19 ms·

Kodak says it’s bringing back Ektachrome film

149 points by artsandsci 10y ago

stevefeinstein 10y ago
I think this is a good call from Kodak. People are enamored with less accurate reproduction of vinyl records. So it's no surprise that up and coming hipsters will soon be shooting with another media that capture a less accurate version of reality, calling it superior and claiming they like it better.
- tjr 10y ago
  While I've used digital SLRs almost exclusively for about 12 years, there's still something I enjoy about using film. Maybe it is less accurate, but it's less accurate in what I find to be an aesthetically pleasing way. That said, I am surprised that Kodak is bringing back Ektachrome. I find it hard to believe that there would be enough users to warrant this, from a business perspective. I guess we'll see what happens. (I personally prefer Fuji film anyway...)
  - stevefeinstein 10y ago
    Perhaps a larger concern is the chemicals that are required to develop the stuff and making sure they are disposed of responsibly and not just flushed down the drain. There's more important reasons than "liking how it looks". I know people will disagree, but a skilled photoshopper can often reproduce the look and feel of film with digital. And certainly can do things film could never do. I believe it's a good trade-off
    - leejo 10y ago
      > Perhaps a larger concern is the chemicals that are required to develop the stuff and making sure they are disposed of responsibly and not just flushed down the drain. The same argument can be made for the disposal of electronic devices, the half life of digital camera bodies seems to be far shorter than that of film camera bodies. I know of at least one photo project on the subject: http://www.bitrotproject.com/ http://www.bitrotproject.com/ and i'm sure there are others. I think what has happened here, in reference to your original comment, is that the decline of film sales has reached its end state; that being it has stabilized. The fact that there are millions of film camera bodies floating around means there will, at least for the short to medium term (decades), be a market for film. Hipsters or otherwise. > There's more important reasons than "liking how it looks". I know people will disagree, but a skilled photoshopper can often reproduce the look and feel of film with digital. And certainly can do things film could never do. I believe it's a good trade-off I agree, but the film vs digital argument is always reduced to boring technicalities like resolution, sharpness, colour rendering, etc etc. The most important reasons to shoot one camera over another, or one medium over another, is that it will inform your approach and ultimately your results. If you're working on the long term, then that matters.
    - vaskebjorn 10y ago
      > I know people will disagree, but a skilled photoshopper can often reproduce the look and feel of film with digital. But why go through the hassle of photoshopping when you can just get the image out of the camera the way you want it? This is especially the case where you're taking a lot of pictures. All of that photoshopping would be tedious. And why is a more "accurate" photo superior? Like take any famous photo and ask yourself: If the photo showed even more detail would it be better?
      - dublinben 10y ago
        The issue with film is that you can't get an image "out of the camera," it must be developed first. In order to get a usable image, you must know how to properly develop the film yourself, or pay one of the handful of competent remaining labs to develop it for you. It's a much more sustainable process to throw a digital filter on your image.
        macNchz 10y ago
        >The issue with film is that you can't get an image "out of the camera," it must be developed first. In order to get a usable image, you must know how to properly develop the film yourself, or pay one of the handful of competent remaining labs to develop it for you. To some degree I think this is part of the reason that film photograph has retained some appeal. There is no instant feedback, the process forces you to be more deliberate with each photograph, and the techniques to create images with film are becoming more arcane each year. Like many other things that have been made easier by technology, there is often lasting interesting in the art of doing something by hand even if there is an easier/faster/more efficient way to get the same result. See Etsy:IKEA, craft beer:Budweiser, Digital:Vinyl music etc. I see film photography headed towards a similar niche.
        lb1lf 10y ago
        >To some degree I think this is part of the reason that film photograph has retained some appeal. There is no instant feedback Leica took this philosophy to extremes when introducing the M-D a while ago - a digital rangefinder camera with no preview screen. It's one of those Marmite things, apparently. If I wanted to shoot without instant feedback, I'd use a film M, thankyouverymuch - but obviously, YMMV.
    - tomc1985 10y ago
      This might pass in commercial work, but right now only the nicest of digital filters can capture the je-ne-sais-quois of analog. Everything else looks subpar to a trained eye.
    - lllr_finger 10y ago
      Most of it is rather safe. Fixer is the bad part of the process IIRC.
  - Obi_Juan_Kenobi 10y ago
    Most color films aren't designed to capture accurate colors, they're designed to look good. Portra, Velvia, the various -chromes, etc. are all deliberately inaccurate. What you like about film is the color grading that the emulsion engineers designed for you. Film-emulating post-processing is getting there, but it's not there yet. Even with a good digital capture that keeps the highlight information, it's very difficult to get a good film look. It's more than just curves adjustments. I've played around with some software that tries to simulate the chemical development process, and that seems on the right track, but it's not there yet. I tend to think this would be a good application for ML if someone did the work to take side-by-side images with a given film and digital.
- jannyfer 10y ago
  Film isn't necessarily less accurate than digital capture, especially with film cameras that do automatic exposure and focus. Film uses chemical reactions to capture light, and digital uses electrical signals. Accuracy is based on how we map these to their true colours. Digital would make sense to be more precise (not accurate) than film, though.
  - deeth_starr 10y ago
    It depends if you are talking about detail or color accuracy. I shot medium format for years until digital just passed it by on both.
  - StRoy 10y ago
    Film is automatically much worse any time you need higher sensitivity because of low light situations and can't use a tripod or need to capture a more mobile target. 400 iso film in 35mm format is noisier than any modern DSLR used in 3200+ iso settings, any, even entry-level $400 Canon or Nikon. Also, in terms of level of details it has been possibly a decade since DSLR have become much better than 35mm film. Medium and large format film was still better for a longer amount of time, but medium format cameras are a lot more cumbersome and large format cameras are something only the most dedicated would ever bother to carry anywhere. This is one of the smallest medium format camera for comparison : https://melbournestreetphotography.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/dsc_6129.jpg?w=500 https://melbournestreetphotography.files.wordpress.com/2013/... And it's a rangefinder, so it's basically unusable with telephoto lenses. Mirror based medium format cameras like the Hasselblad were things that pretty much never left indoor studios.
