faulty "punching" in film?

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 15:18:40 -0000, Rod Smith
wrote:
In article ,
Esa writes:

I'm wondering how rare it is to have the half-circular holes on the other
edge of 35mm film (which mark the center of the frame I assume) misaligned?

Those notches are cut by the photofinisher, not by the film manufacturer.

Ok, that was my misunderstanding.

After now having seen three developed rolls which have had at least one
frame longer or shorter than it should be. All the rest of the
perforation (the one on both edges) and the printed marks are ok.

Are you saying that your frames are unevenly spaced -- that is, that some
of them overlap? If so, then that's a problem in your camera. If you get
frames that actually overlap (as opposed to just slightly uneven spacing
between frames), then I'd suggest you take the camera to a repair shop or
(if it's new) exchange it for another sample.

The problem frames are ones that I either grossly underexposed or had
black background. Ah, now that I look at them again, the frames are neatly
spaced, it's the notches that are out of place and I counted on them.
The camera? It is from 1977 I think, so there could be something wrong
with it, too, but I'd say that the blame seems to be on the lab after
all...

The lab is definitely not at fault here. Arguably, they might have done a
better job cutting their notches, and if they sliced any good frames
mid-frame when cutting the negatives into strips, that's pretty awful. The
basic problem of the overlapping frames, though, is in the camera.

If the frames were truly overlapping, you'd be right about the lab, of
cource.
I don't know how automatic their system is, it's a postal service and the
biggest lab in Finland. I was lucky enough to order scanned pics also, and
there are no problems with them (they scanned the film before cutting it).
I'm really glad that they didn't cut the good frames in half, but I think
I'll give them some feedback on their system... After all, when they get
regular 35mm film, the frames are supposed to be of equal size, so why try
to search for correct places for cutting... Those frames which have clear
borders on the negatives were cut correctly, but they did manage to cut
one church in evening lighting in two somehow...

I've heard that some Konica films are thinner than average, and some
motorized cameras end up tearing them as a result. I've not experienced
this myself, though. Other than that, I'm unaware of any common films that
are physically in any way substandard. That said, the experts can and do
endlessly debate the merits of Film X vs. Film Y. I won't get into that;

I think experts of all trades can do that kind of debates

but I will say, in case you didn't know, that only five manufacturers make
the vast majority of the color print film sold in the US (and I believe in
most of Europe): Kodak, Fuji, Konica, Agfa, and Ferrania. The first two of

I've never seen Ferrania films anyway, just the other four.

these are sold mostly under their own names. The remaining three are sold
mostly as store brands, at least in the US. You can tell which is which by
noting where it was made: Konica is made in Japan, Agfa is made in
Germany, and Ferrania is made in Italy. (Fuji is also made in Japan, and
is occasionally rebadged, but most house-brand stuff that's made in Japan
is made by Konica.) In Finland, you might also get some Eastern European
film brands, but I'm not familiar with them (at least, not in color print
form; I know a bit about Efke and Foma B&W films).

I haven't seen any Eastern European films, I think, but if I ever need to
find them, I'll only have to cross the border (some 40 km) to get some
Russian ones (will hardly happen ever whether they are good or not).
Oddly enough I haven't seen any store brand film either, what they sell
here in markets are all Kodak, Fuji, Konica or Agfa...
The only brand I've never run into before seems to be Ilford, but they are
sold under heading "pro films".

Go ahead and buy more Agfa if you like; the film was *NOT* to blame for
your problems.

Yes, I see. That's a relief somehow, anyway.


Thanks for all who replied!

Live and learn, so it goes...

Esa


--
Esa
Non-spammers may reply to etikka at lut dot fi

In article ,
Esa writes:

The problem frames are ones that I either grossly underexposed or had
black background. Ah, now that I look at them again, the frames are neatly
spaced, it's the notches that are out of place and I counted on them.
The camera? It is from 1977 I think, so there could be something wrong
with it, too, but I'd say that the blame seems to be on the lab after
all...

OK, if your frames are properly spaced, then I take back what I said about
your camera having problems; it seems fine, judging by your description --
at least, the film-advance mechanism sounds fine. If the frames you
mention were underexposed because of a meter error, of course, it could be
you've got a metering problem, but usually this sort of problem signals
user error rather than mechanical failure.

I don't know how automatic their system is, it's a postal service and the
biggest lab in Finland.

