Goodbye Kodak Ektachrome E100 !?!?!?!?!?

www.photographyblog.com/news/kodak_retir...lour_reversal_films/

'Tis sad but a sign of the times. Our club has a contest category for slides but the past 2 years has been used by only 2 or 3 members. It's tough since post processing is basically eliminated unless the slide is digitized.

Baydream wrote: 'Tis sad but a sign of the times. Our club has a contest category for slides but the past 2 years has been used by only 2 or 3 members. It's tough since post processing is basically eliminated unless the slide is digitized.

I'm actually thinking of going back to velvia now that I'm shooting medium format. The only problem is a projector that takes 6x7 is hard to come by on the used market and usually cost a pretty penny when you do find one. Buy a new one you say? I'd have to sell one of my trucks lol

It's going to be hard to leave behind the awesome dynamic range of color negative though...... Tough decision.

We used color slide film in college and my gosh, you cannot get that kind of quality using digital.. I don't care how many megapixels you have. And the first time I used color 4x5? I think I cried a little lol.

This is why I still shoot film!!!!!!!

Yellow Bird wrote: We used color slide film in college and my gosh, you cannot get that kind of quality using digital.. I don't care how many megapixels you have. And the first time I used color 4x5? I think I cried a little lol.

Yellow Bird wrote: We used color slide film in college and my gosh, you cannot get that kind of quality using digital.. I don't care how many megapixels you have. And the first time I used color 4x5? I think I cried a little lol.

Bold (and subjective) statement.

Let me counter with some (semi)objective facts:

Digital has 12-14 stops of dynamic range at base ISO with modern cameras. Film struggles to go past 10. Heck the film that this thread is about can't reach past 10 stops of dynamic range. (I just checked).

20-36MP of resolution on a modern camera is enough for billboards (you can get more in theory with film, but it takes perfect technique, or you're just blowing up smudges). Even 16MP is enough for most things. Heck most people don't need more than 8.

The new Adobe 2012 processing takes care of the sudden drop off at the high (and low) end in digital. The smooth transitions at the high and low end used to be an advantage of film. But sorry to say it's no longer the case.

Colour? Mmm I've seen nothing in film shots that can't be replicated by the 14bit (or 16bit) colour of a modern DSLR. Film tends to be more muted if anything... maybe people just like that look a bit more.

Film is more metaphorically organic and chemical based so you don't get blocks/pixels and can theoretically blow it up as much as you can (there's a theory that limits it to 170ish MP. As said above, it's a rare shot that can go that big) still it's a theoretical advantage of film being analogue.

(Like Karl) shooting Medium Format is the way to go if you're shooting film. That gives you a lot more to work with.

I have nothing against film and people shooting film and liking the "look" of film. It's just you can't say something like "you cannot get that kind of quality using digital" that's just silly.



Sorry to interrupt the nostalgia folks.

The slide shooters were the first ones to abandon film among my peers. My main shooting buddy used 4x5 Fuji transparency films, and printed them using the legendary cibachrome/Ilfochrome process. I thought it was blasphemy when he started using a DSLR and inkjet printing, but deep down I knew that the only reason he would ever switch is because he truly felt he was getting better results. I resisted for a few more years, but when business drove me to get my first DSLR it was impossible to ignore how good the technology had become. I wanted to hate it, and fell in love almost overnight instead.