Join Now
Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
Quote: Hello Mannypr,
If your impressed by Kodak Gold 200 why not try professional negative film you'll see a big jump in quality not only in terms of grain but in resolution and colours. I use Fuji Pro 160c but I'm told Kodak's Portra range is really good.
Using a dedicated 35mm film scanner is the way to go if you want quality when digitising your film much better than scanning prints from a flatbed scanner.
Aidan
Well...I didn't say I was impressed by the kodak gold 200 , I did say it looks very neutral . Personally I like colors to pop a bit but without artificiality . I find the Kodak gold 200 with rather to obvious grain structure . I'm going to try out fuji velvia 100 and see what happens. Thanks for the advice.
I'm sorry but film is hardly the 'preferred choice' since almost all newbies prefer to choose digital and almost every professional has switched from it to digital. So it seems not to be the preferred choice with almost anyone really.
Satisfying to some .. to others, expensive, slow, inflexible, inconvenient, unpredictable, more difficult to learn with, etc etc .... ignore me I am just having a bad day :oI
Why clamour for renaissance?
Strawman is right. It's each to their own ~ for whatever reason. It doesn't need to be competitive.
The chances of film either paralleling digital or gaining precedence over it is so remote as to not be worth consideration
I own and use a Nikon F5 and an FE. And I thoroughly enjoy doing so.
The F5 bangs lenses into focus with a recoil something like you would expect from a 12 bore shotgun
The FE is so laid back it's virtually horizontal.
I love them both.
But if I go out with the intention of shooting something specific, that I want a selection to chose from and I know will be on my PC this evening & out to print, so that I can have them tomorrow, I'll take the D300 every time.
Horses for courses 
Quote: ...the 'preferred choice...
My current preferred choice is Nikon FE, FM bodies and 50mm, 28mm and 35-70mm zoom lenses. With Fujifilm C41 film.
Focusing is quick, smooth and sure. Exposure is no problem.
And I have both the beard and sandals to match! 
Also handy in the bag, when I need it, is my Agfa Silette. Which produces surprisingly good results - like my original Silette did 50 years ago for me.
CB said some 5 or 6 years ago that he suspected that I was a Nikonite.
I was - but until the welcome arrival of DSLRs I couldn't afford to be. Now I can! Hooray!
I still have the EOS 30 but I prefer the lighter Nikons. I have managed to get the eyepiece correction lenses for them.
The main reason I went for the Canon SLRs in the first place was for autofocus due to ageing eyesight. The Canons appeared to be the best option at the time.
I like to give them an outing occasionally. In truth I enjoy using most of my cameras from time to time.
The advantage of being retired and an amateur 
Happy New Year, John
Happy new year to you as well sir.
I used to have a Minolta SRT100, and tried one recently I forgot how heavy it was. But the biggest memory was the tactile feel of the 50mm prime focusing, well oiled and precise. Plus it was nice to have a clean viewfinder with no Af marks etc.
My first love in photography was an olympus om77 camera . It use to take great pics with the kit lens it came with . Tragedy strucked after having the camera stashed away for six months , I had left the batteries in it. They had exploded and the acid had corroded the internal circuits . kept the lens , bought a OM 88 body. First lesson learn , the body does make a difference as the pics this body took weren't even close with the same lens as those taken with the Om 77 body. Sold it...then a few years down the road I was looking around for an inexpensive slr as I was going on vacation . Tried a few and all took a back seat to the image quality I use to have with my olympus which I was using as a comparison for image quality .
Then I saw a Nikon , can't remember the model. Told the clerk if he would let me test the camera at the store with a roll of film , if I liked the results I would buy it . He told me go right ahead . Bought the film , developed it and bought the camera on the spot . It was great , even better then the olympus . Bad economic times made me sell it . stayed away from photography for a few years. Digital was starting to get going in the market for a few years . Bought me a Nikon P&S. Image quality was ok but the autofocusing on it was a disaster , slowwwww and inaccurate . You guess it , I sold it . Told myself digital still wasn't for me . Two years down the road bought me another p&s. This time doing some research
It was a Canon A640 . It was great . Told myself digital had gotten much better , maybe it was time for a DSLR . Waited two more years , then started to research again . nailed it down to two models . Canon 50D and Nikon D90 . The Canon felt great in my hands but in SLR land I had experience with Nikon so went with the D90 . At first when I saw the photos I told myself...the canon P&S takes pics as good or better then the Nikon , until I magnified the image and saw that I could do so without distorting the image much more then the pics taken with the P&S . Little by little I started to learn to see small differences which now are big because I can spot them easily . Shadows , colors , highlights , not to mention noise were all better then the P&S canon. Gave the Canon to my wife which still has it . Bought some lens and a D7000 which i consider to be a magnificent camera in all respects .