In the US, a lot of mail-order outfits also seem to notch films. I don't
believe I've ever seen this from one-hour labs or pro labs.

I was lucky enough to order scanned pics also, and
there are no problems with them (they scanned the film before cutting it).
I'm really glad that they didn't cut the good frames in half, but I think
I'll give them some feedback on their system... After all, when they get
regular 35mm film, the frames are supposed to be of equal size, so why try
to search for correct places for cutting... Those frames which have clear
borders on the negatives were cut correctly, but they did manage to cut
one church in evening lighting in two somehow...

Unfortunately, frames aren't always evenly spaced. Camera problems (like
the one I initially thought your camera had) can throw the spacing off, or
it can go out of whack because the photographer exposed half a roll of
film, rewound it, loaded it again, advanced past the previous end point,
and began shooting again. (There are perfectly valid reasons for doing
this, but I suspect it's fairly rare.) In any event, a lab that finds the
first frame and then blindly cuts the film at appropriate intervals from
that point is asking for trouble.

Unfortunately, mis-cut negative strips are quite common, in my experience.
Usually it's a matter of a millimeter or less cut from a frame. Sometimes
it's more serious. Dark scenes are definitely tricky to cut right.

You might try asking to have your film returned uncut; then if you have
problems, you've nobody to blame but yourself. ;-) Some photofinishers
will return uncut negative strips, but many won't.

As to the notches themselves, don't worry about it. I really don't know
why some photofinishers cut them into the negatives, although I'd guess it
has to do with aligning the negatives for printing. In any event, they
aren't necessary for that purpose in any general sense, so misplaced
notches won't prevent you from getting reprints or enlargements. At worst,
you'll need to find a photofinisher that doesn't use the notches.

--
Rod Smith,
http://www.rodsbooks.com
Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking

On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 06:10:18 -0000, Rod Smith
wrote:
OK, if your frames are properly spaced, then I take back what I said about
your camera having problems; it seems fine, judging by your description --
at least, the film-advance mechanism sounds fine. If the frames you
mention were underexposed because of a meter error, of course, it could be
you've got a metering problem, but usually this sort of problem signals
user error rather than mechanical failure.

User error, yes. Or well, the meter does work only until evening
conditions, it's pretty useless when it starts to get dark. That's by
design, though, and teaches my how to estimate correct exposure.

Unfortunately, frames aren't always evenly spaced. Camera problems (like
the one I initially thought your camera had) can throw the spacing off, or
it can go out of whack because the photographer exposed half a roll of
film, rewound it, loaded it again, advanced past the previous end point,
and began shooting again. (There are perfectly valid reasons for doing
this, but I suspect it's fairly rare.) In any event, a lab that finds the
first frame and then blindly cuts the film at appropriate intervals from
that point is asking for trouble.

In this case, they re-adjusted the cutting interval in the middle of the
film although they shouldn't have done that. And more importantly, failed
to adjust back after the somewhat black frames...
I have a few times thought about the possibility of exposing only half of
a roll and reloading it afterwards, but that does come with a increased
probability of goofing it up somehow.

You might try asking to have your film returned uncut; then if you have
problems, you've nobody to blame but yourself. ;-) Some photofinishers
will return uncut negative strips, but many won't.

Yes, I might... I know if I sent my films to be developed in Vyborg across
the border, I'd get them uncut, but the quality of the prints reflects
the low price :P

As to the notches themselves, don't worry about it. I really don't know
why some photofinishers cut them into the negatives, although I'd guess it
has to do with aligning the negatives for printing. In any event, they
aren't necessary for that purpose in any general sense, so misplaced
notches won't prevent you from getting reprints or enlargements. At worst,
you'll need to find a photofinisher that doesn't use the notches.

So far, there hasn't really been any need for reprints, maybe after some
practise

Thanks,
Esa

--
Esa
Non-spammers may reply to etikka at lut dot fi

Well Here is my 2-bits worth having worked in the photo bussiness since 1979

The Photo labs have a piece of equipment which scans the film and notches
the film either in the center or towards one edge of each frame these
notches are for the automatic printing equipment. These notches let the
printer know where each frame is so that it knows when to stop and print
each frame. These automatic printers can print up to 20,000 prints per hour.

