>>4129832Pros:
-Inherently stronger contrast
-usually higher resolving power than negative (not always)
-much more saturated
-more permanent because of different type of dyes
-viewable by eye or through projection
-theoretically better for camera scanning
Cons:
-much smaller dynamic range than negative (usually 5-4 stops)
-harder to shoot and meter for (can't just use scene average 18% grey)
-less tolerant of development fuckups and storage related issues
-can no longer print fully analog (used to be possible either by kodak positive print or Cibachrome--although it is theoretically still possible by way of inter-negative, RA4 reversal printing, or by making color separations) i.e. you need to scan and then print digitally which is lame. Ironically back in the day slide was preferred for magazines because no print had to be made and tweaked, color separations were made directly and then printed.
-usually more expensive
-harder to find and harder to find places that develop and do so well.
Both have their use cases. Many here remember the slide film look from Textbooks and Magazines of yesteryear and their intense colors and dark blacks and see it as a big part of the "film look"
>pic somewhat related, imagine that boomers copied their kodachromes to vhs and probably chucked them.There was an article that came out recently where some guy bragged about storing his grandfathers film so poorly that he was part of the artwork in having altered the images by destroying them, same energy.
