35mm slides

[daveh]

I'll second what Doug said.

Someone I know from home is related by a marriage or two to the Marx Brothers. That means she is related to Royalty.

[Doug T.]

Dave,

That's cool, she's related to, but does she receive any?

Doug

[PeterW]

A friend who is a cine film nut pointed me to

wapedia.mobi/en/List_of_motion_picture_film_stocks

The variants of Eastman Color 5247 and its successors is mind boggling. It seems to have been a story of constant development (no pun intended).

PeterW

[Deleted]

Doug:

I was very fortunate in my job to meet, and in some cases work, with some fairly well-known writers (in the field of Western Writing). Almost without exception they were great people. I still keep in touch with some of them, I have huge admiration for folks who have the discipline to sit down every day for months, or even years, and turn out x number of words or pages. For more than 20 years I've written a weekly newspaper column of about 600 words but that's NOTHING compared to what a book author must do. It takes a special kind of person to be a successful book author.

W.

[Doug T.]

Hi Wayne!
I totally agree with you there. I'm a fanatical reader, and love books. I have to admit that, at the moment, I read a lot of Clive Cussler novels.
It takes a lot of time and dedication to do the research alone, much less write hundreds of pages, thousands of words, and put it all together so that someone would want to read it.
I wish that I had some of that dedication.

Doug

[John Parry]

I remember Lee Remick from the British film 'Loot'

It was written by Joe Orton, and was memorable for the fact that none of the characters had a single redeeming feature about them.

I particularly liked the Police Inspector (Truskett of the Yard - Richard Attenborough) when he cautioned his suspects:-

"Anything you say will be taken down, twisted round, altered, and used in evidence against you"

Happy days!

Regards - John

[andys93integra]

Sorry i have not posted in a while, i was helping my cousin move for the past two days.

I am sorry but all this talk about film being this and masked and that and other stuff, i am not really film savvy. I could Google it, that might help, maybe. But yeah i don't really know that much about film other than you take pics, and take the film to Target or somewhere else to get it developed and then you have prints lol.

Is there any more pics i could provide or more info about the slides that would help anyone? Or did someone post the answer for why the slides are like this and i just didn't see it (that happens a lot).

Andy

[daveh]

Andy, I think the answer is that we don't fully know the answer. As Peter says the number of variants of Eastman Color stock is mind boggling. Perhaps someone at Kodak would be able to give a definitive answer.

I've processed umpteen reversal films myself and only ever had two with problems. One had some blistering of the emulsion - which I think was probably because it was old type film developed in chemicals processed at, presumably, too hot a temperature for the film. The other was I think using the wrong chemicals for the film type. I don't think it was a red cast, but I don't have the film to hand to be able to check it.

[daveh]

Colour masks of various negative films:


Old negative stock was unmasked as is reversal film. The border would be clear for a negative film and black for a reversal film, rather the reddish (or whatever|) colour of masked stock. I think the colour was inherent in the base: that being the case it would be the same colour whether developed as negative or positive film.

[aceroadholder]

Dave, at the very least you can get some good B&W scanned pictures from your slides.
Orlin inSC/USA

[daveh]

Ace, they are Andy's - not mine. I have made the same mistake a few times, attributing the wrong thing or post to the wrong person. I've normally just managed to intercept my error in time. It seems quite a treasure trove he has, even though more went elsewhere. I wouldn't have minded being left something like that.

My grandfather was a photographer in the early 1900s. My uncle Alan had most that had been kept but most of that disappeared when he, uncle Alan, died.

Dave.

[andys93integra]

So basically there could be any number of reasons why they are like this?

Andy

[Deleted]

A little more contrast, maybe.

[andys93integra]

The money i might spend on having a place scan all my slides, probably thousands of pictures that my parents have, it might be worth it just to buy my own scanner. What it a good scanner gonna run me, like $1000? or more/less?

Andy

[daveh]

I have had several scanners over the years. I haven't had a dedicated film scanner, but have had a couple of flatbed scanners with film converters. They were both in the £160-£180 range. One is an Epson, the other HP. Both will do multiple scans of slides and negatives, with the HP being able to do 5 strips of 6 negatives in one go, or 16 slides. The Epson can only do 1 negative strip or 4 slides. However I do think the Epson is the better scanner. The HP tends to have slight banding when used for film scanning. It's native software is poor. Whether other HP models are better, I don't know, but if I were buying another I would go for an Epson.

I did think of buying a dedicated film scanner, but I think I am going to use the camera slide copying technique and save the money (or get another lens with the money). I do have an APS film scanner - the only trouble is that they didn't update the drivers to work on Windows XP or beyond.