As for the Notcher most can handle frames even if they are not equally
spaced. However even the best labs have equipment or operator problems which
can cause the film to mis-notch. If the film has a lot of underexposed
images such as fire works or other night photos negatives can become
mis-notched as well.

Hope this answers some of your questions.


"Esa" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 06:10:18 -0000, Rod Smith
wrote:
OK, if your frames are properly spaced, then I take back what I said
about
your camera having problems; it seems fine, judging by your
description --
at least, the film-advance mechanism sounds fine. If the frames you
mention were underexposed because of a meter error, of course, it could
be
you've got a metering problem, but usually this sort of problem signals
user error rather than mechanical failure.

User error, yes. Or well, the meter does work only until evening
conditions, it's pretty useless when it starts to get dark. That's by
design, though, and teaches my how to estimate correct exposure.

Unfortunately, frames aren't always evenly spaced. Camera problems (like
the one I initially thought your camera had) can throw the spacing off,
or
it can go out of whack because the photographer exposed half a roll of
film, rewound it, loaded it again, advanced past the previous end point,
and began shooting again. (There are perfectly valid reasons for doing
this, but I suspect it's fairly rare.) In any event, a lab that finds the
first frame and then blindly cuts the film at appropriate intervals from
that point is asking for trouble.

In this case, they re-adjusted the cutting interval in the middle of the
film although they shouldn't have done that. And more importantly, failed
to adjust back after the somewhat black frames...
I have a few times thought about the possibility of exposing only half of
a roll and reloading it afterwards, but that does come with a increased
probability of goofing it up somehow.

You might try asking to have your film returned uncut; then if you have
problems, you've nobody to blame but yourself. ;-) Some photofinishers
will return uncut negative strips, but many won't.

Yes, I might... I know if I sent my films to be developed in Vyborg across
the border, I'd get them uncut, but the quality of the prints reflects
the low price :P

As to the notches themselves, don't worry about it. I really don't know
why some photofinishers cut them into the negatives, although I'd guess
it
has to do with aligning the negatives for printing. In any event, they
aren't necessary for that purpose in any general sense, so misplaced
notches won't prevent you from getting reprints or enlargements. At
worst,
you'll need to find a photofinisher that doesn't use the notches.

So far, there hasn't really been any need for reprints, maybe after some
practise

Thanks,
Esa

--
Esa
Non-spammers may reply to etikka at lut dot fi

Well Here is my 2-bits worth having worked in the photo bussiness since 1979

The Photo labs have a piece of equipment which scans the film and notches
the film either in the center or towards one edge of each frame these
notches are for the automatic printing equipment. These notches let the
printer know where each frame is so that it knows when to stop and print
each frame. These automatic printers can print up to 20,000 prints per hour.

As for the Notcher most can handle frames even if they are not equally
spaced. However even the best labs have equipment or operator problems which
can cause the film to mis-notch. If the film has a lot of underexposed
images such as fire works or other night photos negatives can become
mis-notched as well.

Hope this answers some of your questions.


"Esa" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 06:10:18 -0000, Rod Smith
wrote:
OK, if your frames are properly spaced, then I take back what I said
about
your camera having problems; it seems fine, judging by your
description --
at least, the film-advance mechanism sounds fine. If the frames you
mention were underexposed because of a meter error, of course, it could
be
you've got a metering problem, but usually this sort of problem signals
user error rather than mechanical failure.

User error, yes. Or well, the meter does work only until evening
conditions, it's pretty useless when it starts to get dark. That's by
design, though, and teaches my how to estimate correct exposure.

Unfortunately, frames aren't always evenly spaced. Camera problems (like
the one I initially thought your camera had) can throw the spacing off,
or
it can go out of whack because the photographer exposed half a roll of
film, rewound it, loaded it again, advanced past the previous end point,
and began shooting again. (There are perfectly valid reasons for doing
this, but I suspect it's fairly rare.) In any event, a lab that finds the
first frame and then blindly cuts the film at appropriate intervals from
that point is asking for trouble.

In this case, they re-adjusted the cutting interval in the middle of the
film although they shouldn't have done that. And more importantly, failed
to adjust back after the somewhat black frames...
I have a few times thought about the possibility of exposing only half of
a roll and reloading it afterwards, but that does come with a increased
probability of goofing it up somehow.

