Is anyone else unhappy with today's films?

[George Mann]

You may be in for a really difficult "rest of your life", George... the situation probably isn't going to be getting too much better.

Well, we still have the new Ektachrome to look forward to (I hope).

 

[George Mann]

Then get a nice (used) digital camera.

A used Nikon D700, with a 28-105mm lens and the proper CF card would be nice. But at an outlay of $700, all I can do is think about it currently!

 

[MattKing]

Portra = the film version of a Canon digital camera.

Then you need either to adjust your printing procedure, or get a new lab!
I am getting really subtle colours and excellent tonal gradation with the Portra I shoot (relatively infrequently). But only when it is either optically printed, or good quality scans are prepared and good quality prints are made from those scans.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I see today's color films as being like a bad acid trip at an over-the-top amusement park.

Portra = the film version of a Canon digital camera.
Provia = the film version of a Nikon digital camera.
Ektar = a poorly emulated Kodachrome II version of Kodak Gold on steroids.
Velvia = the world according to Micky Mouse.

 

[BrianShaw]

Well, we still have the new Ektachrome to look forward to (I hope).

A colleague of mine was at CES when that was announced. The folks at the Kodak booth had no real information at that time. So far, as far as I know, its just talk. Do you have any further information that is worth getting excited over?

 

[George Mann]

Do you have any further information that is worth getting excited over?

No, and there shouldn't be any reason for not doing so.

 

[Wallendo]

I am generally happy with current B&W films, but I really wish someone would make a fast transparency film.

 

[tessar]

I shoot almost all b&w (develop myself, then scan) and I'm happy with the Ilford films. I don't shoot much C-41 anymore -- no more local labs, have to send by mail for processing. I'm not sure what's now available here in color negative films, especially MF.

 

[DF]

There is/was nothing I could do other than adapt to today's "market" - when Kodachrome died 6 or so years ago, as well as other E-6 films, I made it a point to finally get into & learn the darkroom.
No more is there color for me, just light & shadow - ALL B&W from now on, and, I guess I'm satisfied with the B&W films available, but I could see how miserable one who was immersed in all those transparencey films 15-20 years ago could be, if you didn't know "it" was coming....

 

[George Mann]

There is/was nothing I could do other than adapt to today's "market" - when Kodachrome died 6 or so years ago, as well as other E-6 films, I made it a point to finally get into & learn the darkroom.
No more is there color for me, just light & shadow - ALL B&W from now on.

That pretty well sums it up!

 

[Agulliver]

I have to say that I prefer Fuji Superia to the overblown colours of Kodak Gold and Ultramax. I never liked the Gold which replaced VR films, and likened them to watching NTSC television. But Superia and Portra are different beasts, and can be tamed. Ektar is another kettle of red herrings altogether....and in certain circumstances is gorgeous.

 

[Cholentpot]

Then get a nice (used) digital camera. You can easily change the colors to your liking. I think that many people here have moved on for color and only shoot B&W film. Unless you print color yourself in the darkroom or project slides, I don't see the benefit of shooting color film. Color film gets scanned and then it's digital from there on anyway.

I'm happy with the current B&W films that I use.

I dunno, color film has a look of it's own. It also has more latitude than a digital. For instance, when I shoot digital I aim to slightly under expose. When I shoot film I aim to over expose without fear. With digital once something is blown out it's gone. With film, even scanned, you can generally rescue the highlights.

 

[George Mann]

Despite my negative comments concerning Ektar, I have a soft-spot in my heart for it.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I'm super happy with Ilford HP5+ and Ultrafine Xtreme 400. A roll of FP4+ now and then is also nice for pinhole work. For color, to abide by what forum the thread is in, I love using Kodak Portra films, 160 or 400 matters little; they are both amazing films. If I could afford it I'd shoot more of the 800, probably.

Never do I feel like I need something more from my film, only from my skill in making interesting photographs.

 

[George Mann]

Ektar is thicker and glossier than reality, where ColorPlus nails reality with a rather rude dose of grain!

 

[George Mann]

Give me back my Kodachrome!

 

[George Mann]

OK. Enough fun and games. I currently shoot Provia (but for how long?), Ektar (a bit difficult) and Delta 100, while experimenting with ColorPlus.

 

[George Mann]

And for the record, I absolutely hate Portra outside of the studio!

 

[George Mann]

Does anyone else find Provia to be a bit cold and clinical?

 

[Lachlan Young]

I see today's color films as being like a bad acid trip at an over-the-top amusement park.

Portra = the film version of a Canon digital camera.
Provia = the film version of a Nikon digital camera.
Ektar = a poorly emulated Kodachrome II version of Kodak Gold on steroids.
Velvia = the world according to Micky Mouse.

You're quite mistaken. But then a lot of people's opinions of these films are formed by unbelievably poor scans. Ektar is particularly ill served in this regard. It's actually generally very neutral, but saturated.

Provia can be colder depending on lens choice - but Kodachrome 64 etc was no better. And Delta 100/TMAX100/ACROS all beat the mythical properties of Pan-X into the earth.

Astia was a sad loss, but the current Portra/Ektar family from Kodak are unbelievably good. As I said above, they do not respond well to slapdash scanning & need high end scans or proper optical prints to truly shine.

For what it's worth, in the last few weeks I've been working with files from the top of Canon's current still camera range & (Hasselblad/Imacon) scans of Portra 160 & 800 - the difference is not small. The Portra walks all over the Canon in terms of quality of colour, tonality etc straight out of the box. Much faster to get a great looking file from Portra.

 

[GarageBoy]

Provia is cold the same way Ektachrome was - and the 100f version is a bit magenta on the skin tones and cyan in the shadows, the latter is definitely noticeable in open shade

I will miss 400x, though

 

[kb3lms]

No. All of the films I have used in recent history are fine. They are not all to my taste, however. I am looking forward to the various new films that are supposed to come out.

 

[Hatchetman]

A good 400 speed slide film would be great. 400x was outstanding!

 

[Pioneer]

I have never met a film that I couldn't like.

Some have gone and that saddens me.

But if I worry too much about what was I won't have time to enjoy what is before I'm gone.

 

[Mike Bates]

Does anyone else find Provia to be a bit cold and clinical?

Try Portra. You'll love it.