Slide Film vs. Regular Print Film

[Gob332]

Just a general question for you guys. What are the advantages of using slide film over print film. I haven't entered the digital age yet and am slowly starting night sky photography. I have noticed with my regular negative print film that my pictured tend to come out somewhat grainy, especially when I tried photographing Venus and Mercury (see attached). Would slide film help rectify this problem. Also, when developing slide film is there any way to get it developed other than in slides? I have read that this can be a major pain to do.

thanks for any and all help.

Both photos taken with a Cannon RebelG. The picture of Scorpius was a thirty second exposure at f4.0 and ISO 200.

The picture of Mercury and Venus was at f4.5 thirty seconds and ISO 200. (it was also -30F when I took this photo)

[Torsten]

I haven't used film in over five years, but some months ago I scanned a bunch of old negatives. Doing that made me really aware of the differences in quality due to either film or processing. Some of the negatives were really grainy and poor quality, over a whole range of lighting and exposure settings. while others were superb.

I've also scanned slides, and the results did not look as good as scanned negatives. I think this was because the cardboard frames hold the image a little bit further off the glass. There is also issue with the slight curve in the slide where it joins the frame, so the image is not uniformly focussed.

I did once get slide film processed without it being cut and mounted. It was returned to me wrapped around a long cardboard "core", co-wrapped with a strip of paper. It didn't seem a big deal at the time, I just made the request. They seemed to be set up to do it regularly. But that was another era, and I don't really know what services are provided these days.

-30F? Good to have that behind you for another season.