You might try asking to have your film returned uncut; then if you have
problems, you've nobody to blame but yourself. ;-) Some photofinishers
will return uncut negative strips, but many won't.

Yes, I might... I know if I sent my films to be developed in Vyborg across
the border, I'd get them uncut, but the quality of the prints reflects
the low price :P

As to the notches themselves, don't worry about it. I really don't know
why some photofinishers cut them into the negatives, although I'd guess
it
has to do with aligning the negatives for printing. In any event, they
aren't necessary for that purpose in any general sense, so misplaced
notches won't prevent you from getting reprints or enlargements. At
worst,
you'll need to find a photofinisher that doesn't use the notches.

So far, there hasn't really been any need for reprints, maybe after some
practise

Thanks,
Esa

--
Esa
Non-spammers may reply to etikka at lut dot fi

On Sun, 1 May 2005 01:58:26 -0700, Photobossman
wrote:
"Esa" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 06:10:18 -0000, Rod Smith
wrote:
OK, if your frames are properly spaced, then I take back what I said
about
your camera having problems; it seems fine, judging by your
description --
at least, the film-advance mechanism sounds fine. If the frames you
mention were underexposed because of a meter error, of course, it could
be
you've got a metering problem, but usually this sort of problem signals
user error rather than mechanical failure.

User error, yes. Or well, the meter does work only until evening
conditions, it's pretty useless when it starts to get dark. That's by
design, though, and teaches my how to estimate correct exposure.

Unfortunately, frames aren't always evenly spaced. Camera problems (like
the one I initially thought your camera had) can throw the spacing off,
or
it can go out of whack because the photographer exposed half a roll of
film, rewound it, loaded it again, advanced past the previous end point,
and began shooting again. (There are perfectly valid reasons for doing
this, but I suspect it's fairly rare.) In any event, a lab that finds the
first frame and then blindly cuts the film at appropriate intervals from
that point is asking for trouble.

In this case, they re-adjusted the cutting interval in the middle of the
film although they shouldn't have done that. And more importantly, failed
to adjust back after the somewhat black frames...
I have a few times thought about the possibility of exposing only half of
a roll and reloading it afterwards, but that does come with a increased
probability of goofing it up somehow.

You might try asking to have your film returned uncut; then if you have
problems, you've nobody to blame but yourself. ;-) Some photofinishers
will return uncut negative strips, but many won't.

Yes, I might... I know if I sent my films to be developed in Vyborg across
the border, I'd get them uncut, but the quality of the prints reflects
the low price :P

As to the notches themselves, don't worry about it. I really don't know
why some photofinishers cut them into the negatives, although I'd guess
it
has to do with aligning the negatives for printing. In any event, they
aren't necessary for that purpose in any general sense, so misplaced
notches won't prevent you from getting reprints or enlargements. At
worst,
you'll need to find a photofinisher that doesn't use the notches.

So far, there hasn't really been any need for reprints, maybe after some
practise

Thanks,
Esa

--
Esa
Non-spammers may reply to etikka at lut dot fi


Well Here is my 2-bits worth having worked in the photo bussiness since 1979

The Photo labs have a piece of equipment which scans the film and notches
the film either in the center or towards one edge of each frame these
notches are for the automatic printing equipment. These notches let the
printer know where each frame is so that it knows when to stop and print
each frame. These automatic printers can print up to 20,000 prints per hour.

As for the Notcher most can handle frames even if they are not equally
spaced. However even the best labs have equipment or operator problems which
can cause the film to mis-notch. If the film has a lot of underexposed
images such as fire works or other night photos negatives can become
mis-notched as well.

Hope this answers some of your questions.

Thanks, that was pretty much their excuse, too, but still a bad excuse for
mis-notching the better exposed areas in half from the rest of the film

To compensate, they did some manual work trying to fix things (I think
the reprints were somewhat better quality overall than their normal work)
and reduced the price. I'm ok with that, but have already bought a film
scanner from eBay so I can just develop the films in a local lab (with
better results hopefully), get prints for only those frames I feel
deserve it (not very many at this stage of learning) and additionally
get digital versions of those frames which I could easily fix using a
computer (bad composition or underexposure etc).
I'd also expect learning to expose better if I see the results without
all the automatical adjustments which are unavoidable with this mail
order lab this thread is about.