    - PeanutNore 10y ago
      I take my Bronica ETRSi all over the place.
    - lllr_finger 10y ago
      Correction: 35mm is grainier, not noisier. After staring at grain vs color noise in shadows for hours at a time, the aesthetics of grain are one of the reasons I still shoot film sometimes.
- necessity 10y ago
  Good luck buying a large format digital camera with a high quality sensor, it'll cost you an arm and a leg. Film cameras are super cheap, you can get 35mms for free on yard sales or Craigslist. Their lenses also. A high quality 50mm prime lens with an old mount is absurdly cheap compared to its modern equivalent used on digital cameras - you can even get high quality prime lenses for free if you're ok with manual focus.
  - NegativeK 10y ago
    For some mounts, 40-50 year old lenses still work. The breakdown isn't film/digital; it's manufacturers deciding to (or not to) retain backwards compatibility for forward flexibility.
- brennen 10y ago
  > People are enamored with less accurate reproduction of vinyl records. I just did a quick estimate and would say that there're around 300 vinyl records in my household, which I suppose is at the low end for people I know with a record player. A few years back, I owned one or two at most, and didn't have a functional player. That seems to have shifted similarly for a lot of people. You can buy the things new at such resolutely unhip outlets as Barnes & Noble, if you're so inclined. I'll be pretty happy if vinyl settles into a role as the end-state consensus equilibrium of physical media for music, which is roughly what seems to be happening. Still-playable records encompass most of the era of recorded music, require no digital computation to play, and are substantial enough as artifacts to incentivize paying money for units of art. They're also physically attractive objects with attendant ritual protocols that are easily legible across every living generation. Accuracy of reproduction is, above some baseline threshold, not the real concern here. All of which, I guess, is just to say: You're probably right that this is unsurprising. There's a market. "Hipsters" is a convenient shorthand, but it's worth remembering that technologies usually have important properties which are lost to succeeding modes of tech, even when things like the appearance of film grain can in theory be easily reproduced by a filter or what have you. We use the new stuff and we forget the real dimensions of the old stuff.
  - huehehue 10y ago
    You're right about the ritual, and the inherent limits caused by physical things (1s and 0s notwithstanding). Digging a record out and dealing with a sound system is more work than opening up Spotify. You're also not already on your computer, surrounded by distractions. So, being invested in the process and having to make deliberate steps to engage in something else encourages people to focus more on the music and the experience. Also, and this sentiment is probably a meme or something, but I feel that being able to take unlimited pictures has hurt casual photography. The extreme example here is people living through their phones, taking pictures of every bite of food, etc. A disposable camera really made me think about each picture I took (limited # photos, paying for the camera, have to go get them developed).
    - lb1lf 10y ago
- beat 10y ago
  Hah. Hah. Most people talking about "accurate" have no idea wtf they're talking about. I'm a musician, and I've produced records. At best, vinyl vs digital reproduction aren't "better" than one another, just different. But personally, I think vinyl can be more true to the music. Start with dynamic range, since that's one of the spots where the "But it's more accurate!" people get it wrong. In theory, cd has far more dynamic range than vinyl. In practice, it has great deal less! This is a result of modern "loudness war" mastering. Most modern albums have less than 6db of actual dynamic range. Listen to something with more range than that, and it sounds flat and lifeless. Vinyl is usually mastered with significantly more dynamic range, but sounds more open and breathy - the way more dynamic range should sound. And why is this? Because either way, most audio reproduction equipment is in no way able to reproduce the sound of instruments in an "accurate" way. You cannot shove the massive sound of a 100 watt Marshall stack through a pair of iPod earbuds, any more than you can look accurately at the Grand Canyon through a pinhole. So records are a miniature of a real sound. The entire recording, mixing, and mastering process is built around trying to capture the essence, the spirit of the original sound (or an ideal sound) in a way that can be reproduced on car stereos, cheap headphones, and the like. And the sound itself isn't exactly accurate, not on a record where the acoustic guitar is as loud as the drum kit! Accuracy. Hah.
  - Nition 10y ago
    I'm in audio too, and while what you say is true, it feels kind of like saying digital photography is worse than film if everyone's shooting with their exposure set five stops up. Then you can say "digital's clearly worse - look how blown out it all is!" The loudness war is unfortunate, but a CD can be used properly to have plenty more dynamic range and plenty less noise than a record. There are other benefits to analogue formats though, like soft clipping.
    - beat 10y ago
      Well, yeah. But that's a different issue than the "accuracy" line that's brought up by dudes who don't play instruments and have never mixed a song (or alternately, have little experience at professional-level photography and couldn't tell you the three factors of exposure if you asked).
- 6stringmerc 10y ago
  Ever used a manual typewriter? I've got a lovely West German Olympia I picked up used. Very authentic writing experience...how authentic? It actually hurts after enough effort. If every keyboard took the same amount of effort as the typewriter, 80% of the internet chatter would be gone because of the amount of physicality involved.
- analog31 10y ago
  An odd benefit of vinyl records is that they're harder to copy, especially if the listener actually wants vinyl. Thus, the choice to distribute on vinyl might be a way to generate a return on the cost of recording.
  - delbel 10y ago
    vinyl records can be copied easily (even mass produced) with silicone rubber and liquid plastic resin. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdeWyBxL6Oc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdeWyBxL6Oc
neom 10y ago
Awesome. In all seriousness, I'm so sick of seeing hyper sharp images with 36 stops range either side.
- cartoonfoxes 10y ago
  Not actually sure if serious. I've spent a very significant part of the last 20 years of my life staring into screens. I love low-tech analog media. If nothing else, it's a great way to relax and break free from my work life.
  - jolux 10y ago
    i find digital cameras and post-processing software endlessly fiddly. as my photography teacher says, "you want to take photos? buy a dslr. you want to make art? shoot silver halide."
    - sjwright 10y ago
      It sounds like your photography teacher cares more about gear than technique.
      - jolux 10y ago
        no, the teaching is all about technique and he teaches digital too. this is just his personal opinion and was in no way central to the teachings of the class.
        sjwright 10y ago
        If he actually cared about technique he wouldn't have said anything remotely like what you quoted. Even if it was hyperbole. The only difference between film and digital is the set of limitations. Arbitrary limitations can be instructive - e.g. fixed focal lengths, monochrome, limited shutter counts. They can also be pointlessly stifling, e.g. tediously long feedback loops.
