Kodak says it’s bringing back Ektachrome film
I shoot digital almost exclusively. However for a wedding in Tuscany I went with a medium format older than most of america, and a 35mm rangefinder (along with my nikon and stock 30mm prime lens)<p>First things: Film is a massive faff. Xrays, heat, light. All pains.<p>However each film type has a different way of handling&#x2F;rendering light.<p>I had:<p>o Ektar 100 (120mm)<p>o portra 160 (35mm)<p>o Ilford XP2 135 (35mm)<p>First things, unlike digital, it gracefully degrades when you are operating around the edges of high exposure. Shooting into the bright summer sun yields really pleasing results (details in both sky and subject[1][2])<p>the Ilford makes everything look like a picture from a local news article.<p>But, I&#x27;m not a film purist. I was in VFX for the apogee of 35mm film. I know how much of an utter faff it can be.  Digital Cinema cameras have surpassed film by quite a way. (unless they are latter generation RED cameras, those things are colour blind.)<p>A decent full frame 35mm digital will probably beat a film medium format comfortably on colour reproduction, resolution and clarity. But Damnit, film just looks &quot;real&quot;<p>[1]in most digital cameras, everything is log, so most of the information is in the lower exposure ranges, however there are complications.
[2] the scanner of course is log as well, but you can do things to get around it.