Esa


--
Non-spammers may reply to etikka at lut dot fi

On Sun, 1 May 2005 01:58:26 -0700, Photobossman
wrote:
"Esa" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 06:10:18 -0000, Rod Smith
wrote:
OK, if your frames are properly spaced, then I take back what I said
about
your camera having problems; it seems fine, judging by your
description --
at least, the film-advance mechanism sounds fine. If the frames you
mention were underexposed because of a meter error, of course, it could
be
you've got a metering problem, but usually this sort of problem signals
user error rather than mechanical failure.

User error, yes. Or well, the meter does work only until evening
conditions, it's pretty useless when it starts to get dark. That's by
design, though, and teaches my how to estimate correct exposure.

Unfortunately, frames aren't always evenly spaced. Camera problems (like
the one I initially thought your camera had) can throw the spacing off,
or
it can go out of whack because the photographer exposed half a roll of
film, rewound it, loaded it again, advanced past the previous end point,
and began shooting again. (There are perfectly valid reasons for doing
this, but I suspect it's fairly rare.) In any event, a lab that finds the
first frame and then blindly cuts the film at appropriate intervals from
that point is asking for trouble.

In this case, they re-adjusted the cutting interval in the middle of the
film although they shouldn't have done that. And more importantly, failed
to adjust back after the somewhat black frames...
I have a few times thought about the possibility of exposing only half of
a roll and reloading it afterwards, but that does come with a increased
probability of goofing it up somehow.

You might try asking to have your film returned uncut; then if you have
problems, you've nobody to blame but yourself. ;-) Some photofinishers
will return uncut negative strips, but many won't.

Yes, I might... I know if I sent my films to be developed in Vyborg across
the border, I'd get them uncut, but the quality of the prints reflects
the low price :P

As to the notches themselves, don't worry about it. I really don't know
why some photofinishers cut them into the negatives, although I'd guess
it
has to do with aligning the negatives for printing. In any event, they
aren't necessary for that purpose in any general sense, so misplaced
notches won't prevent you from getting reprints or enlargements. At
worst,
you'll need to find a photofinisher that doesn't use the notches.

So far, there hasn't really been any need for reprints, maybe after some
practise

Thanks,
Esa

--
Esa
Non-spammers may reply to etikka at lut dot fi


Well Here is my 2-bits worth having worked in the photo bussiness since 1979

The Photo labs have a piece of equipment which scans the film and notches
the film either in the center or towards one edge of each frame these
notches are for the automatic printing equipment. These notches let the
printer know where each frame is so that it knows when to stop and print
each frame. These automatic printers can print up to 20,000 prints per hour.

As for the Notcher most can handle frames even if they are not equally
spaced. However even the best labs have equipment or operator problems which
can cause the film to mis-notch. If the film has a lot of underexposed
images such as fire works or other night photos negatives can become
mis-notched as well.

Hope this answers some of your questions.

Thanks, that was pretty much their excuse, too, but still a bad excuse for
mis-notching the better exposed areas in half from the rest of the film

To compensate, they did some manual work trying to fix things (I think
the reprints were somewhat better quality overall than their normal work)
and reduced the price. I'm ok with that, but have already bought a film
scanner from eBay so I can just develop the films in a local lab (with
better results hopefully), get prints for only those frames I feel
deserve it (not very many at this stage of learning) and additionally
get digital versions of those frames which I could easily fix using a
computer (bad composition or underexposure etc).
I'd also expect learning to expose better if I see the results without
all the automatical adjustments which are unavoidable with this mail
order lab this thread is about.

Esa


--
Non-spammers may reply to etikka at lut dot fi

In article ,
Esa writes:

I'm ok with that, but have already bought a film
scanner from eBay so I can just develop the films in a local lab (with
better results hopefully), get prints for only those frames I feel
deserve it (not very many at this stage of learning) and additionally
get digital versions of those frames which I could easily fix using a
computer (bad composition or underexposure etc).

This is a perfectly reasonable approach, but remember that it'll take you
some time to scan a roll of film. If you set a dollar value to your time,
it may be more than you'll save from getting prints only on the good
frames and/or from not ordering digital scans from the lab. OTOH, if your
scanner is halfway decent, you'll probably get better scans than the lab
will give you, at least once you learn how to use the software to good
effect.

I'd also expect learning to expose better if I see the results without
all the automatical adjustments which are unavoidable with this mail
order lab this thread is about.

