It's mainly slide film for me. Years ago I saw prints with decent sharpness, but since minilabs have converted to hybrid methods, they seem a bit less perfect.
I'm probably off topic, but I think you are right. I spoke with employees at a local pro lab and it turns out that they scan most of their 35mm film before it gets printed. They develop the negatives the traditional way, but I think they have done away with their chemical processing for prints. It is not noticeable on small prints like 4x6, but you can actually see the pixelation on 8x10" and 11x14" prints. I discovered this some time ago when I had 11x14 prints made from a 120 negative; it looked like a digital print!!! When I asked them why, they explained their process.
This brings me to another off topic question, does anyone know of any labs in the US (mail order or online) that still prints color enlargements from negatives using an actual enlarger instead of a scanner and printer? I really miss the quality.
I have started with B&W and will finish. It is because I work around art photography and art do not deals with compromising, and I beleive that it is the best way to perfect one particular medium.
Skin tones I also found the most beautiful in B&W large format when light is "correct". www.Leica-R.com
I'm probably off topic, but I think you are right. I spoke with employees at a local pro lab and it turns out that they scan most of their 35mm film before it gets printed. They develop the negatives the traditional way, but I think they have done away with their chemical processing for prints. It is not noticeable on small prints like 4x6, but you can actually see the pixelation on 8x10" and 11x14" prints. I discovered this some time ago when I had 11x14 prints made from a 120 negative; it looked like a digital print!!! When I asked them why, they explained their process.
This brings me to another off topic question, does anyone know of any labs in the US (mail order or online) that still prints color enlargements from negatives using an actual enlarger instead of a scanner and printer? I really miss the quality.
I use FinePrint Imaging in CO for all of my printing, and they print via both enlarger and scanner. I have them print almost all of my negatives by enlarger and the quality is amazing.
I use slide film for virtually every thing except images that contain people, I don't like the skin tone rendering on chromes, so use print for that, but everything else, landscape, products, commercial, wildlife, etc. is chrome.
Pretty much the same for me, except for people I use digital (Blasphemy!). Nearly all of my people pics tend to be snap shots anyway, and I tend to have such a low hit rate with people pics, that digital became more cost effective and conducive to work flow. But I pretty much use chromes (namely Velvia and Sensia) for everything else.
I just got back several Velvia rolls I shot recently (both 35mm and 120). The colors appear very similar to Kodachrome, skin tones only a tad less warm. I will be trying Sensia soon, hopefully I will get more accurate skin tones when I scan the slides.
I've never used slide film - I print everything I shoot so I suppose print film is the best bet for me. And in recent times I've used nothing but Fuji film - mostly Reala 100 (love it) or Superia 400 for when Reala isn't fast enough.
I did use about 10 rolls of NPH and a couple of NPZ for a wedding for friends and it was really nice.
I really should grab some slide film and see what happens...
I mainly shoot print film and have a huge stockpile of NPS 160 in my fridge. I have shot Provia and Velvia before, Provia had really nice tones, but I definitely prefer the look of print films. And print film is so much more convenient.