Why slides?

[Julianna]

Here's a question that's always bothered me: why are slides usually preferred by galleries, shows, etc?

I always assumed it was so the images can be projected, but I've recently heard and read that not everyone makes use of that aspect of slides. I have many theories, but none which really make much sense (or seem to justify the cost of slides over prints from colour negatives). Does anyone know for sure, or want to discuss some of their theories?

J

[Araich]

Colour reproduction is generally considered more accurate with slides because there is no second reproduction (to paper), and until recently it was considered the norm for professional printing.

But now I've found that slides are all but history. That does not mean that there aren't plenty who are slow to change, but I for one have put aside shooting slides.

The consideration is; can you get a high quality digital image.

[ALH]

[QUOTE=Julianna]Here's a question that's always bothered me: why are slides usually preferred by galleries, shows, etc?



My wife, who knows these things, tells me that it is more convenient for juries looking at hundreds of images, sometimes thousands, to use slides bulk loaded into carousels. She tells me this about five times a year, each time I complain about how expensive and inconvenient slides are to artists.


Slides are just part of the game. Araich is right, however, that there has been a shift away from slides in the last five years.

[ALH]

The other important feature of slides is compatibility. It matters less how marvelous slides are when compared to the advantage of everyone using the same image format. Artists and orginizations can obtain slides in any community of over 25,000 people. All organizations can handle, view and store slides because they were set up to do so years ago.

This is also the reason why I am typing this message on such a counterintuitive tool, my keyboard.

[JAZ]

Another advantage digital images have over slides is that you can modify them. For instance, after you shoot a roll of slide film and you notice a ray of sunlight cuts across a corner of the image or there's a spot on the wall behind the sculpture that you didn't see before. In a slide, too bad. With digital, there's the miracle of Photoshop.
But any time they need to be viewed by a group - for instance when our committee gets together to choose the artists for Somerby's Landing - we can all see the images at once and they are big on the wall, therefore easy to see. And Araich is right about the color.
I recently entered a competition (Museum School's Traveling Scholars Competition, alumni category) where slides are required. Unfortunately, because I was trying to shoot a steel element six feet high hanging on a wall and I'm not really a photographer (and can't afford a real one right now), the first set were dreadful. Dark on the top, light below, tinted, deadline looming. So, the next day I reshot the images with a digital camera and sent the files via the web to a place that makes slides from the digital files. It cost me a dollar a slide and since I didn't have to buy the film or pay for developing, I think it worked out just great.

[Julianna]

Wow. I've always been told that slides are better for colour, but I didn't know it had anything to do with its comparison to prints...somewhat of a "duh" realization though. I always figured sildes are the standard because they've always been the standard. But it's good to hear that some people are projecting the slides...I was beginning to worry that everyone just squints at the little squares.

A good digital camera isn't much less expensive than slides though...and is a much bigger blow on a bank account. I could pay for slides 24 at a time, but had to pay over $400 for a medicore digital camera that'll probably be obsolete in a year. Ah, technology.

Jaz, where's this magical online place which converts digital images to slides? I'd like to get in on some of that action...

~J

[Araich]

I should add that at a recent sculpture symposium I attended, every speaker projected their images from a laptop through a digital projector. With the worst images being those obviously hurriedly transfered from slides. The best; organised beforehand into digital presentations.

The screen was also huge.

[obseq]

Slides are the most universal delivery of an artist's work. ;)

The trend in 'slides' is now slanted towards the web or CD-ROM. While many are elegant and effective, quite a few do not greet an eager pair of eyes.

People looking at electronoic records of work do not want or need to be bothered with a a website that is impossible to navigate with images/video/audio that does not load properly or a CD-ROM that is not Mac/PC compatable.


"But it worked just fine on my machine!"


Slides are generally fool proof and give the artist some peace of mind knowing that they need not worry about technology preventing them from an opportunity.

[sculptor]

Rod = one really bad photographer

for every good slide, I throw out(or stash in a drawer--thinking that they might actually improve on their own)6-10
with digital--------it is like the diffrence between carving and sculpting with clay-----I can check them out within minutes of shooting them and reshoot if apropos or adjust color, brightness, contrast, etc etc---

Yay digital
We live in an age of miracles

rod

[ALH]

I'd have to agree - just don't leave home without a full charge and a blank memory card, or two. I've been caught flat on that score once or twice.

[Araich]

IMHO it is best if you just deliver your images as jpegs (plus tiff's if for print) as files and not as a fancy production number. jpegs are cross platform and can be read by any box out there. tiffs can be printed by any decent setup, whatever the system.

Let's not confuse catalogues with simple image delivery.

Also, I always send an a4 print of the work along too.

[jsimms]

I once went to a presentation appointment at a gallery with an 8x10 print portfolio, and got throughly put down. I argued that " wasn't it easier for the two of us to look at the images together in order to discuss them?"

The reply was " maybe it makes sense to you, but its not the way it's done!"
Excuse me, but isn't it a whole lot easier to view a print than to squint at a slide while trying to hold it up to a light? Even with a light table, it dosen't make sense. I do agree that for presentations to a group, slide format makes sense.

