dahlfors Posted January 11, 2017 Author Share Posted January 11, 2017 44 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said: Not trying to argue or start a discussion or anything, but what was the purpose of telling us that in this thread? Where did you hope the discussion would go besides the usual mind numbing "film vs digital" (even tough you know very well that one cant replace the other)? What's the purpose of telling anything technical related in threads on EOSHD? I've myself learnt a great deal on EOSHD, and I've myself picked up quite a lot of news that I probably would not have, had it not been because someone had made a thread about it. So, in the same sense, since I hadn't seen it mentioned on EOSHD before, I figured that the topic would interest others than myself on EOSHD! ...and for the film vs digital for myself: I started out shooting stills on film and I really like the look of film. The practical parts of shooting with digital is keeping me in the digital-only camp for now though. But maybe I'll some day venture back to film - and then I'm really happy if there are some good films left. Hence it makes me happy to read news like this. Rudolf 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonpais Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 Digital has democratized filmmaking. I could also add that all those chemicals used to process Ektachrome are toxic, and hobbyists usually just pour those chemicals down the drain, polluting the environment. So no, I'm not nostalgic for the good old days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonpais Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 1 hour ago, Mattias Burling said: Not trying to argue or start a discussion or anything, but what was the purpose of telling us that in this thread? Where did you hope the discussion would go besides the usual mind numbing "film vs digital" (even tough you know very well that one cant replace the other)? I believe it was you who first said that digital sucks, so I think it's only fair if I come to digital's defense. On 1/7/2017 at 3:34 PM, Mattias Burling said: I believe the reason its coming back is because after all these years digital still can't beat it. Digital is nice but film is nicer. Every time I watch a Blueray of any old movie I blown away of how much digital suck in comparison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudolf Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 1 hour ago, jonpais said: Digital has democratized filmmaking. I could also add that all those chemicals used to process Ektachrome are toxic, and hobbyists usually just pour those chemicals down the drain, polluting the environment. So no, I'm not nostalgic for the good old days. Millions were making films and taking pictures in the past. Maybe Super 8 was more popular than filming with DSLR? Don't think that billions of batteries and old DSLRs are so environmentfriendly. My cameras and projectors are 40 years old and still work. That's possibly better than buying a new camera every year... Back on topic: I think it should be mentioned that we are talking about reversal film here. And that is what makes it so fantastic. As for color stock we only have Vision left and you have to go to Andec-lab in order to let them make a positive. As a filmmaker I always prefer the projection. For me that is the point of film... (I am an enthusiast) ade towell, hansel and Nikkor 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Members Mattias Burling Posted January 20, 2017 Super Members Share Posted January 20, 2017 I've never heard of any fellow film shooter that pours E-6 in the drain... they would be total outcasts in our community. And we can always compare the environmental impact of Chinese camera factories, mountains of "old" digital cameras that quickly gets replaced, trees for their boxes, diesel for the container ships, the batteries, the plants to provide the power, etc. Nothing is good for the environment these days. On Topic! dahlfors and Bioskop.Inc 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Sewell Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 I worked the darkroom for a photography business for a couple of years. I hated the fumes, but I loved the work - there's something magical about beavering away in red/no light, sloshing plastic and paper around in chemicals and seeing magic appear. God I miss Cibachromes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bioskop.Inc Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 Well, this could be a cheaper option for using film & it sounds as if they are making it easy to get everything done under one umbrella. Yes there might be better options out there, but with this camera you get the complete Kodak ecosystem & not some DIY hack job. Will be interesting to see how things progress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
odie Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 Many modern film photographers are portrait and wedding photographers in their 20s and 30s who are looking to “differentiate their art and their work by shooting film,” Almeida tells TIME. “That usually allows them to charge for a premium product because film has a different look and feel than digital.” same goes for me as a filmmaker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeys Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 On 1/9/2017 at 10:33 PM, cpc said: If you are going to scan only, you should probably be shooting negative anyway. Ektar and Portra are excellent for stills, and you have the Vision 3 series for motion pictures. Ektar in particular delivers chrome-like saturation at very fine graininess. Scanning chromes is trickier in a sense, and requires more from the scanner. Still, pretty cool to have Ektachrome back so soon after its demise, it makes beautiful punchy pictures. My experience in scanning has been the opposite for me - a modern reversal always seemed to scan better than say, Portra 160 NC. This was on a Nikon Coolscan though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.