Talk:Reversal film

message: Does anyone have an information about cleaning slides?
:Google is your friend. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleaning slides?

message: 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)
replies: text: '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)
thread_title: black & white

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Introduction of term 'slide'

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Illustration

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Glass Slides for Projection

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Reversal film. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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 ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: So it isn't the contrast and resolution then?  Should we change that statement? Gah4 (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  lavender = blueprint 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Reversal film. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111210165936/http://www.invent.org/hall_of_fame/223.html to http://www.invent.org/Hall_Of_Fame/223.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090320053207/http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/20061291034093.pdf to http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/20061291034093.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article gives More accurate color translation when digitizing. There is no need for color inversion processes. as pros for reversal film.  The orange mask in negative film is specifically to give more accurate colors. The imperfections (absorptions where they shouldn't) of the dyes are cancelled by the absorptions of the mask. This isn't possible in slides for projection, for obvious reasons. Lots of compromises go into a color reversal film that don't go into a negative film. I suppose the colors from the film to scan might be more accurate, but still less accurate a representation of the original scene. Gah4 (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The orange mask doesn't have anything to do with "making the colors better". In fact, the orange mask makes it even more diffcult to scan or telecine with accurate colors. The reason for the orange mask has nothing to do with colors. Instead, its purpose lies solely in preventing scratching of the emulsion. The fact that negative films have a much wider latency and contrast range is due to the different emulsion, not due to the orange mask. --2003:EF:1704:7205:843C:C673:6D28:ED99 (talk) 02:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''More accurate color translation when digitizing. There is no need for color inversion processes.''