Digital cameras vs Real ones

[expat]

Negatives should last for about 20 years but on the other hand we don’t yet know how long CDs will last and magnetic data is known to fade.

There is a real problem with cinematic film especially Eastmancolor where by many of the films in the 50s and 60s have faded but apparently Technicolor has faired much better.

Slide films probably last longer. Kodachrome and Velvia 100 (as against Velvia or Velvia 100F) should last several hundred years in the dark. If you're going to project the slides a lot (who does now?), Ektachrome has a longer life than Kodachrome.


I use digital for convenience, 120 for quality, and 35mm where I can't afford the lenses for the other 2! Convenience is not to be under-rated: the camera that you actually have with you, and can actually be bothered getting out and using, always takes better pictures than the others.

[The Clown Beater]

Interesting insights. I'd be going for a Nikon F90 / Ilford B&W / Kodachrome colour so definitely high end

[expat]

Interesting insights. I'd be going for a Nikon F90 / Ilford B&W / Kodachrome colour so definitely high end

Why slides for colour? Many are influenced by professionals using slides, but they do so because their market demands it. For themselves they'd usually prefer negative.

[The Clown Beater]

Why slides for colour? Many are influenced by professionals using slides, but they do so because their market demands it. For themselves they'd usually prefer negative.

I can bore the family with a slide projector then

[bogeyman]

Why slides for colour? Many are influenced by professionals using slides, but they do so because their market demands it. For themselves they'd usually prefer negative.

No way!

Compare a brilliant, sparkling Cibachrome made from a decent tranny to a muddy daub made from a C-41 colour neg.

Also, Cibachromes are actually easiler to make and process (although more expensive in materials), and are more consistent than any colour neg to print processes.