Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-18-2014, 10:54 AM   #46
Forum Member
Beaugrand's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 63
There are no labs anywhere that develop Kodachrome any more. None. It can only be processed as BW, using an alternative process.

For years, I had my film developed only, then I scanned the negatives and processed as digital images. Most retail stores no longer return the negatives, so I have to use a professional lab (expensive) or mail order (not quite as expensive).

I develop my own B&W, it's not difficult. I have no desire to process my own color film, so I have my color negatives (and monochrome BW, like CN400) developed via mail order. I haven't done any developing in 6 months, and I'm right at the point of determining if I want to continue with film at all. It is more trouble than digital.

I will likely dispose of (sell) most of my film camera collection, so others can enjoy them, keeping a handful of favorites for my own use.

02-18-2014, 11:20 AM - 1 Like   #47
Site Supporter
gofour3's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 5,119
QuoteOriginally posted by Beaugrand Quote
There are no labs anywhere that develop Kodachrome any more.
Yep I sent my last batch to Dwayne's in October 2010, a few months before they shudown Kodachrome processing. Kodachrome still the best colour film ever made.

Phil.
02-18-2014, 12:48 PM   #48
Lens Buying Addict
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 19,435
QuoteOriginally posted by gofour3 Quote
Yep I sent my last batch to Dwayne's in October 2010, a few months before they shudown Kodachrome processing. Kodachrome still the best colour film ever made.

Phil.
Did you keep a roll in the crisper drawer for posterity?
02-18-2014, 01:33 PM   #49
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Hamilton, Texas
Photos: Albums
Posts: 634
QuoteOriginally posted by stormcloud Quote
how does 35mm film translate to aprox Mp value? if its more than 16.2 cant be obsolete
There is no direct translation, it doesn't really work that way. However... I remember reading somewhere about an expert who did some tests using a drum scanner and estimated that fine-grained 135-format color film, under ideal conditions, could capture roughly the same image detail as a 24 MP sensor.

In actual practice, and not having access to a drum scanner (and definitely not making optical prints), I find that 6 MP is usually more like it. That puts it on par with my K100D, except that the film would have much better dynamic range. I end up looking at most of my photos on a 24-inch monitor, and at that size 6 MP images (from the K100D or scanned from film) look a bit soft. 16 MP digital images look clearer. Yes, I know the monitor itself is something like 2.3 MP, but somehow the difference remains visible when photos are scaled to fit.

More than a year ago a freak storm blew the roof off our local grocery store here. Afterwards it seemed like everybody in town drove past sticking their phones out the car window to grab a snapshot. I showed up with a hodgepodge of digital and film cameras. My best results came from my Ricoh Diacord G with Kodak Ektar 100 (yes, it comes in 120 format). It handled the highlights where the sun was shining on all that bare metal better than any of my digicams. I do love the look and colors of Ektar 100. Sometimes we forget that film formulations have improved too! Your film cameras today can take better photos than they did when they were new.

I've also seen situations where digital sensors picked up false colors, or where color detail was lost because of the Bayer filter mosaic. However... Those are uncommon exceptions, and today's digital cameras can take amazing, fantastic photos most of the time. I may not be throwing out my film cameras, but I can't see myself using them as my primary kit anymore either.

QuoteQuote:
intrestingly i ordered a couple rolls of film for my first slr jus tthe other day- a pentax mz-50
I picked up a ZX-5N from fleaBay for nearly nothing. It really is a hero of a camera. It's not too big or heavy, fits perfectly in my hands, and the control scheme is brilliant. The digital world still hasn't come up with anything quite like it for shooting experience. Then I put it next to my OM-D E-M5, at at first glance they look almost the same, and the Olympus has all the modern technology in the world, but... It doesn't have a hand-filling grip, and the user interface can easily trip me up, and the menus... Oh man, what a labyrinth of menus!



02-18-2014, 02:23 PM   #50
Site Supporter
gofour3's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 5,119
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
Did you keep a roll in the crisper drawer for posterity?
Just one of the Kodachrome boxes, which is in my wife’s display cabinet!

I was able to use up all my Kodachrome film and send it to Dwayne's in time.

