Why would anyone shoot digital....

[O|||||||O]

Could be 645... I'm not sure now, but I thought it was 35mm...

There was a thread over on APUG with the same image of the girl - Ektar vs. 400H, I think. Both of those films are available in 35mm and 120, but for some reason I was thinking it was 35mm...

Kodak Ektar 100 vs. Fuji Pro 400h (EXAMPLES!)

Oops - you were right Derrel - 645.

[Ads]

[Derrel]

Could be 645... I'm not sure now, but I thought it was 35mm...

There was a thread over on APUG with the same image of the girl - Ektar vs. 400H, I think. Both of those films are available in 35mm and 120, but for some reason I was thinking it was 35mm...

Kodak Ektar 100 vs. Fuji Pro 400h (EXAMPLES!)

Oops - you were right Derrel - 645.

Look at the horrible "green pollution" the Fuji 400 film has...that is one problem I have encountered many times when using film underneath large expanses of green-leaved trees, like maple trees. In this example, using electronic flash as the light for the young woman, the slower film is picking up almost no ambient light, and she is lighted almost entirely by flash...with the 400-speed film, that ugly green-tinged light is influencing the skin tones,and her hair, to a pretty bad extent. The Ektar, rated at E.I. 50 looks really,really nice, especially seen side by side with the 400 Fuji shot.

I used to shoot location portraits in parks where there were lots of maple trees...it's almost a necessity to use an orange-hued filter to kill that awful green light that maples create...

[unpopular]

I remember in college people were debating if there was a point to 645 - if it truly is "medium format" and if you're better off just shooting 35mm.

It's funny because now we get excited about 35mm frame digital.

[Robert_Maxey]

...when you get results like this straight from the lab.


Mind you, this is -ZERO- photoshop. Just Kodak Ektar 100 shot at ISO 50.

I prefer film, but a really great print is not always going to come from the lab. In my day, a great print took work and to get a great image, you did just as much work as a typical PS users will do today. Some techniques were discontinued decades before the digital revolution and I seriously doubt most here would care to try some of these printing techniques. Trust me, quite often it was far more difficult to get it right than you might think.


Digital is getting better and film is getting scarce, so learn your PS I suppose or you will have to learn to draw.

[Buckster]

Could be 645... I'm not sure now, but I thought it was 35mm...

There was a thread over on APUG with the same image of the girl - Ektar vs. 400H, I think. Both of those films are available in 35mm and 120, but for some reason I was thinking it was 35mm...

Kodak Ektar 100 vs. Fuji Pro 400h (EXAMPLES!)

Oops - you were right Derrel - 645.

Wait... I'm confused. Is the photo of the girl NOT the OP's?

[O|||||||O]

Could be 645... I'm not sure now, but I thought it was 35mm...

There was a thread over on APUG with the same image of the girl - Ektar vs. 400H, I think. Both of those films are available in 35mm and 120, but for some reason I was thinking it was 35mm...

Kodak Ektar 100 vs. Fuji Pro 400h (EXAMPLES!)

Oops - you were right Derrel - 645.

Wait... I'm confused. Is the photo of the girl NOT the OP's?

I'm pretty sure that it is, and he just has a different user name on APUG. I thought I saw it on Flickr too, but when I tried to search I couldn't find it.