I still use film exclusively for long night time sky exposures. When I am doing an exposure that will last 2-3 hours, digital cannot compare to film. With film, one does not need to worry about digital noise when it comes to long exposures. Also, when I am shooting people portraits, even though I primarily use digitial, I still like to shoot a roll of black and white film. Digital does not provide the range of black, white and gray tones that can be captured with black and white film. I am anxious to try the new Kodak Ektar 100 film.
Please comment briefly on whether or not you have exposed a roll of film in the last six months...and whether or not you might plan to in the coming months!
- Log in or register to post comments
We still own a number of SLRs in 35mm and 645, but I can't see a difference between 13x19 prints from our various digital cameras (4.1 mp Sony - 12.x Fujifilm s7000 deceased Canon 10D) and prints scanned with an Epson 4870 from the slides and negatives. Film costs, digital doesn't (except the cameras wear out faster).
Back in 2001, I shot everything with a pair of Canon EOS 3 film camera bodies, but was curious enough about digital to purchase an Olympus E-10 digital camera. I photographed events shooting digital and film, side by side, relying on my fast handling EOS 3 bodies, with their excellent area auto-focus as my primary tools. However, I soon discovered that my E-10 was the real crowd pleaser among my customers, thanks in large part to the instant playback of images just captured and the ability to provide a few prints on the spot with the Olympus P-200 printer. And, as long as I kept my prints from the E-10 at 4x6, or smaller, no one ever complained about differences in image quality between the two media. My customers were sold on the instant gratification that digital afforded them, and I was sold on the ease with which I was able to get more event bookings as a result of their fascination with these new features. These days, I'm 100% Canon digital, shooting with EOS 40D bodies that are far superior, in terms of construction, burst rate, auto-focus, ease of handling, reliability, and image quality, to the film cameras they replaced. So, for me, there's no going back to film, but that's me. There are still millions of disposable film cameras sold each year, as well as, medium and large format systems that use film, because it's the better choice for those users. So, yes, it makes sense for Kodak to continue to improve it's film products for as long as there is a market for such products. Film is still King in many markets, and will be for a long time to come.
Although I shoot mostly black and white film, Kodak and Ilford. I would like to try the new Kodak color film just to see the difference. I love film and digital equally and use it to suit my mood at the moment. As long as film is still being manufactured, I'll still use it.
I enjoy working with both film and digital. I was given a 1955 Agfa folder 35mm for Christmas and I can't wait to burn a roll. Of course I love people who sell their film cameras for next to nothing at garage sales since they went digital totally.
Just bought a Nikon D90 a month ago. Apart from hating Kodak 200 ASA film, (grain!) I was quite happy with my Nikon F4 and assorted lenses. Where I live in Canada, 100 ASA color print film is very hard to find. A ready supply of 100 ASA film will make me very happy that I did not sell my beloved F4. Shot 6 rolls of Kodak 200 ASA print film in Newfoundland last September. Even at 8 X 12 the grain is horrible. My 5 yr old Fine Pix did a better job!