- 10y ago
deeth_starr 10y ago
But who will develop it? That's going to be damn expensive. That's why I have all my b&w gear still. If I get the bug to shoot film I can develop it myself.
- 4ad 10y ago
  Ektachrome is E-6, like all other transparency film used today. Anybody can develop it (for cheap).
  - deeth_starr 10y ago
    Interesting. I never did E-6 processing. But I have to say it's a lot more involved processing than b&w [1]. But nice to have a color process to do from home. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-6_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-6_process
    - lb1lf 10y ago
      Been there, done that. My friendly recommendation would be that you don't go there without a very good semi-automated development system. E6 chemistry is incredibly picky about the temperature it is being used at; unless you've got proper temperature control (or, at worst, a large tub of water at the right temperature to act as a thermal buffer), you're in for a world of hurt. Granted, I took a bit of a cavalier attitude towards the whole thing at the start ("I've processed B&W (literally, not a figure of speech) hundreds of times - how hard can this color thingy really be?") I was promptly humbled. I still shoot slide film (in 6x9 and 4x5, where digital isn't an option for mere mortals) - but leave the processing for professionals. The money saved by doing it myself simply wasn't worth the added strain from doing it all so painfully accurate as you possibly could, only to find the results sub-par
      - aaronbrethorst 10y ago
        Where do you have your large format slide film processed? I purchased a Jobo tank recently so I could do 4x5 C-41 at home, since neither of the shops in Seattle that still develop film are willing to do sheets.
KaiserPro 10y ago
I shoot digital almost exclusively. However for a wedding in Tuscany I went with a medium format older than most of america, and a 35mm rangefinder (along with my nikon and stock 30mm prime lens) First things: Film is a massive faff. Xrays, heat, light. All pains. However each film type has a different way of handling/rendering light. I had: o Ektar 100 (120mm) o portra 160 (35mm) o Ilford XP2 135 (35mm) First things, unlike digital, it gracefully degrades when you are operating around the edges of high exposure. Shooting into the bright summer sun yields really pleasing results (details in both sky and subject[1][2]) the Ilford makes everything look like a picture from a local news article. But, I'm not a film purist. I was in VFX for the apogee of 35mm film. I know how much of an utter faff it can be. Digital Cinema cameras have surpassed film by quite a way. (unless they are latter generation RED cameras, those things are colour blind.) A decent full frame 35mm digital will probably beat a film medium format comfortably on colour reproduction, resolution and clarity. But Damnit, film just looks "real" [1]in most digital cameras, everything is log, so most of the information is in the lower exposure ranges, however there are complications. [2] the scanner of course is log as well, but you can do things to get around it.
- japhyr 10y ago
  > A decent full frame 35mm digital will probably beat a film medium format comfortably on colour reproduction, resolution and clarity. But Damnit, film just looks "real" Do you have a clear sense of why film looks "real" to you? Is it because film is a more accurate rendering of how we perceive light, or is it because you grew up on film? There were plenty of films that didn't represent the real world accurately, and plenty of digital filters that don't either. But I find that the default settings for most digital cameras look about as realistic as the default settings for most film cameras did when I was growing up in the 80s and 90s.
  - platz 10y ago
    I find the default settings for most digital cameras over-sharpen, blow out highlights, and create color fringes which looks less realistic. though, sure, certainly all photos have a psychological component, and film may also look more "real" (absent significant defects) because culturally been ingrained. Once the culture changes, it will probably be film which looks less real over time. I wouldn't attribute it to individual tastes, though.
Theodores 10y ago
"Kodak" exists as much as 'Standard Oil' does, this is Kodak Alaris, 'a separate company owned by the UK-based Kodak Pension Plan'... This film is just a branded product like the Polaroid branded TVs, someone has thought 'what can we stick this Kodak logo on...' and thought 'film! We can make money out of that, or at least some money.'
- smilekzs 10y ago
  Well if they manufacture E100 with exactly the same chemistry and process (considering they still own the IP) then it's the same damn film.
- PeanutNore 10y ago
  The factories in Rochester where they make the film never stopped making the film. Ektachrome took a 5 year break, sure, but they've been making Tri-X and Portra and Vision3 cinema film etc. the entire time. It might be technically a different company than Eastman Kodak was, but it's not like they've subcontracted out the production to the Chinese and just kept the brand name.
  - patrickmay 10y ago
    Tri-X is still available in 35mm? Got a link, please?
    - gaius 10y ago
      Here you go: https://www.7dayshop.com/camera-film-supplies/kodak-professional-tri-x-400asa-35mm-black-and-white-print-film-135-36-exposure https://www.7dayshop.com/camera-film-supplies/kodak-professi...
    - citruspi 10y ago
      Amazon - https://www.amazon.com/Kodak-Tri-X-400TX-Professional-Black/dp/B000I2JI3A https://www.amazon.com/Kodak-Tri-X-400TX-Professional-Black/... B&H - https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/29170-USA/Kodak_8667073_TX_135_36_Tri_X_Pan.html https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/29170-USA/Kodak_86670...
aaronbrethorst 10y ago
Ooh, in even better news, Kodak's apparently "investigating Kodachrome, looking at what it would take to bring that back" https://petapixel.com/2017/01/09/kodak-investigating-take-bring-back-kodachrome/ https://petapixel.com/2017/01/09/kodak-investigating-take-br...
jrapdx3 10y ago
As one who has been a photographer for 50 years I have a great appreciation for the technologies involved. Digital imaging has advantages to be sure, but I think it's best to think of film vs. digital as two distinct media with only superficial resemblance. That's very similar to acrylic vs. oil painting, which, for very good reasons are considered distinct media. In the world of art, "old" media don't really die, interest may come and go but never disappears completely. Casein-based paints were used in ancient Egypt, egg tempera dates to the middle ages, oil painting goes back 600 years, etching was invented in the 1400's. BTW acrylic paints are very recent inventions, products innovated by Bocour and Golden in the 1940's, modern forms coming available in the early 1960's. But despite its technological benefits older techniques are hardly obsolete. Same with digital vs. film. They are different media with distinct aesthetics. Film will never die, and that's a very good thing for the sake of the art of photography. The revival of Ektachrome is a heartening sign, but I sure wish Kodachrome were still around, there has never been any medium that was its equal.
- Koshkin 10y ago
  > Film will never die But this is not just about film. One has also to be able to create high-quality prints, for people to be able to appreciate the image and understand the reason the artist has gone through all the trouble. Using film in cinematography, on the other hand, no longer makes sense at all, especially as more and more computer-generated imagery is being used - just as it would make little sense to use film to record still images that were generated by a computer.
  - Nition 10y ago
    Similar issues with using tape vs. digital in recording studios.
- rhapsodic 10y ago
  >The revival of Ektachrome is a heartening sign, but I sure wish Kodachrome were still around, there has never been any medium that was its equal. Indeed. It gave us those nice bright colors, it gave us the greens of summers, it made you think all the world was a sunny day.
cathartes 10y ago
Working with film was fun. It imposed many subjective qualities to one's imagery that do appeal to me--and when it worked, it worked well. But when it didn't, it was very frustrating. I honestly don't miss film or the perishable chemicals. If I'm up for pain, I'll go out shooting with just my Sigma DP Merrills and work the proprietary raws in SPP--that's as close to the "fun" of film I get, nowadays ...
photigragraphy 10y ago
As a 'millennial' hobby photographer that enjoys working with film cameras this is great news! However I find some of these comments disheartening. There is a lot of discussion of the merits of film versus digital capture which really isn't the point or why someone would necessarily choose to shoot film today. Much like how a better camera doesn't automatically take better photos the same goes with the film vs digital debate. A camera, and film/digital sensor, is a tool that is used accomplish an ends (capturing an image). One tool might be easier to use or have more control or some other quality of preference. Similarly, a given film might subjectively have a preferred color palette or a sensor have more flexibility. I shoot film because it requires me to slow down and think about each shot; I can't fallback on "guess and check" for exposure or composition. Another thing to note is that much of the film market (both pro and consumer) have stabilized in recent years. Kodak (also Kodak Alaris) and the other manufacturers have adapted to be able to meet the lower demand of a niche market. A great example of this is Ilford. Anyway, I am just excited to have an excuse to shoot some slides this year!
- andrei_says_ 10y ago
  One thing that film gives me is a physical representation of reality as light bounced off of it at the time of me pressing the shutter. This, for me, is an act of alchemy, a bit of magic, which brings a special kind of awe and changes my attitude to the scene, to the moment I am taking the photo, and thus changes the outcome. I rarely shoot film, but when I do, it feels special.
  - eyeinthepyramid 10y ago
    it's funny that that has become more special than transmogrifying reality into an ethereal form represented by numbers, stored by manipulating electricity, and recreated anywhere in the world by transforming electricity into light
  - pmoriarty 10y ago
    Electricity is pretty magical too, if you stop to think about it. Most things are pretty magical, in a way, if you really think about them.
PeanutNore 10y ago
Photographers who still enjoy film do so for the same reason that a lot of guitarists still enjoy tube amplifiers: it's reproduction is less accurate, but it's inaccurate in an aesthetically pleasing way.
- jrockway 10y ago
  I don't think that's particularly fair. With a sheet of 4x5 film, I can capture much more information than any digital camera on the market; even the $50,000 100MP "medium format" system cameras. Film has the disadvantages inherent in a chemical process; time and chemicals are required. But in terms of maximum information capture with minimum equipment cost, it wins. If anything, the shortcuts that digital photographers take degrade the quality of the image. The tiny image circle of DSLR lenses means that you can't control the image at the time of exposure, and have to use information-destroying transforms in post-processing. In the end, it doesn't matter, art is art, and jacking up all the colors to a million gets you the likes on 500px. Nobody will notice that the lighting was poor or that some of your square-at-the-time-of-exposure pixels are now rectangles. (That's why everything in the grocery store contains sugar. Nobody ever complaints about too much color, and nobody ever complains about too much sugar. It's a great way to make something mediocre delicious for the mass market!) But there is some value in getting it right in-camera, if only for the sense of achievement.
  - pedrocr 10y ago
    People used to make similar arguments about 35mm film. Now that that's firmly surpassed I guess 4x5 will do. 4x5 is only 16x the area of a 35mm sensor so it's not too far away, you will have to soon move on to 8x10 to make the same argument :)
    - lightedman 10y ago
      "People used to make similar arguments about 35mm film. Now that that's firmly surpassed" Nanoparticle films are coming out. Gigapixel resolution in 35mm format.
dharma1 10y ago
I wish there was a cheap, automated service where I could post rolls of film for developing, and would get high quality scanned TIFF download links in my email a couple of days later, with the developed negative/prints returned as an optional extra. I think most of the time I would just want the scans though. I love shooting film but it is expensive, and slow.
- lightedman 10y ago
  Used to be you could take a roll of film to a kiosk at a grocery store, toss in a CF card, and you'd get scanned and processed digital negatives right to the card immediately. Of course, once film went away for the most part, so did those kiosks.
- plg 10y ago
  Dunno if it qualifies as cheap or as automated, but Indie Film Lab is awesome: http://indiefilmlab.com http://indiefilmlab.com Mail them your film and they send you a link to d/l the scans, with option to return your negs
  - nathancahill 10y ago
    Second Indie Film Lab as being awesome. About as close to "automated" as you can get.
- artursapek 10y ago
  Support your local photo shop, if you're lucky enough to have one. I've had good experiences at Luster in NYC[1] [1] https://www.google.com/maps/place/Luster+Photo+%26+Digital+Inc/@40.726912,-73.9826379,19z/data=!4m8!1m2!3m1!2sLuster+Photo+%26+Digital+Inc!3m4!1s0x0:0x7f33c8feabaf7580!8m2!3d40.7264889!4d-73.9833847 https://www.google.com/maps/place/Luster+Photo+%26+Digital+I...
- skeletonjelly 10y ago
  There's a place near me that I'm about to try that does exactly that plus they have dropboxes in city areas http://hillvale.com.au/dropbox-locations http://hillvale.com.au/dropbox-locations They don't print, you just get an option of paying more for hi-res scans (though from the look of it, 5444px x 3649px .JPG @ 72 P.P.I for 35mm film)
pklausler 10y ago
I shoot digital now, but I still get that darkroom feeling by processing my images from NEF (raw) to PGM/PPM using code that I wrote myself (C and Haskell). My algorithms may not be as good as Nikon's or Adobe's, but they do give my images a look that is all my own.
gaoshan 10y ago
Prior to become a web developer I was a photojournalist (staff photog at a mid-sized newspaper) for 10 years starting right before digital started. I always loved working in the darkroom and printing but I do not miss film. Film was just... meh. Limited number of shots, bulky to carry, expense in processing, relatively primitive light sensitivity, color sensitivity, etc. If it were up to me, for hobby purposes I would love to shoot 4x5 or 8x10 tintypes and wet plate collodion. I mean, the quality is spectacular with those processes (especially tintypes) when done perfectly. Otherwise, give me super high quality digital. I'm either going to do it (real) old school or I'm going to choose the tools that limit me the least. Nothing in between.

149 points by artsandsci 10y ago

I think this is a good call from Kodak. People are enamored with less accurate reproduction of vinyl records. So it's no surprise that up and coming hipsters will soon be shooting with another media that capture a less accurate version of reality, calling it superior and claiming they like it better.

tjr 10y ago
While I've used digital SLRs almost exclusively for about 12 years, there's still something I enjoy about using film. Maybe it is less accurate, but it's less accurate in what I find to be an aesthetically pleasing way. That said, I am surprised that Kodak is bringing back Ektachrome. I find it hard to believe that there would be enough users to warrant this, from a business perspective. I guess we'll see what happens. (I personally prefer Fuji film anyway...)
- stevefeinstein 10y ago
  Perhaps a larger concern is the chemicals that are required to develop the stuff and making sure they are disposed of responsibly and not just flushed down the drain. There's more important reasons than "liking how it looks". I know people will disagree, but a skilled photoshopper can often reproduce the look and feel of film with digital. And certainly can do things film could never do. I believe it's a good trade-off
  - leejo 10y ago
    > Perhaps a larger concern is the chemicals that are required to develop the stuff and making sure they are disposed of responsibly and not just flushed down the drain. The same argument can be made for the disposal of electronic devices, the half life of digital camera bodies seems to be far shorter than that of film camera bodies. I know of at least one photo project on the subject: http://www.bitrotproject.com/ http://www.bitrotproject.com/ and i'm sure there are others. I think what has happened here, in reference to your original comment, is that the decline of film sales has reached its end state; that being it has stabilized. The fact that there are millions of film camera bodies floating around means there will, at least for the short to medium term (decades), be a market for film. Hipsters or otherwise. > There's more important reasons than "liking how it looks". I know people will disagree, but a skilled photoshopper can often reproduce the look and feel of film with digital. And certainly can do things film could never do. I believe it's a good trade-off I agree, but the film vs digital argument is always reduced to boring technicalities like resolution, sharpness, colour rendering, etc etc. The most important reasons to shoot one camera over another, or one medium over another, is that it will inform your approach and ultimately your results. If you're working on the long term, then that matters.
  - vaskebjorn 10y ago
    > I know people will disagree, but a skilled photoshopper can often reproduce the look and feel of film with digital. But why go through the hassle of photoshopping when you can just get the image out of the camera the way you want it? This is especially the case where you're taking a lot of pictures. All of that photoshopping would be tedious. And why is a more "accurate" photo superior? Like take any famous photo and ask yourself: If the photo showed even more detail would it be better?
    - dublinben 10y ago
      The issue with film is that you can't get an image "out of the camera," it must be developed first. In order to get a usable image, you must know how to properly develop the film yourself, or pay one of the handful of competent remaining labs to develop it for you. It's a much more sustainable process to throw a digital filter on your image.
      - macNchz 10y ago
        >The issue with film is that you can't get an image "out of the camera," it must be developed first. In order to get a usable image, you must know how to properly develop the film yourself, or pay one of the handful of competent remaining labs to develop it for you. To some degree I think this is part of the reason that film photograph has retained some appeal. There is no instant feedback, the process forces you to be more deliberate with each photograph, and the techniques to create images with film are becoming more arcane each year. Like many other things that have been made easier by technology, there is often lasting interesting in the art of doing something by hand even if there is an easier/faster/more efficient way to get the same result. See Etsy:IKEA, craft beer:Budweiser, Digital:Vinyl music etc. I see film photography headed towards a similar niche.
        lb1lf 10y ago
        >To some degree I think this is part of the reason that film photograph has retained some appeal. There is no instant feedback Leica took this philosophy to extremes when introducing the M-D a while ago - a digital rangefinder camera with no preview screen. It's one of those Marmite things, apparently. If I wanted to shoot without instant feedback, I'd use a film M, thankyouverymuch - but obviously, YMMV.
  - tomc1985 10y ago
    This might pass in commercial work, but right now only the nicest of digital filters can capture the je-ne-sais-quois of analog. Everything else looks subpar to a trained eye.
  - lllr_finger 10y ago
    Most of it is rather safe. Fixer is the bad part of the process IIRC.
- Obi_Juan_Kenobi 10y ago
  Most color films aren't designed to capture accurate colors, they're designed to look good. Portra, Velvia, the various -chromes, etc. are all deliberately inaccurate. What you like about film is the color grading that the emulsion engineers designed for you. Film-emulating post-processing is getting there, but it's not there yet. Even with a good digital capture that keeps the highlight information, it's very difficult to get a good film look. It's more than just curves adjustments. I've played around with some software that tries to simulate the chemical development process, and that seems on the right track, but it's not there yet. I tend to think this would be a good application for ML if someone did the work to take side-by-side images with a given film and digital.
jannyfer 10y ago
Film isn't necessarily less accurate than digital capture, especially with film cameras that do automatic exposure and focus. Film uses chemical reactions to capture light, and digital uses electrical signals. Accuracy is based on how we map these to their true colours. Digital would make sense to be more precise (not accurate) than film, though.
- deeth_starr 10y ago
  It depends if you are talking about detail or color accuracy. I shot medium format for years until digital just passed it by on both.
- StRoy 10y ago
  Film is automatically much worse any time you need higher sensitivity because of low light situations and can't use a tripod or need to capture a more mobile target. 400 iso film in 35mm format is noisier than any modern DSLR used in 3200+ iso settings, any, even entry-level $400 Canon or Nikon. Also, in terms of level of details it has been possibly a decade since DSLR have become much better than 35mm film. Medium and large format film was still better for a longer amount of time, but medium format cameras are a lot more cumbersome and large format cameras are something only the most dedicated would ever bother to carry anywhere. This is one of the smallest medium format camera for comparison : https://melbournestreetphotography.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/dsc_6129.jpg?w=500 https://melbournestreetphotography.files.wordpress.com/2013/... And it's a rangefinder, so it's basically unusable with telephoto lenses. Mirror based medium format cameras like the Hasselblad were things that pretty much never left indoor studios.
  - PeanutNore 10y ago
    I take my Bronica ETRSi all over the place.
  - lllr_finger 10y ago
    Correction: 35mm is grainier, not noisier. After staring at grain vs color noise in shadows for hours at a time, the aesthetics of grain are one of the reasons I still shoot film sometimes.
necessity 10y ago
Good luck buying a large format digital camera with a high quality sensor, it'll cost you an arm and a leg. Film cameras are super cheap, you can get 35mms for free on yard sales or Craigslist. Their lenses also. A high quality 50mm prime lens with an old mount is absurdly cheap compared to its modern equivalent used on digital cameras - you can even get high quality prime lenses for free if you're ok with manual focus.
- NegativeK 10y ago
  For some mounts, 40-50 year old lenses still work. The breakdown isn't film/digital; it's manufacturers deciding to (or not to) retain backwards compatibility for forward flexibility.
brennen 10y ago
> People are enamored with less accurate reproduction of vinyl records. I just did a quick estimate and would say that there're around 300 vinyl records in my household, which I suppose is at the low end for people I know with a record player. A few years back, I owned one or two at most, and didn't have a functional player. That seems to have shifted similarly for a lot of people. You can buy the things new at such resolutely unhip outlets as Barnes & Noble, if you're so inclined. I'll be pretty happy if vinyl settles into a role as the end-state consensus equilibrium of physical media for music, which is roughly what seems to be happening. Still-playable records encompass most of the era of recorded music, require no digital computation to play, and are substantial enough as artifacts to incentivize paying money for units of art. They're also physically attractive objects with attendant ritual protocols that are easily legible across every living generation. Accuracy of reproduction is, above some baseline threshold, not the real concern here. All of which, I guess, is just to say: You're probably right that this is unsurprising. There's a market. "Hipsters" is a convenient shorthand, but it's worth remembering that technologies usually have important properties which are lost to succeeding modes of tech, even when things like the appearance of film grain can in theory be easily reproduced by a filter or what have you. We use the new stuff and we forget the real dimensions of the old stuff.
- huehehue 10y ago
  You're right about the ritual, and the inherent limits caused by physical things (1s and 0s notwithstanding). Digging a record out and dealing with a sound system is more work than opening up Spotify. You're also not already on your computer, surrounded by distractions. So, being invested in the process and having to make deliberate steps to engage in something else encourages people to focus more on the music and the experience. Also, and this sentiment is probably a meme or something, but I feel that being able to take unlimited pictures has hurt casual photography. The extreme example here is people living through their phones, taking pictures of every bite of food, etc. A disposable camera really made me think about each picture I took (limited # photos, paying for the camera, have to go get them developed).
  - lb1lf 10y ago
beat 10y ago
Hah. Hah. Most people talking about "accurate" have no idea wtf they're talking about. I'm a musician, and I've produced records. At best, vinyl vs digital reproduction aren't "better" than one another, just different. But personally, I think vinyl can be more true to the music. Start with dynamic range, since that's one of the spots where the "But it's more accurate!" people get it wrong. In theory, cd has far more dynamic range than vinyl. In practice, it has great deal less! This is a result of modern "loudness war" mastering. Most modern albums have less than 6db of actual dynamic range. Listen to something with more range than that, and it sounds flat and lifeless. Vinyl is usually mastered with significantly more dynamic range, but sounds more open and breathy - the way more dynamic range should sound. And why is this? Because either way, most audio reproduction equipment is in no way able to reproduce the sound of instruments in an "accurate" way. You cannot shove the massive sound of a 100 watt Marshall stack through a pair of iPod earbuds, any more than you can look accurately at the Grand Canyon through a pinhole. So records are a miniature of a real sound. The entire recording, mixing, and mastering process is built around trying to capture the essence, the spirit of the original sound (or an ideal sound) in a way that can be reproduced on car stereos, cheap headphones, and the like. And the sound itself isn't exactly accurate, not on a record where the acoustic guitar is as loud as the drum kit! Accuracy. Hah.
- Nition 10y ago
  I'm in audio too, and while what you say is true, it feels kind of like saying digital photography is worse than film if everyone's shooting with their exposure set five stops up. Then you can say "digital's clearly worse - look how blown out it all is!" The loudness war is unfortunate, but a CD can be used properly to have plenty more dynamic range and plenty less noise than a record. There are other benefits to analogue formats though, like soft clipping.
  - beat 10y ago
    Well, yeah. But that's a different issue than the "accuracy" line that's brought up by dudes who don't play instruments and have never mixed a song (or alternately, have little experience at professional-level photography and couldn't tell you the three factors of exposure if you asked).
6stringmerc 10y ago
Ever used a manual typewriter? I've got a lovely West German Olympia I picked up used. Very authentic writing experience...how authentic? It actually hurts after enough effort. If every keyboard took the same amount of effort as the typewriter, 80% of the internet chatter would be gone because of the amount of physicality involved.
analog31 10y ago
An odd benefit of vinyl records is that they're harder to copy, especially if the listener actually wants vinyl. Thus, the choice to distribute on vinyl might be a way to generate a return on the cost of recording.
- delbel 10y ago
  vinyl records can be copied easily (even mass produced) with silicone rubber and liquid plastic resin. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdeWyBxL6Oc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdeWyBxL6Oc

neom 10y ago

Awesome. In all seriousness, I'm so sick of seeing hyper sharp images with 36 stops range either side.

cartoonfoxes 10y ago
Not actually sure if serious. I've spent a very significant part of the last 20 years of my life staring into screens. I love low-tech analog media. If nothing else, it's a great way to relax and break free from my work life.
- jolux 10y ago
  i find digital cameras and post-processing software endlessly fiddly. as my photography teacher says, "you want to take photos? buy a dslr. you want to make art? shoot silver halide."
  - sjwright 10y ago
    It sounds like your photography teacher cares more about gear than technique.
    - jolux 10y ago
      no, the teaching is all about technique and he teaches digital too. this is just his personal opinion and was in no way central to the teachings of the class.
      - sjwright 10y ago
        If he actually cared about technique he wouldn't have said anything remotely like what you quoted. Even if it was hyperbole. The only difference between film and digital is the set of limitations. Arbitrary limitations can be instructive - e.g. fixed focal lengths, monochrome, limited shutter counts. They can also be pointlessly stifling, e.g. tediously long feedback loops.
10y ago

deeth_starr 10y ago

But who will develop it? That's going to be damn expensive. That's why I have all my b&w gear still. If I get the bug to shoot film I can develop it myself.

4ad 10y ago
Ektachrome is E-6, like all other transparency film used today. Anybody can develop it (for cheap).
- deeth_starr 10y ago
  Interesting. I never did E-6 processing. But I have to say it's a lot more involved processing than b&w [1]. But nice to have a color process to do from home. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-6_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-6_process
  - lb1lf 10y ago
    Been there, done that. My friendly recommendation would be that you don't go there without a very good semi-automated development system. E6 chemistry is incredibly picky about the temperature it is being used at; unless you've got proper temperature control (or, at worst, a large tub of water at the right temperature to act as a thermal buffer), you're in for a world of hurt. Granted, I took a bit of a cavalier attitude towards the whole thing at the start ("I've processed B&W (literally, not a figure of speech) hundreds of times - how hard can this color thingy really be?") I was promptly humbled. I still shoot slide film (in 6x9 and 4x5, where digital isn't an option for mere mortals) - but leave the processing for professionals. The money saved by doing it myself simply wasn't worth the added strain from doing it all so painfully accurate as you possibly could, only to find the results sub-par
    - aaronbrethorst 10y ago
      Where do you have your large format slide film processed? I purchased a Jobo tank recently so I could do 4x5 C-41 at home, since neither of the shops in Seattle that still develop film are willing to do sheets.

KaiserPro 10y ago

I shoot digital almost exclusively. However for a wedding in Tuscany I went with a medium format older than most of america, and a 35mm rangefinder (along with my nikon and stock 30mm prime lens) First things: Film is a massive faff. Xrays, heat, light. All pains. However each film type has a different way of handling/rendering light. I had: o Ektar 100 (120mm) o portra 160 (35mm) o Ilford XP2 135 (35mm) First things, unlike digital, it gracefully degrades when you are operating around the edges of high exposure. Shooting into the bright summer sun yields really pleasing results (details in both sky and subject[1][2]) the Ilford makes everything look like a picture from a local news article. But, I'm not a film purist. I was in VFX for the apogee of 35mm film. I know how much of an utter faff it can be. Digital Cinema cameras have surpassed film by quite a way. (unless they are latter generation RED cameras, those things are colour blind.) A decent full frame 35mm digital will probably beat a film medium format comfortably on colour reproduction, resolution and clarity. But Damnit, film just looks "real" [1]in most digital cameras, everything is log, so most of the information is in the lower exposure ranges, however there are complications. [2] the scanner of course is log as well, but you can do things to get around it.

japhyr 10y ago
> A decent full frame 35mm digital will probably beat a film medium format comfortably on colour reproduction, resolution and clarity. But Damnit, film just looks "real" Do you have a clear sense of why film looks "real" to you? Is it because film is a more accurate rendering of how we perceive light, or is it because you grew up on film? There were plenty of films that didn't represent the real world accurately, and plenty of digital filters that don't either. But I find that the default settings for most digital cameras look about as realistic as the default settings for most film cameras did when I was growing up in the 80s and 90s.
- platz 10y ago
  I find the default settings for most digital cameras over-sharpen, blow out highlights, and create color fringes which looks less realistic. though, sure, certainly all photos have a psychological component, and film may also look more "real" (absent significant defects) because culturally been ingrained. Once the culture changes, it will probably be film which looks less real over time. I wouldn't attribute it to individual tastes, though.

Theodores 10y ago

"Kodak" exists as much as 'Standard Oil' does, this is Kodak Alaris, 'a separate company owned by the UK-based Kodak Pension Plan'... This film is just a branded product like the Polaroid branded TVs, someone has thought 'what can we stick this Kodak logo on...' and thought 'film! We can make money out of that, or at least some money.'

smilekzs 10y ago
Well if they manufacture E100 with exactly the same chemistry and process (considering they still own the IP) then it's the same damn film.
PeanutNore 10y ago
The factories in Rochester where they make the film never stopped making the film. Ektachrome took a 5 year break, sure, but they've been making Tri-X and Portra and Vision3 cinema film etc. the entire time. It might be technically a different company than Eastman Kodak was, but it's not like they've subcontracted out the production to the Chinese and just kept the brand name.
- patrickmay 10y ago
  Tri-X is still available in 35mm? Got a link, please?
  - gaius 10y ago
    Here you go: https://www.7dayshop.com/camera-film-supplies/kodak-professional-tri-x-400asa-35mm-black-and-white-print-film-135-36-exposure https://www.7dayshop.com/camera-film-supplies/kodak-professi...
  - citruspi 10y ago
    Amazon - https://www.amazon.com/Kodak-Tri-X-400TX-Professional-Black/dp/B000I2JI3A https://www.amazon.com/Kodak-Tri-X-400TX-Professional-Black/... B&H - https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/29170-USA/Kodak_8667073_TX_135_36_Tri_X_Pan.html https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/29170-USA/Kodak_86670...

aaronbrethorst 10y ago

Ooh, in even better news, Kodak's apparently "investigating Kodachrome, looking at what it would take to bring that back" https://petapixel.com/2017/01/09/kodak-investigating-take-bring-back-kodachrome/ https://petapixel.com/2017/01/09/kodak-investigating-take-br...

jrapdx3 10y ago

As one who has been a photographer for 50 years I have a great appreciation for the technologies involved. Digital imaging has advantages to be sure, but I think it's best to think of film vs. digital as two distinct media with only superficial resemblance. That's very similar to acrylic vs. oil painting, which, for very good reasons are considered distinct media. In the world of art, "old" media don't really die, interest may come and go but never disappears completely. Casein-based paints were used in ancient Egypt, egg tempera dates to the middle ages, oil painting goes back 600 years, etching was invented in the 1400's. BTW acrylic paints are very recent inventions, products innovated by Bocour and Golden in the 1940's, modern forms coming available in the early 1960's. But despite its technological benefits older techniques are hardly obsolete. Same with digital vs. film. They are different media with distinct aesthetics. Film will never die, and that's a very good thing for the sake of the art of photography. The revival of Ektachrome is a heartening sign, but I sure wish Kodachrome were still around, there has never been any medium that was its equal.

Koshkin 10y ago
> Film will never die But this is not just about film. One has also to be able to create high-quality prints, for people to be able to appreciate the image and understand the reason the artist has gone through all the trouble. Using film in cinematography, on the other hand, no longer makes sense at all, especially as more and more computer-generated imagery is being used - just as it would make little sense to use film to record still images that were generated by a computer.
- Nition 10y ago
  Similar issues with using tape vs. digital in recording studios.
rhapsodic 10y ago
>The revival of Ektachrome is a heartening sign, but I sure wish Kodachrome were still around, there has never been any medium that was its equal. Indeed. It gave us those nice bright colors, it gave us the greens of summers, it made you think all the world was a sunny day.

cathartes 10y ago

Working with film was fun. It imposed many subjective qualities to one's imagery that do appeal to me--and when it worked, it worked well. But when it didn't, it was very frustrating. I honestly don't miss film or the perishable chemicals. If I'm up for pain, I'll go out shooting with just my Sigma DP Merrills and work the proprietary raws in SPP--that's as close to the "fun" of film I get, nowadays ...

photigragraphy 10y ago

As a 'millennial' hobby photographer that enjoys working with film cameras this is great news! However I find some of these comments disheartening. There is a lot of discussion of the merits of film versus digital capture which really isn't the point or why someone would necessarily choose to shoot film today. Much like how a better camera doesn't automatically take better photos the same goes with the film vs digital debate. A camera, and film/digital sensor, is a tool that is used accomplish an ends (capturing an image). One tool might be easier to use or have more control or some other quality of preference. Similarly, a given film might subjectively have a preferred color palette or a sensor have more flexibility. I shoot film because it requires me to slow down and think about each shot; I can't fallback on "guess and check" for exposure or composition. Another thing to note is that much of the film market (both pro and consumer) have stabilized in recent years. Kodak (also Kodak Alaris) and the other manufacturers have adapted to be able to meet the lower demand of a niche market. A great example of this is Ilford. Anyway, I am just excited to have an excuse to shoot some slides this year!

andrei_says_ 10y ago
One thing that film gives me is a physical representation of reality as light bounced off of it at the time of me pressing the shutter. This, for me, is an act of alchemy, a bit of magic, which brings a special kind of awe and changes my attitude to the scene, to the moment I am taking the photo, and thus changes the outcome. I rarely shoot film, but when I do, it feels special.
- eyeinthepyramid 10y ago
  it's funny that that has become more special than transmogrifying reality into an ethereal form represented by numbers, stored by manipulating electricity, and recreated anywhere in the world by transforming electricity into light
- pmoriarty 10y ago
  Electricity is pretty magical too, if you stop to think about it. Most things are pretty magical, in a way, if you really think about them.

PeanutNore 10y ago

Photographers who still enjoy film do so for the same reason that a lot of guitarists still enjoy tube amplifiers: it's reproduction is less accurate, but it's inaccurate in an aesthetically pleasing way.

jrockway 10y ago
I don't think that's particularly fair. With a sheet of 4x5 film, I can capture much more information than any digital camera on the market; even the $50,000 100MP "medium format" system cameras. Film has the disadvantages inherent in a chemical process; time and chemicals are required. But in terms of maximum information capture with minimum equipment cost, it wins. If anything, the shortcuts that digital photographers take degrade the quality of the image. The tiny image circle of DSLR lenses means that you can't control the image at the time of exposure, and have to use information-destroying transforms in post-processing. In the end, it doesn't matter, art is art, and jacking up all the colors to a million gets you the likes on 500px. Nobody will notice that the lighting was poor or that some of your square-at-the-time-of-exposure pixels are now rectangles. (That's why everything in the grocery store contains sugar. Nobody ever complaints about too much color, and nobody ever complains about too much sugar. It's a great way to make something mediocre delicious for the mass market!) But there is some value in getting it right in-camera, if only for the sense of achievement.
- pedrocr 10y ago
  People used to make similar arguments about 35mm film. Now that that's firmly surpassed I guess 4x5 will do. 4x5 is only 16x the area of a 35mm sensor so it's not too far away, you will have to soon move on to 8x10 to make the same argument :)
  - lightedman 10y ago
    "People used to make similar arguments about 35mm film. Now that that's firmly surpassed" Nanoparticle films are coming out. Gigapixel resolution in 35mm format.

dharma1 10y ago

I wish there was a cheap, automated service where I could post rolls of film for developing, and would get high quality scanned TIFF download links in my email a couple of days later, with the developed negative/prints returned as an optional extra. I think most of the time I would just want the scans though. I love shooting film but it is expensive, and slow.

lightedman 10y ago
Used to be you could take a roll of film to a kiosk at a grocery store, toss in a CF card, and you'd get scanned and processed digital negatives right to the card immediately. Of course, once film went away for the most part, so did those kiosks.
plg 10y ago
Dunno if it qualifies as cheap or as automated, but Indie Film Lab is awesome: http://indiefilmlab.com http://indiefilmlab.com Mail them your film and they send you a link to d/l the scans, with option to return your negs
- nathancahill 10y ago
  Second Indie Film Lab as being awesome. About as close to "automated" as you can get.
artursapek 10y ago
Support your local photo shop, if you're lucky enough to have one. I've had good experiences at Luster in NYC[1] [1] https://www.google.com/maps/place/Luster+Photo+%26+Digital+Inc/@40.726912,-73.9826379,19z/data=!4m8!1m2!3m1!2sLuster+Photo+%26+Digital+Inc!3m4!1s0x0:0x7f33c8feabaf7580!8m2!3d40.7264889!4d-73.9833847 https://www.google.com/maps/place/Luster+Photo+%26+Digital+I...
skeletonjelly 10y ago
There's a place near me that I'm about to try that does exactly that plus they have dropboxes in city areas http://hillvale.com.au/dropbox-locations http://hillvale.com.au/dropbox-locations They don't print, you just get an option of paying more for hi-res scans (though from the look of it, 5444px x 3649px .JPG @ 72 P.P.I for 35mm film)

pklausler 10y ago

I shoot digital now, but I still get that darkroom feeling by processing my images from NEF (raw) to PGM/PPM using code that I wrote myself (C and Haskell). My algorithms may not be as good as Nikon's or Adobe's, but they do give my images a look that is all my own.

gaoshan 10y ago

Prior to become a web developer I was a photojournalist (staff photog at a mid-sized newspaper) for 10 years starting right before digital started. I always loved working in the darkroom and printing but I do not miss film. Film was just... meh. Limited number of shots, bulky to carry, expense in processing, relatively primitive light sensitivity, color sensitivity, etc. If it were up to me, for hobby purposes I would love to shoot 4x5 or 8x10 tintypes and wet plate collodion. I mean, the quality is spectacular with those processes (especially tintypes) when done perfectly. Otherwise, give me super high quality digital. I'm either going to do it (real) old school or I'm going to choose the tools that limit me the least. Nothing in between.