Incidentally, is it possible to project from a computer to a screen?

John


With sculpture in general, it's the form rather than color in most cases. I have noticed however that a few galleries and competitions are now accepting digital images on CD.

[Araich]

Digital projectors are more and more common. But they are more expensive I believe.
I predict that in 10 years the slide will be effectively dead. That means that we will have to spend money getting them scanned to a digital format.

[RuBert]

I love slides - and hate them also. With Kodak announcing they plan to stop making consumer slide film it is moving from mainstream to becoming another dead format.

The art world will eventually have to change they way they deal with this, but it will still be a few more years with artists having to basically deal with both ways of working. I'm up to 5,000 digital images at this point and only take slides when I have to.

[JAZ]

Rubert is right - there are times when both are needed...for now. For PierWalk I submitted jpgs of a little maquette. For the competition at the Museum School slides were required unless your art was time based. Yet another problem with slides is that some of the films/developing methods have a long shelf life while others change color a few years down the road. Another disadvantage with digital is you need the camera, memory cards, projector and a computer with Photoshop, or a laptop. But Araich is right that that's where things are going. So, best be adaptable in the interim.

[fritchie]

My experiences confirm the general trend here that galleries nowadays prefer prints, or possibly digital files, to slides. A year or so ago, my gallery director said he finds it easier to send color prints than slides to news outlets. (He gets better response that way.)

About 7 - 8 years ago, in the only “professional presentation” seminar I have attended, sponsored by the local city arts agency, the theme was “slides only, and very professionally and neutrally made” - diffuse light, no noticeable shadows, plain white background. I have seen these rules violated many times, almost always, in fact, in web presentations, so I question whether they ever were the general norm. In any case, digital images seem to be preferred today, but with print copies also, for the director’s or juror’s convenience, as Araich said.

[JAZ]

Juliana and anyone else who is interested, I used prodigitalphotos.com to get slides from digital images. Their site is designed clearly so it's easy to find their prices, options, how to send the files, etc. It was a painless solution.

[warren01]

I once went to a presentation appointment at a gallery with an 8x10 print portfolio, and got throughly put down. I argued that " wasn't it easier for the two of us to look at the images together in order to discuss them?"

The reply was " maybe it makes sense to you, but its not the way it's done!"
Excuse me, but isn't it a whole lot easier to view a print than to squint at a slide while trying to hold it up to a light? Even with a light table, it dosen't make sense. I do agree that for presentations to a group, slide format makes sense.

Incidentally, is it possible to project from a computer to a screen?

John


John, if you ever get a chance hook up one of those multi media projectors to your computer. Don't know if you can rent one or not but the good ones go for about $2500, really good ones $5000. We use them at work all the time for presentations. You can take any kind of file and show on a screen. Some of the projectors will blowup to 25 ft wide screen. People are now using them for Hi-definition TVs.
I have access to one now and then (when the daughter visits) and lots of fun to take a digital in Photoshop and stretch and skew while on the wall. Also good to find proportions and dimensions if making a large sculpture. Hook to a laptop and you can take to the site and present to the customer and actually show the dimensions of a proposal.

warren

[JAZ]

Hmmm.... $2,500-$5,000. To paraphrase someone else on this forum - a bit spendy.
Joyce (who gets her hair cut by her husband to save money so she can afford grinding discs.)

[waveshop]

I was always under the impression that a slide, like ariach said, IS an original 1st generation ( a print would be 2nd generation, a photo copy of print 3rd, etc,...) and therefore of the highest grain quality.

I am curious to know here if you guys think the difference in digi-square pixels and slide "dot-emulsion blend"? ( Imagine if you ever saw a bit of gasoline hit a water surface) has become irelevent in comparison to what the eye sees as "high definition" and if the slide has just simply " been caught up with on a much more convieniant level".

[JAZ]

I was always under the impression that a slide, like ariach said, IS an original 1st generation ( a print would be 2nd generation, a photo copy of print 3rd, etc,...) and therefore of the highest grain quality.

I am curious to know here if you guys think the difference in digi-square pixels and slide "dot-emulsion blend"? ( Imagine if you ever saw a bit of gasoline hit a water surface) has become irelevent in comparison to what the eye sees as "high definition" and if the slide has just simply " been caught up with on a much more convieniant level".
Slides are WYSIWYG. Truthful and accurate, sometimes painfully so. (Unless they were generated digitally, of course). So the assumption, like with early photography, is that the photo doesn't lie (we all know that's no longer really true, but there may still be that perception). A digital image can be manipulated for the good or to bend the truth. And digital now can be just as clear and sharp as slide film. It's the application or end user's preference that determines which is better and the costs of the format.

[jsimms]

So how does anyone know whether the slide is from an original?

I've altered hi-res digital images in photoshop in order to eliminate anything from bird droppings to background buildings, and then had slides made from the data. Worked great for me, but don't tell!
j

[Araich]

... and then had slides made from the data.I've not heard of this before, is it expensive?

