Still using film?

[FatBoy]

The reason I use film is I've never managed to reproduce it's look on digital. And it's a look I prefer. I'm sure others succeed but even with all the film plug-ins in Photoshop I fail. I can get the colours, not the tonal range.
It's customary to include some technical details as scanned film doesn't have Exif info and folks are often curious about which camera and lens is used.
As you can see Fuji Velvia is my film choice and it's the saturation and vibrancy of this film that I like. I buy it in bulk to keep the cost down and including processing I guess about Thb 300 per 36 shots or Thb 200 for 12 shots on medium format.
Because I have to pay I'm not so trigger happy and my keeper rate is a lot higher. Sort of satisfying.

[hhfarang]

When I was doing a lot of film shooting, I mostly used Kodachrome (64) slide film because it more accurately reproduced color imho. I did shoot with Fuji Velvia some too when I really wanted colors to "pop" (especially in underwater photography), but I didn't think it was a true representation of the colors seen by the eye... i.e., that film seems to intensify color to a pleasing more saturated level, but the color didn't seem to be the same as in real life.

[thaifan]

Apologies for resurrecting an old thread, but where do buy colour slide and/or B&W film in HH? I'm heading to Angkor Wat in a few days, and although I did bring my Leica to Thailand, I left all my films in the fridge back home in Europe

[margaretcarnes]

Now please don't take this the wrong way - there is a photographic ignoramus typing this post.

You are posting some excellent photos (at least, they look good to me), which are full of colour. What I can't tell is are the photos so good because they are taken with film, or would a digital camera do just as good a job? You seem to be name dropping with the type of camera and lens you are using (I personally use a point and click). The results look very good. Have you tried taking the same photo with a digital camera of the same pedigree (if there is such a beast)?

Just asking out of idle curiosity.

There are digital SLRs BB - at a price - and I've seen some pretty good stuff produced by them. But I'm not convinced that even the Digi SLRs can do what fatboy has posted here. The sheer depth of colour in his images is amazing. I know that your bog standard digital camera can be tweaked to adjust exposures. Not that I've mastered mine yet! But with the old Leicas, Nikkons etc there was much more skill involved to achieve a really good shot. And there were all the gizmo filters, as well as tripods and extra lenses to cart around!
Digital point and shoot has a purpose and produces instant real images - which is what most people are happy with.
Impressive artwork needs much more, but the results can be stunning.
It's really down to whether you want a straightforward memory or a real composition.