Then I had the urge of going again with film , especially knowing the prices they were going for . Bought me a Nikon F100 in almost mint conditions for 177.00 Dollars . Went to walgreens , got me some Kodak gold 200 , put it in the camera . The grain I had taken for granted in my days with SLR was now very obvious and I did not like it . I do know that depends on the type of film one is using which also changes tonality and saturation .
After having you guys go threw the struggle to read my experiences with cameras 
I consider DSLR photography to be revolutionary rather then evolutionary . The capability for me to see instantly the photograph is priceless in my book and this gives me a way to practice much more the parameters which have to be practiced in order to be a good photographer . In the only area where I consider film to be superior to digital is in dynamics and resolution ( of course using the right film and under the right conditions ) . Apart from this digital has so many advantages that those areas more then make up for the areas where digital is inferior ( even though those differences are slowly fading .) You can get great results with either but digital for me is the way of the future , especially having had the experience I have had up to now with my F100 which is consider by many to be a great camera . What I do see that might be detrimental to developing the necesary skills to be a good photograher is post processing where one can make a so so photograph look great , knowing this some just don't take the necessary steps to get it right straight OOC . But that is a factor which must be considered individually by the photographer as you can still take the necessary time to get it right from the beginning so that PP is just a means to fine tune your image and not to fix it .
This post is exactly what I've been looking for; I've just recently ordered a Nikon film camera which will be used alongside a DSLR. I guess it was triggered by seeing a few old documentaries about David Bailey, etc.. I'm intrigued as to how I'll take to film, so will definitely post back here when I've developed some shots (my school has a darkroom, lucky me!).
Rhys
What i miss about film is the power of luminance , Looking at an image taken on FUJI VELVIA 50 on a big screen spot on exposure, lovely contrast, superb light,
I miss those qualities you get from colour slides, Also getting the slides back for the first time, The anticipation of what you have captured from that four day trip to glencoe absolute magic.
The problem with digital is not the cameras its computers, They are too reliant on them , Sitting for ages using raw converters then photoshop .
I would much rather spend that time out shooting images than sitting in front of a monitor .
However i do appreciate the quality of digital that is shown on PRINTS i think its much better .I have noticed the cleaness of the images from the digital files as apposed to the slightly grainy prints from film
Quote: Also getting the slides back for the first time, The anticipation of what you have captured from that four day trip to glencoe absolute magic.
When you get home, put your memory card in the drawer for 6 days before looking at it. Or post it to yourself second class
Quote: Sitting for ages using raw converters then photoshop
Create standard actions and batch process and it is done in minutes - film is nothing more than a standard effectapplied to multiple photos
Quote: Looking at an image taken on FUJI VELVIA 50 on a big screen spot on exposure, lovely contrast, superb light
You can buy plug-ins that create flm effects - I don't know if Velvia 50 is one of them, though
[quote]Also getting the slides back for the first time, The anticipation of what you have captured from that four day trip to glencoe absolute magic.
When you get home, put your memory card in the drawer for 6 days before looking at it. Or post it to yourself second class
Sitting for ages using raw converters then photoshop
Create standard actions and batch process and it is done in minutes - film is nothing more than a standard effectapplied to multiple photos
Looking at an image taken on FUJI VELVIA 50 on a big screen spot on exposure, lovely contrast, superb light
You can buy plug-ins t
that create flm effects - I don't know if Velvia 50 is one of them, though[/.
Yes you can get different film effects but a digital image on a digital projector is not the same as projecting a 35mm slide on velvia 50 on a projector
As for Batch processing . I would rather individually colour correct and analyse each image as there may be concerning factors involved such as colour correction contrast, sharpening or even softening etc .Applying standard actions for all your images may be quicker but not very consistant in terms of colour correction sometimes a analytical approach to processing can save you time from having to re-do the image geting it right first time is priority to me
Add a Comment
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
Login or Join Now
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Related Content
Join Our Free Newsletter
Awards
Current Competitions
foliopic 'Movement' Competition
1st May 2012 - 31st May 2012
This month's competition theme is 'Movement' which can be interpreted in a number of ways. You could photograph an animal running, a person walking or a car speeding...
Featured Directory Listing
May's Photo Month
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
Interact
Photography Gallery Photography Forums Recent Forum Activity Members' Meetings Members' BlogsSearch ePHOTOzine
Having trouble or would like to make a suggestion? Create a report
Calibrate your monitor so you can see 16 different shades.
ePHOTOzine © 2001 - 2012 Magezine Publishing | Contact Us | Site Map | Top