So there no technical advantage like the film scanner is better then any digital camera you have. If that where the case, I could see it as bypassing the limitations of the digital camera(s). Perhaps like resolution or color accuracy.
True, but who photographed these pictures, just wowed me!
Nope, no technical advantage at all... unless you want to extend the technical qualifications to backups. I've lost digital images to drive failures. Outside of a fire or just plain losing film negatives, it's difficult to disqualify the value of an analog copy. I have negatives from the 80s that serve me just as well as they would straight out of the camera. Apart from dust and scratches that would be likely on a negative that oldRickHaleParker wrote: ↑07 Jun 2021, 23:17 So there no technical advantage like the film scanner is better then any digital camera you have. If that where the case, I could see it as bypassing the limitations of the digital camera(s). Perhaps like resolution or color accuracy.
. Thanks
Ektachrome is E6 process... you should be able to get that done anywhere. It's the common, more modern, far less toxic process to that of Kodachrome. Kodachrome was Kodak's warmer, earlier slide film that went to one of two (?) locations in the US for processing. The chemicals were very toxic. If memory serves, that service shut down around 10 years ago. But you're good. Just Google E6 slide processing and you'll see locations around you who do it.GlennG2759 wrote: ↑08 Jun 2021, 05:59 Who’s the photography expert? Is it possible to have Kodak Ektachrome 64 & 25 slide film developed anymore ? I heard there was a guy in the Midwest that was able to process into B & W prints. Great photos BTW.
Sometimes it just feels good to do something the old way. Artist and musicians may not be able to explain why they do what they do. But, we can try to appreciate what they have done.matthew1 wrote: ↑07 Jun 2021, 20:49Kodak never stopped making Tri-X and some other films, some color. It's so fun.
There is no answer to this that makes people say "of course!", I've found. I suppose I could sum it up by saying it looks better than digital, and the nostalgia, and it makes me a better photographer.RickHaleParker wrote: ↑07 Jun 2021, 20:14 Why Film then digitize rather then use a Digital Camera to record? Seems like a lot more money, time and labor to get the same end results. Would think the extra steps would induce artifacts.
When I'm paying for each frame, I slow down and compose better. I know I could just do this with digital, but I can't. The limited resource nag just isn't in my head using a DSLR as much as I want it to be.
As for looking better, the Eye of the Beholder and all that. When this comes up, I hear the "there are filters to make it look like film," but if I'm going to do that, why not just shoot film? My barriers to entry for film are really not that high. The processing chemicals are good for around 100 rolls for $40, so that's just overhead. Tri-X 36 rolls are $7, so that's not bad. The knowledge barrier to entry I crossed in 1986, so that's not a factor.
The feeling of winding film through a nice SLR or rangefinder is priceless. I have a Leica M6 made in 1988 if memory serves and it's magic. The German engineering is just a joy to hold and use. The sounds, the action, all of it.
If that's not enough, I always have the option to make prints in a darkroom with a negative, a process that we know lasts 100+ years, and maybe lots more, because prints with the same process are that old now, and doing fine.
I'll post a few from yesterday's processing in a minute here...
Hard drive storage has gotten cheap. Perhaps it is time for you to discover RAID storage ( Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks ). With RAID mode 1 (Mirroring) you never loose your data again except in cases of fire, building collapse or falling space garbage.matthew1 wrote: ↑08 Jun 2021, 09:38 For the record, my drive failure was closely followed by my backup drive failure, about 10 years ago. I didn't recover my main drive situation in time (internal drive) to transfer. Or perhaps it was too late already... maybe the backup was already borked. I took the internal in to get fixed/recovered for $1800 (not kidding), and they couldn't even do it after looking at it for a week. It was a 2.5".
