an air- 
and dust-free environment.
5) Enlargements.  Slides make much better enlargements.  I'm pretty sure 
that most pictures you see in magazines were shot with slide film.
6) Presentation.  While I agree that prints work better for showing a 
small group of friends, there's nothing like the visual bang of a slide 
presentation.  Not even close.  Would you rather watch a video on a 6" tv 
or go to the movie theater?

I took slides on my hike and had, for the most part, excellent results 
with Ektachrome film.  I used an Olympus Stylus Epic and both Kodachrome 
64 and Ektachrome 100/200 film. I think the problem with the Kodachrome 
film was that the camera doesn't know how to deal with ASA 64.  Most of 
those slides were over exposed but the ektachrome shots were great.


Henry
PCT '99
www.jps.net/hshires/pcthike

>Prints are far easier (and less intimidating) to show to people.  With
>slides you have to own a projector and screen and go to a lot of trouble to
>view your pictures.
>
>In general, if you don't know anything about photography, go with prints.
>While in theory you can get more spectacular results with slide film, the
>average non-enthusiast will get better results with print film, and find the
>prints more useful, too.
* From the PCT-L |  Need help? http://www.backcountry.net/faq.html  *

==============================================================================