actorlife said:
This is very true, but as I have a digital I can use both and hopefully it won't get out of hand with film. I have another question What film should I use for weddings, sports events and concerts(no B/W)?
Color print films:
With good lighting -- Kodak Portra 160NC or Fuji Pro 160S
With dim or tricky lighting -- Kodak Portra 800 or Fuji Pro 800Z
Color slide films (only use slide film in good lighting):
Fuji Astia 100F
Kodachrome 64 Professional Film (PKR)
Generally speaking, I think most Fuji Films lean just marginally more toward green than they should and most Kodak films lean just marginally more toward blue than they should. Bear this in mind when selecting your film and use it to your advantage. Personally, I think Fuji usually works better for outdoor photos and Kodak usually works better for indoor photos. These are their best color fims for duplicating skin tones. Both companies also make films that are hypersaturated, for punching up the colors in floral photography and landscapes. When it comes to color film, only Kodak and Fuji films are worth talking about -- no one else has had enough time and money to develop a good product (no pun intended).
You will see that I have included a slide film and a print film from each company (Kodak and Fuji). Generally speaking, slide film is better for making more grainless prints. However, it is much more difficult to work with. It has much less exposure latitude than even the most unforgiving of print films, and can't be pushed, pulled or otherwise manipulated anything like as much. Getting a good exposure is critical with slide film; print film is far more forgiving. In addition, some slide films, including both of the ones I have listed, require special development processes (wherever you take them to be developed, they will almost certainly have to send them out to a specialty lab). If you don't mind the extra wait and can get good exposures, slide film is often worth the extra trouble though.