Now that Ektachrome is back...
I like to be able to shoot Ektachrome again. It would work well for me now that I don't have a darkroom any more. I didn't do much of slides because I spent many years shooting only color negative film which allowed me to make prints in the darkroom.
jethro779 wrote:
Then you get hurricanes.
Don't move to CA, the ground might open up and swallow you whole!!! LoL
SS
SharpShooter wrote:
Don't move to CA, the ground might open up and swallow you whole!!! LoL
SS
I slept thru the "71" Norwalk one. Wait, make that Newhall not Norwalk. Somewhere in the San Fernando Valley there was an earthquake. I had just got back from a Panama Deployment and was on leave and sleeping in a motel on 101 between Los Angeles and Port Hueneme as I had flown in during the wee small hours of the morning. I didn't even wake up.
Mark1948 wrote:
Having done a bit of E6 processing & color printing back in the day, although I'm new to the digital world and particularly postprocessing, given the almost unlimited possibilities, I see no reason why I'd want to go back to film. Maybe this is just an academic exercise, maybe an interesting debate but I'm wondering if anyone out there as a different opinion & if so, why.
I just like film better, it is more fun to use and the image quality is higher than digital!
Ektachrome never left for me...I have a bunch of it in the deep freezer. I process my own, scan it, and go from there. Nyms
Mark1948 wrote:
Having done a bit of E6 processing & color printing back in the day, although I'm new to the digital world and particularly post processing, given the almost unlimited possibilities, I see no reason why I'd want to go back to film. Maybe this is just an academic exercise, maybe an interesting debate but I'm wondering if anyone out there as a different opinion & if so, why.
I still occasionally look to wanting to use my 4x5" cameras and shoot some B&W. I never was really happy with my film color photography. I much prefer my digital color work to my film color images. I never really liked Ektachrome. If Kodak were to bring back Kodachrome I might be tempted to shoot some 35mm slides. I also miss Plus-X. These day if at all, it is Ilford or Kodak Tri-X Pan. It does seem to get longer since going digital. The wife is pushing for a B&W 4x5" Field Camera photo trip. Possibly to NV, AZ, NM. Then she'll have to shoot the DSLR.
jethro779 wrote:
I slept thru the "71" Norwalk one. Wait, make that Newhall not Norwalk. Somewhere in the San Fernando Valley there was an earthquake. I had just got back from a Panama Deployment and was on leave and sleeping in a motel on 101 between Los Angeles and Port Hueneme as I had flown in during the wee small hours of the morning. I didn't even wake up.
Technically it was called the San Fernando Earthquake. Yes, 1971. And it was near Newhall, Sylmar, and Gorman. I was still going to SH at the time. My Mom got me out of bed, or I would have slept thru it. I lived in Temple City, CA at the time.
I was a lot closer to the Whittier-Rosemead Earthquake (in the Eighties) in Pasadena, that was scary!
There are a number of reasons film still is popular and why film base manufacture is on the increase in recent times. There is a hard core of film devotees who use a variety of formats. Many of the large format cameras for example do not have a digital option or if they do it involved medium format digital backs with adapters. Landscape professionals still advocate 5x4 or 10x8 large format cameras for their work, and as these people are frequent award winners there is perhaps something in what they use. Second hand film bodies like the Hasselblad V range and the Maiya RB's are going up in price as they become more popular. Film processing laboratories are opening; the 'diy' kits are also selling well.
Several years ago we re-invested in medium format film as a niche area for some customers looking for the 'film effect', a retro look that comes from using certain films and development techniques, difficult to reproduce in Photoshop. While not an every day event I probably shoot film at least once a month for business now whereas three years ago there was no call for film in this area at all. We even started offering workshops for medium format film for 2017 - here's hoping!
Thanks...but I'm happy with digital. In my youth, I spent hours each day in total darkness processing b&w film for our camera store and drugstores all over the West Philadelphia area. Also, developed zillions of rolls for the telephone company. Also, loaded 35mm rolls into Ansco cassettes from Kodak 1000 ft bulk rolls. The phone company had cameras that took photos of meters that showed traffic through their lines.
Depending on film size, I'd strip and load up to seven rolls on a rack. The racks would then travel through a series of deep tanks of chemicals, then slide into a drying chamber. Sometimes a rack would crash from a lifting arm as it moved from one tank to another. It was not fun to find and realign the rack(s) hoping that the rolls returned to the correct tank. I'm very happy with digital. No total darkness or safelights needed! Let there be light!
I used to shoot Ektachrome on my Pentax 6x7ii. I loved the large slides, and my local camera shot printed Ciba chrome prints that were really great. I really liked the subtle colors in sunsets and sunrises. However, Ciba chrome chemistry was discontinued, I had to scan any slides I wanted to print myself, and that process was time consuming and expensive. So I sold the Pentax with three lenses for a fraction of what I paid for them and purchased a Canon 5DSR. I always shot Canon and owned a number of "L" lenses. (I cannot afford a medium format digital camera, although their sensors are not 6x7.) The images from the new Canon are great, but I feel there is something missing from the images compared to the 6x7 slides. I think this is progress.
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
Mark1948 wrote:
Having done a bit of E6 processing & color printing back in the day, although I'm new to the digital world and particularly postprocessing, given the almost unlimited possibilities, I see no reason why I'd want to go back to film. Maybe this is just an academic exercise, maybe an interesting debate but I'm wondering if anyone out there as a different opinion & if so, why.
My darkroom days are fortunately behind me. I have no desire to go back to waiting a week to 10 days to see how my shots turn out. I like to adjust on the fly, both with exposure compensation and ISO until I get the scene I am currently shooting just right. I can, with digital, add any effects that Ektachrome could give me in post processing. And to be honest, I shoot people and birds, Ektachrome always goes way too much to the blue side for my taste, always preferred Kodachrome, and so did Paul Simon.
burkphoto wrote:
What he said.
I had a darkroom for B&W for 30 years, and processed E6 for 17. I worked for 3 school portrait companies for 33 years. Had my fill of processing, labs, film, chemical smells. Love Lightroom!
Not to even mention the environmental impacts of discarding the old, used solutions.
Bike guy wrote:
Not to even mention the environmental impacts of discarding the old, used solutions.
You should have seen what we had to deal with in our 90,000 square foot lab to stay legal. Triple cascade silver recovery for bleach, fix, wash water... monthly monitoring by EPA and county officials...
When we ripped out the six film processors in 2007, we also had to dig up ten feet of soil under the concrete floor beneath them, then fill it, tamp it, and repair the floor!
Our two C41 processor operators both died of cancer. One was there 25 years, the other one was there 30 years.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.