If you want to learn about exposure, I recommend you try shooting slide
film. Slide film has narrower exposure latitude than print film, so
exposure errors will be more obvious with slides. That can be a good
learning tool, and can also be helpful if you want to check out your
camera's exposure consistency. Since you've got a scanner, you can scan
the slides and get prints made as easily as you would with negative film.
Slide film's also got a different character, which you might or might not
like. It's more expensive than negative film, at least if you don't order
prints with your negative film processing. All in all, it's worth shooting
at least a roll or two of slide film just as a learning experience.

--
Rod Smith,
http://www.rodsbooks.com
Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking

In article ,
Esa writes:

I'm ok with that, but have already bought a film
scanner from eBay so I can just develop the films in a local lab (with
better results hopefully), get prints for only those frames I feel
deserve it (not very many at this stage of learning) and additionally
get digital versions of those frames which I could easily fix using a
computer (bad composition or underexposure etc).

This is a perfectly reasonable approach, but remember that it'll take you
some time to scan a roll of film. If you set a dollar value to your time,
it may be more than you'll save from getting prints only on the good
frames and/or from not ordering digital scans from the lab. OTOH, if your
scanner is halfway decent, you'll probably get better scans than the lab
will give you, at least once you learn how to use the software to good
effect.

I'd also expect learning to expose better if I see the results without
all the automatical adjustments which are unavoidable with this mail
order lab this thread is about.

If you want to learn about exposure, I recommend you try shooting slide
film. Slide film has narrower exposure latitude than print film, so
exposure errors will be more obvious with slides. That can be a good
learning tool, and can also be helpful if you want to check out your
camera's exposure consistency. Since you've got a scanner, you can scan
the slides and get prints made as easily as you would with negative film.
Slide film's also got a different character, which you might or might not
like. It's more expensive than negative film, at least if you don't order
prints with your negative film processing. All in all, it's worth shooting
at least a roll or two of slide film just as a learning experience.

--
Rod Smith,
http://www.rodsbooks.com
Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking

On Sun, 1 May 2005 17:03:20 -0000, Rod Smith
wrote:
In article ,
Esa writes:

I'm ok with that, but have already bought a film
scanner from eBay so I can just develop the films in a local lab (with
better results hopefully), get prints for only those frames I feel
deserve it (not very many at this stage of learning) and additionally
get digital versions of those frames which I could easily fix using a
computer (bad composition or underexposure etc).

This is a perfectly reasonable approach, but remember that it'll take you
some time to scan a roll of film. If you set a dollar value to your time,
it may be more than you'll save from getting prints only on the good
frames and/or from not ordering digital scans from the lab. OTOH, if your
scanner is halfway decent, you'll probably get better scans than the lab
will give you, at least once you learn how to use the software to good
effect.

This is a hobby, so my time is cheap I'm also used to things that take
some time and would do something else while the scanner is doing its work.
Besides money, I don't like the idea that the mail order lab ruins any
good frames (from their response I'd guess they rely completely on the
automatic machines, thus lower costs). Anyway, mere developing costs in
the local lab(s) as much as developing and prints combined from the mail
order place with their constant "special offers" (I don't know what
scanning would cost locally, I'd guess a lot more). The quality is of
course somewhat higher with the local one, and the prints are much more
durable if I need them. So, I'm trying to aim for higher quality and have
more influence with the results by doing some of the work by myself.

The scanner is Minolta Dimage Elite II, a bit old but from what I've seen
it should be clearly above average quality in its group, and I don't feel
I'd need the extra dpi of the newer and more expensive scanners.

If you want to learn about exposure, I recommend you try shooting slide
film. Slide film has narrower exposure latitude than print film, so
exposure errors will be more obvious with slides. That can be a good
learning tool, and can also be helpful if you want to check out your
camera's exposure consistency. Since you've got a scanner, you can scan
the slides and get prints made as easily as you would with negative film.
Slide film's also got a different character, which you might or might not
like. It's more expensive than negative film, at least if you don't order
prints with your negative film processing. All in all, it's worth shooting
at least a roll or two of slide film just as a learning experience.

I think I'll try it some day, you're not exactly the first one to
recommend it. I've read and heard a lot of good things about slide film.
Besides, experimenting is fun

Thanks for your input!

Esa

--
Non-spammers may reply to etikka at lut dot fi