Talk:Reversal film

Cleaning slides?

Does anyone have an information about cleaning slides?

Google is your friend. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

black & white

why has this section gone in its entirety? If it's not gone somewhere useful I shall revert. Bob aka Linuxlad 07:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Later, OK I've now reverted to last version by Linuxlad, to reinstate the B&W bit. This bit IS a 'pig's ear' I agree, but there should be some discussion of black and white film and B&W reversal - if not here, then on a link to another article.Linuxlad

I just agree : this black and white transparencies section is really important to the article. Ok, transparency is "easy" to understand : it is nothing more than a film sensible to different colors (magenta, cyan,yellow instead of red, green,blue). I have a question,though : is the film sensible to pure white (I mean, what do you get when you expose it, for instance, to sunlight) ? And how comes it is not sensible to darkness in a camera, since black is a combination of magenta+cyan+yellow ?

Thanks, King mike 21:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

'Pig's Ear' is right - I've removed the spam links and waffle text from this section and hope to introduce refs eventually. Please add some text and refs yourself as long as they're not spammy or waffly. Thanks Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Introduction of term 'slide'

I have wikified this article slightly, but notice a strange introduction of the term 'slide' two thirds of the way through the article. This would be better up higher but my lack of subject knowledge prevents me really restructuring it. --Stevage 16:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move —Mets501 (talk) 01:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Transparency (photography) → Reversal film — Standard and neutral laboratory term also used by film manufacturers (Kodak), (Fuji); is inclusive of both stills and motion picture film (which both use the same E-6 process). Also avoids the need for disambiguation. Girolamo Savonarola 21:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Support, using the technical name is appropriate here and avoids disambiguation. Recury 17:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

dr5.com - Commercial link to be included?

We (wife and I) don't understand why the last edit was deleted! We have been using dr5 for many years and this lab is THE only resource of it's kind in the traditional photo market. Agfaphoto is out of business and the labs left are running remaining scala with non-agfa chemistry. It is only fair to list this labs unique constitution to photography, if not list them as something unique. If you list the one lab you should allow the other. If not, delete all listed labs! Main has not hold on processing this film. There are several in Europe still running scala. Reversal film 19:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Rob

Regarding this edit; I treated this as linkspam (given the evidence, particularly as the entry for a Colorado-based company was posted via a Colorado-based IP.)

Following this discussion at my talk page, I decided to put the material back (minus the "improved" POV comment) and let others give their opinion as to whether it should remain. Fourohfour 19:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is a process approaching obsolescence, so it is somewhat relevant given the few places that can handle it. That being said, it would be ideally placed in an article solely about the Scala process, although such an article does not yet exist. I'd say keep for now - I doubt there are many other places which will be able to claim the same and thus follow suit. Girolamo Savonarola 20:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I find the link to be a purely commercial link in violation of wiki policy and removed it. SteveHopson 04:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree strongly to Hopsons action! dr5 is a completely unique photographic process. Hopson shows little photographic credibility. photographically speaking the work is at best Amateur. The link should be re-enstated. If this is the case 'NO' photographic lab should be listed, period!

I suggest re-submitting all commercial links via the talk page to determine if they should be included or not. This is normally a good idea anyway. Fourohfour 13:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

On another note: I Have used the service called dr5 [http:www.dr5.com dr5chrome]. This is a Process, like Kodachrome or E6 or C41. An article should be created about this process. The results are not less than spectacular. No other process produces images like this one. The process has been published by several national photographic magazines and has world-wide recognition. I am not associated with this lab other than having my own film processed in this very unique process. I have no other goal other than providing correct information. Rob, Colorado

If DR5 is a unique photographic process that varies significantly from existing ones, then I recommend you provide some references, which would strengthen the inclusion of dr5.com, and possibly provide a basis for a separate article describing this process. Fourohfour 13:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The following are industry links or dr5 highlights;

http://www.rangefindermag.com/magazine/archives/Jan05/labpro.tml http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009lRJ&tag= http://www.jandcphoto.com/ (industry link) http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32927 http://www.shutterbug.net/techniques/film_processing/0205dr5/ http://www.freestylephoto.biz/e_main.php (industry link) http://dr5.com/what.html http://photography.about.com/od/choosingfilm/a/newfilms_4.htm There are many more examples, rob.