[jsimms]

Araich...........

Depends on the quality. Between $5 and $10 for the first, $2 to $3 for dupes.

Just search digital slides

J

[sculptor]

I've not heard of this before, is it expensive?

http://www.prodigitalupload.com

$1.75 ea (1-24)

[jsimms]

When ordering slides, go for highest resolution. It costs more because higher res takes more time and takes up more space, but its very worthwhile. Also, send the files on CD rather than via email to be sure all the info is uncontaminated. Best is to ask a pro phptographer who he uses.

j

[JAZ]

Juliana and anyone else who is interested, I used prodigitalphotos.com to get slides from digital images. Their site is designed clearly so it's easy to find their prices, options, how to send the files, etc. It was a painless solution.
These were $1.00 each, though I had ten slides of each of ten images made, so quantity may have affected the price. Yes, you can Photoshop your file to fix the image, then get the slides from this place. It took two to three business days, then shipping time.
My daughter lives in Oakland, California and she said there are places there where you can go from a digital file to a slide in one day.

[rjustin]

the deal with slides is that they pretty much cover all the bases. They are small enough to fit on a single sheet, but they can be enlarged for multiple people to view at once. With digital pix, if they're all on a single sheet, then they're really tiny, but if you make them large enough to view properly, then your sending multiple pages- and no one likes more papers than they need. And if you send a disk, your assuming the gallery or jury has the proper equiptment to view it, not to mention the fact that they have to spend the extra energy to put it into their computer, wait for it to load, and click through the images. (and thats if they decide your worth that energy!) And as great as Photoshop is for correcting bad lighting, it is also a prop that can be used improperly to "fix" work that has subtle flaws. Slides are truer to the work.

rjustin

[sculptor]

IMHO it is best if you just deliver your images as jpegs (plus tiff's if for print) as files and not as a fancy production number. jpegs are cross platform and can be read by any box out there. tiffs can be printed by any decent setup, whatever the system.

Let's not confuse catalogues with simple image delivery.

Also, I always send an a4 print of the work along too.


¿¿¿¿ What is an a4 ????????

[warren01]

Paper size not used in the US.

[sculptor]

Thanx Warren
a picture's worth a thousand.....
so I went into the printer file and sure'nuff the old deskjet can do the a4

rod

[antkar]

So, the next day I reshot the images with a digital camera and sent the files via the web to a place that makes slides from the digital files. It cost me a dollar a slide and since I didn't have to buy the film or pay for developing, I think it worked out just great.


Jaz,

What resolution do you need to send the digital images at to get the slides made from them? Is 300 dpi good enough? And did the slides come out good from the digital images?
Thanks,
Karen

[fritchie]

Karen - DPI is a relative term, depending on the size you consider the image to be. At the natural 35 mm size of about 1 x 1 ½ inches, I believe a slide is considered to have about 2000 to 2500 dpi resolution. This would amount to a total digital size of 2000 x 3000 = 6 Megapixels, or 9.375 Megapixels, at minimum. I believe Russ said earlier that his slide scanner produces files something like 20 Megapixels in size.

Numbers like these made me reluctant to switch from film to digital, but my 4 Mpixel camera works fine for Internet imagery, at least. Clearly, compromises have to be made in all of this. Others may related their experiences and preferences.

[sculptorsam]

I had some slides made from high quality JPEGs I'd taken with my 4 megapixel recently. They weren't as good as a great slide, but they were more than acceptable in my opinion. Then again, I didn't get the commission so I guess the slides were TERRIBLE... ;)

[RuBert]

As fritichie mentioned my slide scanner makes big files - 56 meg tiffs. They can be saved down to a 10 meg jpeg where they do print just fine. The other way from actual print to slide would also give a fairly large file. In your case, 300 dpi on the scan yields a file size based on the inches. An 8 X 10 inch image yields approximately a 20 meg file, which would make a fairly good slide. But a smaller image scanned at 300 dpi might not look so good. As fritchie said there is a compromise in quality.

It also depends on the image and how picky you are. How large do you expect it to be projected and what is the original image source?

[RuBert]

I had some slides made from high quality JPEGs I'd taken with my 4 megapixel recently. They weren't as good as a great slide, but they were more than acceptable in my opinion. Then again, I didn't get the commission so I guess the slides were TERRIBLE... ;)

Sam your photos are really nice from your Sculpture Dream Tour. You have a good eye for photography which is more important than the image resolution sometimes.

So don't sweat the commission thing - it probably wasn't any good for you anyway. Heck, it's all a crap-shoot with so many wild and varied processes out there.

[sculptorsam]

Sam your photos are really nice from your Sculpture Dream Tour. You have a good eye for photography which is more important than the image resolution sometimes.

So don't sweat the commission thing - it probably wasn't any good for you anyway. Heck, it's all a crap-shoot with so many wild and varied processes out there.

Thanks, Russ. That was actually an attempt at humor on my part, it just never carries very well over the internet I've discovered.