4 ms·

> I suspect I will be able to buy film such as Kodak Kodacolor for a long time Check your suspicions again. Kodak has discontinued, in the past few years: *

> I suspect I will be able to buy film such as Kodak Kodacolor for a long time Check your suspicions again. Kodak has discontinued, in the past few years: * Kodachrome * High color Portra films (the VC versions) * Ektachrome (pro and consumer) * Plus-X Pan I suspect consumer negative film is on the way out. You'll be stuck with Ektar and Portra, or maybe just one of those two choices. All of the above films were discontinued before Kodak filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, so perhaps it will only get worse. THE BIG PROBLEM: You cannot inexpensively scan 35mm at high resolution. Photographers have been saying for years that film is great because you can just hang on to your negatives and wait for the prices on good scanners to come down, but my experience is that the nice scanners ($3,000 Nikon Coolscan 9000) yield an actual resolution much closer to 2000 dpi rather than the advertised 4000 dpi. You could also buy a Flextight or a drum scanner for like $12,000, and you can send good frames out for drum scanning at $40 per frame. This means that with a good setup you'll be getting roughly 5+ MP pictures out of your 35mm rig. In most situations, it's not even close to competetive with the quality of a modern 24 MP DSLR with a full frame sensor. It's just a hell of a lot cheaper.

graycat 14y ago
Well, I wrote Kodacolor realizing that Kodak was in Chapter 11 and film is on the way out. But I was hoping that Fuji or maybe something from Europe would be equivalent to Kodacolor, as I recall, called color negative film. But I don't know anything about Fuji film either. On scanning resolution, thanks for the detail. So, the resolution I am getting now at Sam's Club, 1818 * 1228 = 2,232,504 maybe isn't too awful. Apparently getting color negative film scanned to something like the old Kodak PhotoCD is still possible at, say, http://www.twocatdigital.com/scanning.html http://www.twocatdigital.com/scanning.html Their Web site mentions files sizes and file types, but I didn't find much on their resolution in pixels. So, net, right, it looks like a current, high-end, Nikon or Canon full frame 35 mm digital single lens reflex camera or even a movie camera with the Canon CCD sensor of the OP will be much better than color negative film in my old Nikormat on sensitivity, i.e., ASA 'film speed' and resolution. So, if I want to dig into photography again, then I should get a sack full of modern equipment and copies of the relevant Adobe software. In the meanwhile, shooting color negative film and getting it scanned at Sam's Club (if they still do that), Wal-Mart, TwoCat, etc. seems like still a relatively good way to take pictures.

graycat 14y ago

Well, I wrote Kodacolor realizing that Kodak was in Chapter 11 and film is on the way out. But I was hoping that Fuji or maybe something from Europe would be equivalent to Kodacolor, as I recall, called color negative film. But I don't know anything about Fuji film either. On scanning resolution, thanks for the detail. So, the resolution I am getting now at Sam's Club, 1818 * 1228 = 2,232,504 maybe isn't too awful. Apparently getting color negative film scanned to something like the old Kodak PhotoCD is still possible at, say, http://www.twocatdigital.com/scanning.html http://www.twocatdigital.com/scanning.html Their Web site mentions files sizes and file types, but I didn't find much on their resolution in pixels. So, net, right, it looks like a current, high-end, Nikon or Canon full frame 35 mm digital single lens reflex camera or even a movie camera with the Canon CCD sensor of the OP will be much better than color negative film in my old Nikormat on sensitivity, i.e., ASA 'film speed' and resolution. So, if I want to dig into photography again, then I should get a sack full of modern equipment and copies of the relevant Adobe software. In the meanwhile, shooting color negative film and getting it scanned at Sam's Club (if they still do that), Wal-Mart, TwoCat, etc. seems like still a relatively good way to take pictures.