No More Color

[1750Shooter]

Has anyone else given up on color film & gone to digital for color & only shoot B&W film? I've had so much trouble with bad scans & high costs, so... I gave up.

 

[f16sunshine]

For 135 format yes.
When not printing analog why shoot analog?
B&W film is gorgeous. Can not see the point in color.
Larger formats are another story.

 

[f16sunshine]

Ha !
Yes, poorly written...... 😱
Can not see apoint in color film in 135 format.

 

[farlymac]

I'll shoot anything I can put in the camera.

PF

 

[noisycheese]

I'll shoot anything I can put in the camera.

PF

What he said. 😉

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I took it to my hands with c-41 kit and better scanner for color.
But I mostly take in color on digital and b/w on film.

 

[mfogiel]

I gave up on colour altogether. Colour was hip in the 50's, then it has become vulgar, and after the advent of digital, it has become banal.
Photograpgy nowadays divides in Tri X nostalgic and smartphone idiotic.

 

[Corran]

I continue to be perplexed with this "digital for color, film for b&w" thing.

If given the choice I'd rather go the other way 'round. Well actually, given the choice I would shoot both, with film.

IMO, simulating the look of most color films is nigh impossible. Yes, you can get close with digital+editing, but it's a lot of work and it's still not the same.

 

[RattyMouse]

Has anyone else given up on color film & gone to digital for color & only shoot B&W film? I've had so much trouble with bad scans & high costs, so... I gave up.

Digital color is boring. The day I can't shoot 400H in my film cameras is the day I give up color photography. As long as I can load in a roll of 400H, I am good to go.

 

[tunalegs]

In 35mm I pretty much only shoot slide film. I've still got some plus-X I need to use but... color is so much more fun to use.

 

[John Bragg]

I shoot 100% film and all Black and White. I do however scan colour films occasionally for my other half and she is perfectly happy with that. It means she can be retro too !

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I continue to be perplexed with this "digital for color, film for b&w" thing.

If given the choice I'd rather go the other way 'round. Well actually, given the choice I would shoot both, with film.

IMO, simulating the look of most color films is nigh impossible. Yes, you can get close with digital+editing, but it's a lot of work and it's still not the same.

I do it because there is no place I have found that can do quality color processing anymore. Every pro lab in Indiana has shut down. We used to have three same-day E-6 labs in Fort Wayne. There were others in Indianapolis and other cities here. All gone. I won't do color process at home. The chemicals are too dangerous given my own serious health problems.

As for digital not looking like film..well, yes. Its a different medium. Silver-gelatin prints (for BW) and Chromogenic Prints (color) are not the only valid means of making photographs. Both are relative latecomers in photography's history, superseding older processes, and they in turn are being superseded by newer processes. Not something to get bigoted about.

Those who think digital is inferior to color film are invariably people who have either never tried digital or who did not make the effort to learn to use it, and the software (Photoshop, Lightroom, etc.) that are digital's "darkroom." When I first began using digital, it was a HUGE learning curve. Took me a long time to get good enough that I felt able to switch from film for my color work. Was worth the effort, though.

 

[alistair.o]

I still have some Kodak Elite Chrome, so no is the answer.

Agreed that digital is far more convenient but the colours can vary so much from sensor to sensor.

 

[brbo]

I continue to be perplexed with this "digital for color, film for b&w" thing.

If given the choice I'd rather go the other way 'round. Well actually, given the choice I would shoot both, with film.

IMO, simulating the look of most color films is nigh impossible. Yes, you can get close with digital+editing, but it's a lot of work and it's still not the same.

This! BW in digital is easy (hey, even Leica can do it!), color not so.

 

[_goodtimez]

I still do a lot of color slides and my local supermarket still offers to manage their processing.

 

[Texsport]

My main photo subjects are people and nature.

For those subjects color is essential.

I see no point in black and white unless I'm trying to express some abstract feel.

Black and white is absolutely without soul or reality IMO. My avatar, for instance, would be lifeless in B&W.

I shoot digital only for convenience( adapted vintage lenses, digiscoping, iPad, or cell phone) and much prefer medium format colr film cameras.

Texsport

 

[Erik van Straten]

For me photography is about light effects. Someway or another color is in contradiction to that.

Erik.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I'm sticking with Portra. Regardless, how many stops can one overexpose an image recorded on a sensor without blowing the highlights these days?

About as many stops as you can overexpose slide film: none. Digital has very little exposure lattitude. Some overexposure can be fixed with the highlight recovery sliders in Lightroom and other editors, but only if you shoot raw. Raw files have quite a bit more underexposure lattitude, but quality suffers when you use it. If you shoot JPEG, which you should NOT, then there is zero exposure lattitude. With RAW, there's very little. Just like transparency film! Color neg film, like BW neg film, has a lot of overexposure lattitude and very little under-lattitude.

 

[Sparrow]

Damascene conversion then Chris?

 

[Michael Markey]

`fraid I`ve long given up on colour film.
Gave my last ten rolls to a friend.
I was never a fan of colour negative film.
I shot kodachrome for over thirty years and nothing else seem quite the same after that .
I now much prefer the colour options from my Sigmas,when I do shoot colour.