Sunday, May 18, 2008


And thus the debate continues to rage ever oneward. Film or digital? Both have their merits, and only a fool would dismiss one out of hand. Having said that, I have been said fool. Being a fan of vintage equipment, digital photography was dismissed outright by me. But as with any tool, it has its uses, and in the proper setting I would say it's even preferred.

Now in my opinion, film still is the defacto choice for medium and large format. Digital simply is still in its infancy and while very very good for 35mm format, just isn't there for larger scales. So when I started with my Yashica, my choice of medium format film was rather narrow, as it seems every camera shop within a close distance to my place, was discontinuing film. So my choices were Kodak, and something called Ilford.

I am familiar with Kodak products, virtually everyone is, and while they may not have invented the camera, they certainly made it popular. However, they jumped the gun way too early when it came to digital cameras.

The story of Kodak and their move away from film is well documented elsewhere (in length I might add) and as such isn't a topic for here, but sufficed to say, was not my first choice for film. The Ilford stuff was very nice, well packaged, easy to load, all that.

So comes a day when the local shop only had Kodak Tmax 100. Okay, I had the itch and wanted to shoot. I made a mental note that this was all I had to work with, and as such, with the quality of Kodak products in mind (or lack of), I set to work.

And damnit if the film isn't better than Ilford's! The contrast range is better, the warmth is deeper and overall a sharper image than the Ilford stuff. I was floored and quickly became a convert. And while I still dislike Kodak for the business decisions they have made regarding digital cameras, I can't fault their expertise in film research.

So, from now on, it's Kodak's Tmax 100 for me.

Welcome to another pointless commentary from a rank amateur in photography.

No comments: