3 ms·

It is indeed sad. Kodachrome 200 was my favorite film. I loved the way it would go blue when overexposed and red when underexposed. I even have a panroamic p

by waivej 16y ago

It is indeed sad. Kodachrome 200 was my favorite film. I loved the way it would go blue when overexposed and red when underexposed. I even have a panroamic photo on my wall I took at "Kodachrome Canyon". It was named because the red rocks worked well with the film. Though by then I was shooting on a Canon G1 and only used an old roll as a prop. Once I went digital I never looked back.

Retric 16y ago
Presumably you should be able to setup a digital filter to apply the same effect to any source image.
- potatolicious 16y ago
  The feel of the colours, perhaps, but not the dynamic range. I used to think this was film-nerd wankery, but now that I'm shooting a lot of film (particularly B&W), the difference is immense. Digital sensors have not yet come even close to the dynamic range of film. For non-photographers: you know that shot where your friend is standing over the railing with the ocean behind him that you can never get? Where he's either pitch black with a beautiful ocean behind him, or he's properly lit and the background is pure white? Welcome to dynamic range limitation. The popularity of HDR as an imaging technique is just one of the things that have evolved to make up for the lacklustre performance of digital sensors, especially when it comes to high-contrast landscapes.
  - MartinCron 16y ago
    you know that shot where your friend is standing over the railing with the ocean behind him that you can never get? Where he's either pitch black with a beautiful ocean behind him, or he's properly lit and the background is pure white? Also for non-photographers, when it's really bright outside, put the sun behind your subject and use your on-camera-flash for fill. It's magic :)
  - Retric 16y ago
    You can get high dynamic range digital cameras but they tend to be expencive and lower resolution.
  - waivej 16y ago
    Slide film like Kodakchrome actually captured a pretty narrow dynamic range. It was harder to get right, but it rewarded you with more "bits" in the colors. For example, I did a test with print film and systematically tried different exposures. The whole roll looked the same. With slides, just being off a few stops would blow the shot. Also, printing on paper would lose half of the range so shooting slide and scanning would have much better digital images. Ironically, the Canon G1 behaved a lot like slide film. The G2 was much more forgiving like print film. These days I find digital to be very forgiving and easy when I might have had trouble with film. (ex: shooting a wedding, it's easy to properly expose a dark suit next to a white dress.) Speaking of BW print film, what are you shooting these days? I used to like Plus-x 125 for the silky tones and Tri-x 400 for the grainier contrast.

by waivej 16y ago

Retric 16y ago

Presumably you should be able to setup a digital filter to apply the same effect to any source image.

potatolicious 16y ago
The feel of the colours, perhaps, but not the dynamic range. I used to think this was film-nerd wankery, but now that I'm shooting a lot of film (particularly B&W), the difference is immense. Digital sensors have not yet come even close to the dynamic range of film. For non-photographers: you know that shot where your friend is standing over the railing with the ocean behind him that you can never get? Where he's either pitch black with a beautiful ocean behind him, or he's properly lit and the background is pure white? Welcome to dynamic range limitation. The popularity of HDR as an imaging technique is just one of the things that have evolved to make up for the lacklustre performance of digital sensors, especially when it comes to high-contrast landscapes.
- MartinCron 16y ago
  you know that shot where your friend is standing over the railing with the ocean behind him that you can never get? Where he's either pitch black with a beautiful ocean behind him, or he's properly lit and the background is pure white? Also for non-photographers, when it's really bright outside, put the sun behind your subject and use your on-camera-flash for fill. It's magic :)
- Retric 16y ago
  You can get high dynamic range digital cameras but they tend to be expencive and lower resolution.
- waivej 16y ago
  Slide film like Kodakchrome actually captured a pretty narrow dynamic range. It was harder to get right, but it rewarded you with more "bits" in the colors. For example, I did a test with print film and systematically tried different exposures. The whole roll looked the same. With slides, just being off a few stops would blow the shot. Also, printing on paper would lose half of the range so shooting slide and scanning would have much better digital images. Ironically, the Canon G1 behaved a lot like slide film. The G2 was much more forgiving like print film. These days I find digital to be very forgiving and easy when I might have had trouble with film. (ex: shooting a wedding, it's easy to properly expose a dark suit next to a white dress.) Speaking of BW print film, what are you shooting these days? I used to like Plus-x 125 for the silky tones and Tri-x 400 for the grainier contrast.