[Ben_Edict]

That works well if you will be there for a while. A lot of my older slides have the imprint of a Kodachrome processing facility in France. I would be there for a month or more.

However, for a shorter trip, I would be concerned that I would not get the results back before I left that area. If I am trusting the film to the mail, I would probably just as soon pack them in a protective bag and ship them home. Airline luggage regs have encouraged us to ship more and more of our things, anyway.

In almost any larger city you'll find a pro lab, that would develop the film within hours. No need to do mailings. For such a small number of films, the extra expense is really not worth talking about.

Ben

[GeneV]

In almost any larger city you'll find a pro lab, that would develop the film within hours. No need to do mailings. For such a small number of films, the extra expense is really not worth talking about.

Ben

That's certainly true if you have the time and the communication abilities to hunt down such a lab, get there and come back for the film. I think many people who are traveling find that inconvenient and also a bit unsettling, since they don't know if they are dealing with a good lab which will follow through as promised. I would have some concern about whether I picked well in any city I didn't know, regardless of the country.

[tuco]

I almost never use filters on film.

My perspective is that when you shoot on film, the point is more on feeling than on technical perfection (digital SLR are better on every point now)


Anyway, film is really a matter of feeling, so if you feel better with your MX, then go ahead. But don't focus on technical perfection, this is not what film will bring to you.

Hm, I take it you were never good at film and never shot anything larger than small format to make that statement. When I look at a the digital fantasy pictures all over-edited in the graphics editor on fliker, I wonder which medium is representing reality more accurately today

[GeneV]

Hm, I take it you were never good at film and never shot anything larger than small format to make that statement. When I look at a the digital fantasy pictures all over-edited in the graphics editor on fliker, I wonder which medium is representing reality more accurately today

Hmm. I wonder sometimes how much the Lomography craze has affected attitudes in general on film--or even medium format.

I would tend to agree that the general public seems to be able to get something more technically correct with modern digital equipment with less of a learning curve,... but it is also easy to create fantasy. The look of film is different, and it can be more "realistic" or less "realistic" than digital. That is the choice of the photographer.

[Steve Beswick]

...(digital SLR are better on every point now)...
...But don't focus on technical perfection, this is not what film will bring to you. ...

My P3n and my Super Program both have light meters that are far more accurate than the one in my K10d. Heck, winging it using the sunny 16 rule is often more reliable. And if you think that technical perfection is unatainable with film I will simply suggest that you study the works of Ansel Adams.

[titrisol]

I skipped commenting on that one.... technical perfection?
Film cameras provide that and more, is not the ball but the footballer that scores.
35mm was a step down from view cameras; just like D-photo is a step down from 35mm. Yet the novelty and geekyness makes people think is a step up. Ghosts, purple fringing and many other defects have appeared with D-photo and people blame them on the lenses... not on the sensors being faulty or too small

I was reading a very good article about how photography is being taught now; by people that do not make a living out of it and that have not taken the time/effort/pain of experimenting and finding the joy of it. I believe it was in PhotoTechnique magazine

My P3n and my Super Program both have light meters that are far more accurate than the one in my K10d. Heck, winging it using the sunny 16 rule is often more reliable. And if you think that technical perfection is unatainable with film I will simply suggest that you study the works of Ansel Adams.

[marianozz]

Hi guys, im back home with 11 rolls to develop

Hopefully everything went well, im going to get a tank and chemicals this week, so i do them myself and then scan them. Then, ill pick the ones i like most and try to print them somewhere (on real paper, with an enlarger and everything...)

Ill post some as soon as i can tho, and thanks again to everyone for tips and all

[Ben_Edict]

Hi guys, im back home with 11 rolls to develop

Hopefully everything went well, im going to get a tank and chemicals this week, so i do them myself and then scan them. Then, ill pick the ones i like most and try to print them somewhere (on real paper, with an enlarger and everything...)

Ill post some as soon as i can tho, and thanks again to everyone for tips and all

Great. I hiope you enjoyed your trip, though the weather was abysmal in large parts of Europe during your stay!

Ben

[goddo31]

Hi guys, im back home with 11 rolls to develop

Hopefully everything went well, im going to get a tank and chemicals this week, so i do them myself and then scan them. Then, ill pick the ones i like most and try to print them somewhere (on real paper, with an enlarger and everything...)

Ill post some as soon as i can tho, and thanks again to everyone for tips and all

Awesome, I'm looking forward to seeing these too

[GeneV]

Hm, I take it you were never good at film and never shot anything larger than small format to make that statement. When I look at a the digital fantasy pictures all over-edited in the graphics editor on fliker, I wonder which medium is representing reality more accurately today

Funny, last night I was doing pp and cropping on some shots that included both digital and film scans to make a card for my wife's birthday. The digital shots seem to be such small files, and it seems like I got to the pixels quickly when I cropped down.