Phil.
02-18-2014, 02:40 PM   #51
Site Supporter
skunktail's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sydney, NSW
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by stormcloud Quote
intrestingly i ordered a couple rolls of film for my first slr jus tthe other day- a pentax mz-50
Don't discount the MZ-50. I learn't to actually shoot [rather than snap] photos with mine.
I find it one of the easiest cameras to switch between film and digital.

but as Chalion said, using film is about coming home
02-18-2014, 02:40 PM   #52
Veteran Member
jtkratzer's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Lancaster County, Pa
Posts: 660
I found myself on the verge of selling all of my film stuff, which really isn't that much, but I could get more than enough money out of all of it to buy a K-3 and a new lens or two, until I looked through some scanned 35mm stuff I had shot with my LX, KM, and the ME Super my inlaws bought to take baby pictures of my wife. I love the look of film, but sometimes find myself going back and forth with the cost and effort of film vs digital, but there's just something special about these cameras, the lack of computerized interface, and the sounds, and good lord the size of the viewfinders. I wish high quality film wasn't $10+/roll plus the cost of development. I just can't bring myself to get rid of the stuff. I'll never let the ME Super go with the family history, and if I'm going to keep a film camera around, why let the LX go and the kids can use the KM someday to learn the basics of photography.

Watching one of the videos from PhotoUniverse on YouTube nailed it for me yesterday...it's about being a photographer and not a graphic artist/designer...and film does that more easily as you don't get RAWs to manipulate, you get prints or high resolution scans with limited ability to edit them compared to RAWs.
02-18-2014, 02:44 PM   #53
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,167
QuoteOriginally posted by gofour3 Quote
Just one of the Kodachrome boxes, which is in my wife’s display cabinet!
I also kept one of the boxes from the last production run as a souvenir.


Steve

02-18-2014, 02:53 PM   #54
Site Supporter
Moe49's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Santa Cruz Mtns. USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 464
QuoteOriginally posted by Tony Belding Quote
I do love the look and colors of Ektar 100.
Sometimes we forget that film formulations have improved too!
Your film cameras today can take better photos than they did when they were new.
I agree. Here is a film shot taken at the Salinas Air Show last Fall: ( X-posted at Takumar Club )
I left the K7 at home that day and took the SV and MZ-3 instead. I have not used the K7 since. ( going to put K7 up for sale now )

Camera: Pentax SV
Lens: Takumar SMC 28/3.5
Sensor: Kodak Ektar 100
Developing & Scans: Dwaynes Photo
ND filter & spot removal: Picasa



A couple more shots from that roll of film here:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/31601-takumar-club-823.html#post2645970

Last edited by Moe49; 02-21-2014 at 10:14 AM.
02-18-2014, 03:01 PM   #55
Lens Buying Addict
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 19,435
QuoteOriginally posted by gofour3 Quote
Just one of the Kodachrome boxes, which is in my wife’s display cabinet!

I was able to use up all my Kodachrome film and send it to Dwayne's in time.

Phil.
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
I also kept one of the boxes from the last production run as a souvenir.


Steve
I bought four and shot three. I'm not sure why I never shot the last one - but now I've decided I 'kept it for posterity'.

Which reminds me. That Hocir camera is a cruel mistress and demands all my time. My film cameras need some exercise.
02-18-2014, 03:10 PM   #56
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,167
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
That Hocir camera is a cruel mistress and demands all my time. My film cameras need some exercise.
What you need is a Hocir film camera. I have four and they can be quite demanding as well.


Steve
02-18-2014, 03:38 PM   #57
Senior Member
pentaxian_tmb's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Madison, Wisconsin
Posts: 281
I like "shooting" my ME Super.....I like the fact it slows me down and makes me "think" more; but I dislike everything else that goes along with it. Taking the roll to the lab to get negatives, cutting the negatives while trying no tot get fingerprint son them, scanning into digital format. And then there are the really annoying instances where I did not load the film correctly or did something else stupid that resultes in a wasted roll. I prefer shooting the ME Super just on its simplicity and feeling. I actually like a lot of the images I get.....I just don't have the TIME to deal with all of the film processing/development issues. I am still keeping the ME Super. Maybe someday when life slows down I can learn to appreciate it more.
02-18-2014, 08:24 PM   #58
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,927
QuoteOriginally posted by pentaxian_tmb Quote
. . . And then there are the really annoying instances where I did not load the film correctly or did something else stupid that resultes in a wasted roll.
I hope that's just a one time issue that doesn't keep coming up . . .
02-18-2014, 08:45 PM   #59
Veteran Member
fretlessdavis's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Benson, AZ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 496
I spend too much time in the darkroom and there for don't have time to edit with photoshop or scan images...

