Kodak Ektachrome film products now shipping globally to distributors and dealers

Ken Rockwell calls it the "real" full frame and I agree. There is too much double-speak these days.

Nah James - my E-M1 is actually "Full Frame 4/3"! Simples, innit! ;-)

Brian

You were the one that wanted film terms back ;-) funny how those wanting FF to be called 35mm, are a lot less enthusiastic about comparing m43 to 110 film which it is the same size as . All joking aside I think the reason that 35mm became FF was simply at the time digital started it was by a huge margin the most common film format and thus became a size reference that most people could relate to.

Actually James, I suggested naming ALL formats in terms of aspect ratio and diagonal distance - so 135 would be (give or take) 42(3:2), and classic 6cm square would be 85(1:1) or somesuch. No more APS-C, or 4/3, or 1/2.7", etc. I would be very happy for my camera's sensor to be described as 21(4:3). I could then instantly compare with with a larger 135/"FF" sensor 42(3:2) or smaller 1/3.0" iPhone camera, as 6(4:3).

Brian

A new Flextight scanner costs $25,000 and can scan at 8,000dpi.

I used to shoot a lot of 6x9 transparency film and scan it with a Polaroid 120 film scanner (4,000 dpi max. but I generally did not scan MF at that high a res.)

You can see results on my gallery and see comparisons to similar images shot with Canon 5DII, 5DIII and Sony A7RII and judge for yourself.

https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/3401543788

I think it would be helpful to some if others posted samples of their results.

Generally speaking yes, its better. But I take your point.

What I remember about slides is that it was very much fun showing them... It was a special event, everyone was looking at the photos at the same time and comenting live... More fun than getting likes in Instagram from people you don't even know...

@IdM, I agree except then the projector broke or the screen went missing and then you never saw the slides again. At least in my parents’ house =( Similarly for the super 8s.

"Not superior, just different."

By every traditional measure of image quality, digital is far superior.

Olifaunt - Well you're right that most film photogs are young people....most of us who grew up with film remember well it's problems and shortcomings. That said, nothing wrong with having film as an option. It's no longer for me but why deny someone else the pleasure (and frustration) of shooting film.

@Clint, I am older and grew up with film, then shot digital only for fifteen years. My experience is the opposite of yours. I always enjoyed what I got back from a good lab, whereas viewing a day of digital shooting on my computer is an exercise in disappointment. In the last year I had enough and I went back to film almost exclusively. I was spending many hours in PP mostly failing to make my digital files beautiful, whereas my film pictures come back great with no need for any PP, good riddance to the bad garbage that is C1/LR. Film images render exactly how I personally see in a way I don't know how to achieve with digital. Most digital images (every one of the sample camera galleries here on DPR, even from top cameras) look drab, glassy, or harsh in comparison. Not a single digital image of mine, even processed to taste, compares to the joy of what I get straightaway from Portra 400, or even cheap Ultramax.

With Ektrachrome, you avoid the darkroom work!

You can send your film to the lab and they'll deliver the scans, even prints if you request. There is the cost of developing and the work of going to the post office to ship the film out.

Olifaunt - If a day's worth of shooting digital is an 'exercise in disappointment' then you're doing it wrong.

Some people, like myself, enjoy spending time shooting and developing film. This is why Kodak have started production again.

@Clint, I'm sure you are right, except... most other people's digital images also look disappointing to me. There are a very small handful of exceptions I know; they must process their files in a special way but I have never hit on a good recipe myself.

"I think this is anachronism for its own sake, or even worse a cynical attempt to extract more money from pensioners."

It's mostly young people shooting film. Most of the old film veterans know digital is far better and left years ago.

"good riddance to the bad garbage that is C1/LR. Film images render exactly how I personally see in a way I don't know how to achieve with digital"

You must have been quite horrible at image editing then.

When there's a digital camera that shoots 6x7, gives me a look that I can get with my 67 and 105mm F2.4 and Kodak Portra 160 and costs me no more £750 then I'll give up film, I'm not holding my breath.

The high resolution 35mm digital cameras can give you better image quality than your 6x7 medium format film camera.

I hate to break it to you, no 35mm camera can control the dof and give me the same aesthetic that the 67 and 105mm F2.4 can, film or digital.

Control DOF? Sure you can. Just use the right lens and aperture. What aesthetic? Like more noise? You can certainly create more noise by shooting at a higher ISO. You sure you're not just looking for reasons to justify shooting film?

