rfmaude41 Loc: Lancaster, Texas (DFW area)

For transparencies, I use several of the Fujicolor "chromes", Velvia, Provia, etc..

hawleyrw Loc: Dayton, OH

I used Dale labs for a long time. they basically turn excess cinematic film into 35mm slide film. Don't know if they still do it, but they used to give a replacement roll whenever you turned one in for processing.

www.dalelabs.com

adm

Fuji Superia X-TRA 400 is a good "all rounder" color print film. Many shoot it at ISO 200 or even 100. Kodak Portra 160 print film has exceptional flesh tones. As for slide film, there is not a lot of choice except Fuji right now but that may change with the new Ektachrome (just ordered some but have not yet received it). Use Velvia 50 or 100 if you want vivid, super-saturated colors and Provia if you want more natural color.

Photocraig

mgoldgield,
I suggest that you check your battery. Yours might be old, and replacements, while available, may be new technology with slightly differing voltages. That may affect your meter and shutter speed outside of the one mechanical speed of, I think, 125th. Do a meter check against your DSLR or a handheld to be sure you're exposing right, especially because slide film has a lower latitude of exposure ranges. Remember, no chimping, so getting the exposure right really counts.

For B&W, try one of the chromogenics films from Ilford or Kodak, uses Color neg chemistry to produce B&W. It is an easy way tos tart with B&W before investing in (smelly) chemicals and tanks. TMAX is great for that stuff, too.

Bear2 Loc: Southeast,, MI

Ditto!!!

safeman

I'm in love with Velvia 50 and 100 in both 35mm and 120.

RLSeipleSr Loc: North of Boston

Try these guys - 'https://www.facebook.com/groups/simplyfilm/?ref=br_rs' ...

Bob S

machia Loc: NJ

How does the color balance differ between Provia and Velvia ?
While I’m glad that Ektachrome will become available again I think the color saturation of Kodachrome was much better . The vivid reds and warms tones were superb if that’s the look that pleased your eye . I loved it .
Which has suddenly made me think that perhaps a color-enhancing filter for ( red ) may impart warmer tones when using the Ektachrome? Any thoughts ?
A feux-Kodachrome of sorts ? Lol

hawleyrw Loc: Dayton, OH

I preferred ektachrome when it was out.

RogStrix Loc: UK

Provia is more natural, Velvia has stronger colours and loved by fauna and flora photographers for its sharp and enhanced colour

machia Loc: NJ

Thank you .

Bill P

before retirement, I shot professionally for many years, and in the early years, Kodak was the only alternative. Even the pro versions of the color neg film was unusable. I used Ektachrome, as reliable Kodachrome processing was unavailable. I, like many, was not entirely satisfied with the limited dynamic range of chromes. I was, therefore very happy with Fuji Provia, and it became my go to chrome when that was required. (Let's be honest, when whatever you shot was to be scanned, certain negative films were able to produce a much higher dynamic range and were highly superior.) So, as availablilty is going to get dicey, get a brick or two of Provia and freeze it.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I no longer use film, but did both personally and professionally, for several decades. I processed B&W and E6 films myself; C41 and K12 films went to labs. (I worked in a giant C41 lab...)

The current versions of what were my favorite emulsions are:

Color Negative Films:

Kodak Portra 160 NC
Kodak Ektar 100
Fujicolor PRO 400H

Conventional B&W:

Ilford HP5 Plus
Ilford FP4 Plus
Ilford Pan F Plus
Ilford Delta 100, 400, 3200
Ilford XP-2
Kodak T-Max 100, 400

Color Slides:

Fujichrome Velvia 50 and 100, Provia 100F

If Kodachrome were still around, K64 would be on the list. It is the only color film I actually miss.
If Ektachrome Infrared were still available, it would be on the list. It was fun, freaky, and always surprising, but a pain in the tail to get processed (E4).

Nearly all my Ektachrome films have faded toward violet, so I'm skeptical about the new Ektachrome 100 coming later this month. I burned through thousands of rolls of Ektachrome (50 Tungsten, 5071 and SO-366 dupe films, 400 Daylight) — over 20 a month — as a multi-image slide show producer (1979-87). None of it looks good now.

Film was great stuff for me. I used it until digital imaging matured. Unfortunately, film media have little use in my current workflow. Digital technology has revolutionized filmmaking and still photography, and all but eliminated huge chunks of the photo industry.

Most of us in the mass portrait industry who had relied on film for decades rode the professional wave of digital developments fairly well. Some retired or went quite literally insane. I was lucky to work with Kodak technical sales reps who visited our lab until just before the big falloff in film demand. One year we were scanning Kodak Portra 160 NC film 24 hours a day, six days a week, on nine $55,000 Bremson HR500 scanners (4-6 seconds per 8 MP 12-bit image). Two years later, we had one scanner running on one shift. The next year, we scanned two 100' rolls of film. In 2011, our division was sold, and in 2015, the lab closed.

machia Loc: NJ

machia Loc: NJ

I read that the manufacture of Ektachrome was a subtractive process and Kodachrome was an additive process . Ektachrome does fade . My 25 and 64 ASA Kodachrome slides still look excellent . Can you shed some light on the process differences of these two films ?
Thank you in advance .