bikinkawboy Loc: north central Missouri

Environmental disaster? You’ve piqued my interest. More details please!

cactuspic Loc: Dallas, TX

I prefer the color accuracy of 35mm digital over 35mm film, as well as it’s increased dynamic range, detail, and low light performance. With black and white, I don’t miss the smell of acetic acid or film grain. I guess I’m not nostalgic

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Your first 10,000 images are your worst. Thank goodness they're now all digital.

rlv567 Loc: Baguio City, Philippines

Well said!!! And most appropriate!!!

Loren - in Beautiful Baguio City

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

The chemicals used to develop Kodachrome were known to be dangerous environmentally, which is why Kodak retired the process even before market forces did.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I have not shot film in a while. I have a roll of Kodacolor in my freezer that I plan to use this coming winter but it is not my intention to keep on shooting film.
In regard to colors, I favor the first generation of colors I had with my Nikon cameras and the D200 comes to mind. I do not use picture control in post and on occasion I slightly saturate colors. Digital is very convenient and I second the importance of immediate feedback. Indeed digital offers advantages not found with film such as finer grain, better ISO performance, dynamic range, ability to add contrast in post and manipulation of colors for those who like to do that.

Film is expensive and when printed negatives is selected we are at the mercy of a technician when it comes to accuracy. With a calibrated monitor a digital file promises prints equal to what we see in the monitor. We decide our color, not a technician.
Many people shoot film and then digitalize the negatives. Why not shoot digital in the first place?

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

I am not “at the mercy of a technician”. I do my own scanning, and typically I’ve found the colors as scanned to match the colors I remember.

BurghByrd Loc: Pittsburgh

Kodak states "they are the last" but I think Fujifilm would take issue with that:

https://www.fujifilm.com/us/en/consumer/film-quicksnap

Perhaps Kodak manufactures film for Fuji?

Red6

I agree 100%. Much like vinyl records, consumer use of film is a fad that will soon pass again into history. While film directors, using other people's money can afford all the costs associated with film, consumers will not tolerate the cost and loss of time in processing their film.

Besides, many younger photographers and videographers want to see and send their work to social media outlets. Are they going to use film and then digitize it so they can send it out over the web? That would be a total waste of their time and money.

Maybe a few will utilize film to hang prints on showroom walls or studios. But will that be enough to support the film industry? Even in the movie industry, the costs of using film will eventually force directors to move to digital technology. Accountants always win in these cases especially when profits are in question. Younger, upcoming directors will most likely have fewer issues with digital technology, so we will see a downward trend in film use. I am not sure how a company can build a viable business model around film production with these trends. I certainly would not invest any money in a company whose primary cash flow is based on film production.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

As far as I know, no one develops Kodachrome anymore. What do you plan to do with it once it is exposed???

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

And YOU from time to time. Thank you for that, by the way, as I enjoy seeing your photographs. Let's not forget Bob Malarz too who also shoots film and does a damn good job of it too.

Dennis

Bison Bud

I must admit that I am puzzled by the recent rise in the use of film! I got interested in photography as a kid and by the time my interests faded, I had a fairly complete darkroom setup for black and white prints and did quite a few color slides. Frankly, digital photography is what sucked me back into the hobby and big time! Frankly, I wouldn't go back to developing film for any reason and firmly believe that the capabilities of digital now exceed those of film. I guess there is the nostalgic factor that appeals to some, but I can't believe that anyone feels like film is really more capable. I guess it's a bit like vinyl records compared to CD's, but I wouldn't consider going back to a turntable either. In fact, I'm probably a bit of a fossil in still using CD's, but most of them have been ripped to MP3 that files I can play on my phone of MP3 player. I do still burn an occasional disk to play on the car CD player, but only because it doesn't have a USB input (my next one will for sure). Anyway, if film works for you than have at it, but I'm not sure why anyone would take film over digital these days. Good luck and good shooting to all.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Back in vogue for how long? I wouldn't expect to be working at Kodak for very long. Still, if people want film, someone has to make it.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

There may be enough interest in film, given the size of the world's population, to make some production feasible, but anyone who thinks there will be a wholesale switch to film, well, I've got this bridge.....! No, I won't sell it to you but I will charge you to take pictures of it with your film camera. Just call me at BR-549......

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

He said Kodacolor, not Kodachrome.