Really, though, shot for shot, I get more keepers on film. Start to finish, I get better results faster on film than digital. Processing 36 shots takes me about 20 minutes at the end of the day, and then, when I want to print, I adjust them as necessary and print them, taking 5 minutes or so each. With digital, I have to sort through all the shenanigans of extra shots to find the keepers, then spend typically AT LEAST 5 minutes on each of them, processing and editing from RAW. When I'm done with that, I have to go eat a sandwich while the TIFF's upload to the print shop server, then wait another few days to get the prints back. By the time they come back, they aren't quite perfect, and I had forgotten what I was trying to accomplish in the first place. I have to go back through my notes, find the files, edit them again, and start the upload and print process again.

By the time I've done all that, I could've made several working prints in a row until I got *perfect* results, then switched to a larger/fiber paper, archivally printed, mounted and framed the same photos...

Processing yourself is so cheap and quick, as is printing for yourself. I think if most people got off their butts and away from their computers, they wouldn't see such a massive time difference between the two.

For all I've done, I've taken more shots on digital, and probably spent as much time editing as I have in the darkroom, yet I still have a 50:1 ratio of handmade B&W prints to digital prints...

For color, shoot slides, mail 'em off or process locally. If you get it right in camera, you shouldn't have to involve yourself in any of the digital part of the process. Most competent shops will 'print to slide'. I don't do much color, but the last round of slides I sent to Dwayne's for printing came back fantastic. I didn't have to scan or use my computer! Just a projector, my glasses, and a frosty beer.
02-23-2014, 09:18 PM   #60
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sydney
Posts: 671
I like film better. Lately I shoot film pretty much exclusively. With film I have more time. More time to enjoy myself, more time to create, more time to see and observe where I am.

The process is different, from winding the film, metering (I use spot meter and incident meter for my hasselblad and built in meter in pentax mx).

Some numbers. On my last 2.5 week holiday with my digital camera I took 2.5k photos. Or maybe even more, it was 1.5 years ago so I can't remember exact numbers.
Anyway, it took me 3 months to go over the photos, select the keepers and come back with 50 photos that were good, but I wasn't 100% happy with their look.

Now with film, I went on 2.5week holiday a week ago and I came back with 234 photos. 114 x 35mm photos (3 rolls) and 10 rolls of 120 film.
I will keep 80 photos. That's pretty much 1 photo out of 3. I say it's a good keeper rate. Not to mention that I spent more time enjoying my holiday, instead of being what a friend of my described, behaving like a dog in heat.

As for how many gigapixles something has and if it's obsolete or not. I say it's rubbish, gigapixels and perving at each of them doesn't say how good a photo is and if people will like it.

For example the below photo is a crop of a 35mm frame, I cropped out the infocus part as well, you can see a little bit of it left over in the bottom right corner.
Is that image good? I have no idea, but I like it, it brings out a sense of nostalgia in me and memories of this particular establishment.
It is out of focus, it is grainy. Would extra gigapixels make this photo better? Extra detail in the shadows?
For me it wouldn't, I like the photo how it is, blurry and contrasty.



As for info, it was shot on trix@EI800 and developed in Ilfotec DDX.

And if I need extra gigapixels, I shoot hasselblad.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
ae-1, aperture, camera, cameras, canon, costs, dslr, film, film slr, k1000, lens, opinions, pentax, quality, screwy, shot, shutter, slr, steve, viewfinder, zx-7
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Please help with lens from film SLR to Digital Nancy Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 15 08-04-2014 11:22 AM
Using digital SLR and film SLR side by side dugrant153 Photographic Technique 12 07-30-2010 12:00 PM
Film to Digital SLR TexSon Welcomes and Introductions 4 12-12-2009 03:55 PM
Suggestion Change name of Film SLR and/or SLR Lens sub-forums clawhammer Site Suggestions and Help 4 07-31-2008 06:55 AM
Digital Lens On A Film Slr DILWORTH Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 03-28-2008 10:28 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:48 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top