cbender

<p>Getting back to your original question, you've essentially got three main stream choices, and a handful of smaller brands. Fuji still makes Provia 100F, Velvia 100, and Velvia 50. If you're just getting into chromes, and the cost doesn't turn you off, Provia 100F is your best bet. Each of these are about $10/roll from the major US shops. If your local shop wants much more than that, consider ordering online. Five years ago the answer would have included closer to 10 options at ~60% of those prices, but those days are long gone.</p> <p>In the near future (months), Ferrania *may* manage to revive one of the old 3M E6 lines and start producing another 100 ISO emulsion that's based on Scotch Chrome from the mid 2000s (with perhaps others to follow).</p> <p>The third option is to try and buy out of date film via online auction or from any one of numerous sites that sell outdated film. Since you say your a beginner in E6, I highly recommend AGAINST this option. The film you get will have been stored under varying conditions, and it's unlikely you'll be able to acquire enough of any given emulsion to really understand it. Each time over the past decade and a half that an E6 emulsion I like has been discontinued, I've been quite irritated because much of the knowledge I've gathered in understanding how to use the film is now worthless.</p>

<p>Get some Provia, shoot it, and evaluate it for yourself. From a technical perspective, it's one of the most advanced slide films ever produced. </p> <p>However, be careful in shaded conditions. Provia (and, I think, all Fujichrome) tends to provide a more realistic capture of colors than Kodak emulsions ever did. Consequently, your shadows will be blueish, unless you modify with some on camera filtering. At the end of the day, this just comes down to understanding how an emulsion responds to any given situation; figuring that out will require you to shoot a brick or two.</p>

<p>And JDM, film is getting harder, and ridiculously expensive. I shoot less because of it and horde my freezer stash like a mizer. But at least I don't feel the need to update my camera body every 2-3 years.</p>

<p>Wow, I seem to have kicked off a highly engaged discussion, with lots of good points on all sides. I really didn't mean to start a film vs digital debate. More of a "why can't you just leave film alone if you don't like it" one. I agree, it's hard to argue with the technical purity of digital. Modern CCDs, CMOS arrays, and HgCdTe devices are clearly superior to their anlog counterparts; I've got a characterization lab full of them, and no astronomer would take observations with an emulsion.</p> <p>But (for the hobbiest, or artist, or non-professional photographer who is not depending on workflow speed to put bread on their table), I love the tactile sensation of film. I have yet to encounter a digital image that can cause the same visceral reaction I get when I toss a perfect chrome onto my light box and peer at it with my loupe. It's a private viewing experience that isn't the same with the modern share everything world.</p> <p>I also like to (incorrectly) convince myself that I can understand what's going on photochemically (and miss those technical discussions of old that Lex recalls). And at some level I do know what's going on, having made my own B&W emulsions in the distant past (which were not very fast, or coated very uniformly, but were definitely photosensitive with decent resolution). All of the SPIE papers in the world can't convince me that I could ever build a CMOS detector (although I understand the theory and can write the control software).</p> <p>As for hybrid processing, if I could print E6 via analog (in house) I would, but I can't. So I occasionally use an ink jet, which admittedly can easily and cheaply beat any darkroom results I could hope to muster.</p>

<p>And I'll add that I'll continue to use my FM3a and my Mat-124G as long as I can continue to find processing for my freezer full of E6. I'm eagerly awaiting my kickstarter purchase from Ferrania; a "new" emulsion, how exciting!</p>

<p>Wow, lots of strong feelings here. I don't read p.net as regularly as in years past, and post even less frequently. (Afterall, there's not a lot of activity in the film forums.) But I'm hard pressed to understand the hostility towards the concept of film by some members here. It's not like the existence of film is hurting you personally. Clearly you didn't enjoy using it as a medium; clearly some of us do.</p> <p>I shoot film. I print digitally. I build furniture using both my power tools and a wide range of hand tools. I grow my own vegetables, and cook my own food.</p> <p>I'm not making a living through photography, so efficiency is much less important that process and enjoying the experience.</p> <p>Plus, being an astronomer, I deal with enough digital images during at work.</p> <p>Perhaps it's time to head back to apug. But they tend to get awfully hostile about my Epson printer. If p.net is drawing a line in the sand against buggy whips, I'm not sure where those of us living with both modern emulsions and modern inks should go.</p>

I too had thought Nikon was no longer servicing scanners. If the scanner is actually scanning (sounds like this is the case) then I think the only thing a servicing would do is clean the mirror. You can do that yourself - there are instructions online. I cleaned my ls-4000 a couple months ago and it only took me 30 minutes. I can't offer any advice on the feeder units. I've only got one, and it'a always fed like a champ.

<p>Has anyone here been purchasing paper from the "new" Ilford Imaging? Is there a simple way to distinguish the old II Switzerland from the new II UK?</p> <p>I just received a new box of Ilford Gold Mono Silk from B&H, and the box looks completely identical to the latest box I had which was purchased before Ilford Imaging Switzerland went into insolvency. I'm hoping that the paper I received is still the old stock, but being that the company collapse happened over a year ago I find that hard to believe.<br> <br />Not that I have any reason to believe that the paper produced by the new company is in any way inferior. I'd just rather not have to redo my custom printer profiles.</p>