Reviewing those links, it appears that the DR5 process is a method of developing b/w negative film to render a positive image (thus mimicing reversal). As it is a development process, it does merit an article. What I would say is that the article should briefly mention it, with a link to an article (existent or not), and perhaps a see also to that same article. The lab should not be mentioned within the reversal film article, because it is not relevant to this topic. The DR5 itself shouldn't be mentioned much except as a reversal-like process, since it really isn't reversal film. Basically, make a quick mention and keep the company out of it (in this article). Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 02:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Girolamo; Just because you dont understand something doesnt mean something isnt valid! explain to us what photographic experience you have? Have you seen or processed film through the dr5 process? dr5 is a process unique to all reversal B&W processes. E6 is a reversal color process that processes many like films. Does this make E6 not worthy of an article? What about other photographic processes of old? I have been told by the creator of dr5 to drop the issue, that I can not convince the ignorant. ..are we all ignorant here?

If the posted articles, along with an internet search is not enough information,, maybe everyone at Wiki is photographically ignorant. This would include the 'so called' experts. Regards; rob, CO

Girolamo; if the process is proprietary, and if worthy of its own article, then the company/lab which developed it certainly is worthy of mention, as they are both notable and relevant on that basis alone.

Yes; I'm the person who originally removed the "commercial" link, but it seems now that DR5 really have done something genuinely notable, and are thus worthy of inclusion; albeit as part of an article on the DR5 process. Fourohfour 14:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Fourohfour; Dr-5 is a unique proprietary B&W reversal process designed & formulated by David Wood, who will not license it to other labs (I tried several times). Yes, some of his customers are in the Denver metro area, since he moved his lab there from Los Angeles, so it makes sense that one of his local customers would mention it.

Alas, due to declining volumes of B&W negative and positive films, I believe that the dr-5 reversal process should remain in this Reversal film article. Discpad 11:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC) Dan Schwartz, Cherry Hill, NJ. Expresso@Snip.Net

Am I mistaken, or isn't it a bit unusual that external links be accessed by clicking on text that is part of the body of the article? They already are filed under external links at the end . And the part about 'many say more pleasing results', sounds a bit too unsubstantiated to be left as it is. I'llcorrect these too, because it looks too much like we are promoting these labs, but I'll leave the links at the end. Cleversnail 19:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of removing the Dr5 references. This isn't an advertising website. If you wish to replace it, please ensure it's properly referenced. Thanks Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Illustration

The camera in the picture appears to be a digital camera (Nikon D200) - is this really appropriate for an article on reversal film? mmj (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that too. Feel free to replace it with something more suitable. Thanks 'Edit: Did it myself, wasn't too difficult.Baffle gab1978 (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Glass Slides for Projection

In writing a page about the illustrated song, I found that there was no good page describing the kind of slides that were used to make these early "music videos." Does anyone know anything about how glass slides for projection were made?Peter (talk) 12:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

Just in case you still need to know:

First, the lettering (and graphics, if any) was created on art board or paper with ink and/or paint, then photographed, producing a black-and-white negative. Usually, this negative was the same size as the final slide -- 3 1/4" x 3 1/4" in the UK, but 3 1/4" x 4" most everywhere else -- and was on glass, still widely used in larger-format cameras instead of film until circa 1920, even though flexible film had been introduced decades earlier (film was more expensive than glass during that era, notwithstanding what some Wikipedia articles say). As many positives as needed were made by exposing similar emulsion-coated thin glass plates through the negative and developing them in the same way. Frequently, in the case of slides made for public use, they were colored by individually hand-painting them with transparent colors. Unless made "on the cheap," a protective plain cover glass was placed against the image-bearing side to protect it, usually with a thin black paper "mat" between the two to provide a frame or special-shaped vignette around the image or simply to slightly separate the two. The sandwich was then bound up around the edges with gummed paper tape, also usually black, and the slide was complete.