Clearly you don't understand what that aesthetic looks like and what the wide angle depth of field effects and out of focus areas look like in larger medium format, so I'll leave you to your pit of ignorance.

I shot medium format film long ago, probably before did. There's nothing magical and mystical about it compared to today's superior digital cameras.

You're right, there's nothing magical or mystical about it, nor did I ever say there was. It's a fact of based on the physics of the larger format. The same as medium format can't achieve the same look as 8x10 due to the same physics. Of course I'm fully aware that such facts don't exist in your world.

Are you now also going to compare large format to digital, to try and advance your bogus argument?

So you dispute that there are aesthetic visual differences in the appearance of images going from 35mm to large format? You are seriously saying that a subject shot by a 50mm @ F2.4 at say 11 metres on 35mm will look exactly the same as if it was shot by the 105mm F2.4 @ F5.6 on 6x7? Because if you are I'd seriously question whether you've ever seen anything shot from Medium format, let alone actually used it.

"So you dispute that there are aesthetic visual differences in the appearance of images going from 35mm to large format?"

See, I knew you would do it. 😊

Medium format is not large format.

Velvia outshone Ektachrome in so many ways.

While I shot Velvia a lot for its punchy colors it certainly was not generally suitable for realistically depicting home interiors, portraits and some other things I shot.

I totally agree with you on film grain over digital FX. I love the old shots from the '60s and '70s of night street photos using Tungsten film. Many pros hated that big grain but I thought it paired perfectly with the contrasts.

T-MAX P3200 was an 800 ISO film that was *meant* to be pushed to 3200 (2 stops) as the Kodak literature stated at the time (800 > 25,000 = 5 stops). The appeal was anyone could shoot it very well between the 3 ISOs. All of us lab folks were surprised just how well it stood up to being pushed 5 stops. I hope the new 3200 will be as good.

"I generally like the grain one gets from silver chemistry more than the "fake" grain people add to digital."

Except the noise (yes visible film grain is considered noise) of both mediums actually look remarkably similar, to the extent that it is fairly easy to match them, which I have done many times. I have said this many times on this site, and I have also said that if you want the general look of film with digital, shoot high ISO RAW, use only color noise reduction and no sharpening. Also, to match the format sizes use a smaller sensor. For example, a 1” sensor shot that way will look much like 35mm film. For example, I have matched the look of ISO 400 35mm color film with ISO 3200 on a 1” sensor.

Of course the film zealots will, as usual, chime in and say they look nothing alike, even after I have proved it recently by posting samples showing what I have described.

I've shot negative film from the 1990s that was still good. Slide film tends to go purple as it ages but might still be salvageable with photoshop. Black and white film lasts a long time, especially if it's slow.

My suggestion - if it's negative film, over-expose it a stop, if it's slide film expose correctly but be prepared to get back purple-looking images. Here's a shot I took in 2015 with some Agfa Precisa that expired in 2009, processed with Photoshop to look good, bearing in mind that it wasn't stored in any special way:
https://i.imgur.com/EkAdaRU.jpg

Painting is completely different thing though. Apple and Oranges.

"And my DSLR still takes Compact Flash media ... so old."
I still hold on to a digicam that takes XD cards, ha ha!

I love the way my babies are rendered on super 8mm film. Of course I have lots of digital video footage as well because it was much cheaper to shoot.. but super 8 was and is special. One is in college now, the other a teen-and I'm so glad I had the retro urge to film them on actual film.

"You will immediately notice how effortlessly "smooth" everything is when shot with film. All the little details and highlights that aren't blown out and seamlessly come together with a soft 3D pop."

Soft and 3D are not words you usually hear at the same time.

The better digital cameras now have better dynamic range than color film. And with other digital techniques and functionality you have a far better chance at getting better highlights, and shadows, with digital than you can with film. And if if your process is entirely analog, forget about it. You'll never realize the full range of film in the darkroom with the ease and precision that you can with digital in the lightroom.

As for the process of shooting film, what's so smooth about it compared to film? It's a cumbersome process fraught with far less control than digital over the final output.

I also thought E-6 is pointless. More expensive, less dynamic range, gotta be careful with exposure. But when you see 120 film frames on light table, the colors pop out and it's better than any print could hope to be (being reflective is big limitation).

The last generation E-6 films have better archival characteristics than K-14 films.