If white-on-black lettering was wanted, as it usually was, the lettering could be done in black ink and negative images of this used for the finished slides.

If an actual photographic image was to be incorporated with lettering or art, most usually a good-sized paper print was made of the image, the lettering or ornamental art was applied to the print or created around it, then it was rephotographed to produce the negative. For pure photographic images, the final positive slides could simply be printed directly from the negative unless enlargement or reduction or some other modification was needed.

The slide was properly called a "lantern slide" because the projector was a "lantern", short for "Magic lantern" (they existed long before photography), but it was essentially the same as a simple 35mm slide projector of 1940s or 1950s vintage except for the larger format and, usually, the light source (carbon arcs, acetylene, or other such high-maintenance or highly-explosive-gas-fueled light sources were needed to provide enough light, as even high-wattage incandescent light bulbs were inadequate for projecting images of sufficient size). The "lantern" part of "lantern slide" slowly disappeared from use. It seems to have already nearly died by the time the smaller (2" x 2" after mounting) Kodachrome color slides and suitably scaled-down projectors became popular in mid-century.

Glass lantern slides of the same size and type used for illustrated songs still saw some use as late as the 1950s for advertising coming attractions during intermissions, etc., as attested by surviving late examples. The late ones that I have seen were on somewhat smaller glass plates mounted in cheap stapled-together cardboard frames and had no cover glasses, but were still (sloppily) hand-colored -- much cheaper than using real photographic color transparencies of that size, even in the 1950s. Glass could stand the heat of prolonged projection onto a large screen, a plastic film base could not.

Too much information?

AVarchaeologist (talk) 01:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

=== Thank you, AV, that's perfect. I'll work it into the illustrated song and magic lantern pages some day, but just too busy right now.Peter (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Reversal film. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090408091654/http://motion.kodak.com:80/US/en/motion/Products/Production/Black_And_White_Films/7266/tech7266.htm to http://motion.kodak.com/US/en/motion/Products/Production/Black_And_White_Films/7266/tech7266.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090924015559/http://motion.kodak.com:80/US/en/motion/Products/Production/Black_And_White_Films/7265/tech7265.htm to http://motion.kodak.com/US/en/motion/Products/Production/Black_And_White_Films/7265/tech7265.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Why?

Until about 1995, color transparency was preferred for publication because of the films' higher contrast and resolution, It is well known that National Geographic used reversal film, and others too, but is this really the reason? Negative films have lower contrast (gamma) by design, but that is undone in the printing. I don't know of a big advantage in resolution compared to negative films. Also, Basic Photography doesn't sound like the most authoritative reference. Is there another reference? Gah4 (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The reason is quite simple: slide film can be easily checked on a light table or with a projector (are the colours right etc...), checking a negative is nearly impossible, even for professional photographers. Fashion photographers also preferred slide film for that reason. Also, slide film is the original (today's 'RAW'). Prints of a negative film are already the 2nd generation (~'JPG'). Time constraints were also a good reason to use slide film. An experienced lab with a good an stable process could develop a slide film in 25-40 minutes. Developing a negative film takes the same amount of time, but doing additional prints afterwards is very time consuming. The following is just an assumption, because nobody would do that for a critical image: Imagine being in a remote area with no real lab, you could even develop slide film in your hotel room and check your photos before sending them back home (all you need is a thermometer, clean water, a watch, some chemicals, a changing bag and perhaps tape for creating a 'dark room' from a toilet or bathroom). For prints of negative film you'd need a lot more equipment! Thus, slide film was the way to go for nearly all fashion and many magazine photographers. 178.165.131.71 (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

lavender = blueprint

This kind of reversal film is talked about more often nowadays due to restorations of classics, f.ex. La Dolce Vita, whose negative was so moldy and in such bad shape that some frames were unusable. Here's a good source. --Espoo (talk) 13:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)