![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.danijel.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/cinematic_emulsion.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nI don\u2019t know what emulsion they used, but it looks like Kodak, based on the color palette. It\u2019s less sharp and clear than digital, but the colors are not faded, shifted or messed up in any way, and it\u2019s still quite sharp and clear, thank you very much.<\/p>\n
So, that\u2019s what film used to look like, and if you\u2019re nostalgic for film, and not the faded-out stuff the nostalgia-merchants are peddling, good luck with that because the best emulsions from that era are basically gone now and you can no longer shoot them. Kodachrome? Gone. Ektachrome E6? Gone; nobody is processing it anymore. C41? You\u2019re in luck, some of the best emulsions are still available, although very expensive, and processing is also reasonably available. Black and white? You\u2019re also in luck, there are plenty of emulsions and chemicals available. But, let\u2019s assume you want the low contrast and yet still colorful stuff weddings were shot with in the 1980s and 1990s; that\u2019s Kodak Portra, and it still exists and can be processed, since it\u2019s a C41 negative.<\/p>\n
If you want your pictures to look good, and not just fucked-up nostalgic, you will need to use the equipment that people used in the 1990s if they wanted their photos to look good. Forget old beaters, you\u2019ll need something with good optics, that\u2019s easy enough to use so that you get the impression of what film was actually like when it was good. I would recommend the Canon EOS system, which is essentially the most modern 35mm system that encompasses both film and digital eras, and why, because if you decide that film is not for you, you can use those lenses on a modern Canon or Sony mirrorless camera with an adapter, instead of selling everything at a loss or being stuck with something nobody wants anymore.<\/p>\n
The cameras I recommend are the EOS 3 and EOS 30 (also known as Elan 7). You can get the body on ebay for the ballpark value of 250 EUR, and you can probably sell it for as much when you\u2019re done with it. Those are excellent cameras that behave not that much different from the digital cameras; the autofocus is great (in case of EOS 3, unsurpassed), film loading and unloading is automatic, ISO value detection is automatic, and the ergonomics are great. This is what EOS 3 did with the EF 85mm f\/1.8 lens:<\/p>\n
Also, film doesn’t deserve the nostalgia it’s getting. It’s a chemical process that is environmentally unfriendly, creates toxic waste from all the hazardous chemicals involved, and takes almost all control out of your hands, since you don’t produce the film, you don’t control the chemicals, someone else has to do all of that for you, all so that you could do the artistic hipster thing. The problems film introduced were significant even when film was at its best, and I had a huge qualitative leap in technical quality when digital cameras became a mature technology. I occasionally tried it again, but even at its best it wasn’t as good as 35mm digital, and it soon degraded way below its best due to abandonment of essential technological components necessary for it all to work, such as huge factories producing film and toxic waste, and Kodak pro labs processing the exposed film in toxic waste.<\/p>\n The reason why I’m immune to this kind of nostalgia is because I have good memory. I was there when film was at its best, I was there as digital looked like dog shit, I was there when digital became good but expensive, when digital surpassed film in every way, and film rapidly declined and fell out of favour. Interestingly, film started declining even when digital was still worse, because all those hipsters who now want to shoot film used to hype up the inferior digital cameras because it was the new thing, while I said “nope”, and produced digital files by scanning film, which was far superior and cheaper. However, at some point digital became so good that I could produce colors, DoF transitions, background blur and fine detail very much comparable with the best film emulsions, and that was at the times of Olympus E-1 and Canon 10d. When the 35mm Canon 5d came out, it was all over. That thing resolved the detail of 645 medium format, with colors and dynamic range that exceeded the best film emulsions. It was so much better it wasn’t even funny, and without all the nasty mess with chemicals, scanning, delays and limited availability. Yes, film looked great, but digital looks better. My son made an excellent comment: that the only film that really looks “digital” is the 4×5″ large format. That kind of says it all – the main difference between film and digital, when film is used properly, is the superior clarity and detail of digital, and when the large format film allows you to get the colors of film without the blur and scanned imperfections of the film surface typical for the smaller formats, it looks exactly like digital.<\/p>\n So, sure, if you want to play with film, be my guest; God knows I did my share of that. If anything, you’ll learn to appreciate the modern digital cameras, which are incredibly amazing. I would know, since I was there throughout the process that produced them, so I don’t think that’s normal or common. It’s absolutely amazing.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The topic of photographic nostalgia seems to crop up with some regularity, especially among the people too young to possibly be nostalgic about it, since they weren\u2019t even born when it was a thing. So, if you consider shooting film, … Continue reading <\/a>This is Fuji Velvia 100 emulsion, so you’re out of luck, since it’s no longer in production and you probably can’t develop it properly even if you try to do it yourself. The technology that produced this photo is lost in the sands of time, like the Saturn V rocket. However, you’re still in luck, since the digital at that time produced this:<\/p>\n<\/a>This is Olympus E-1 with the ZD 14-54mm f\/2.8-3.5 lens, and believe it or not people are starting to get nostalgic about that, too, projecting all kinds of stuff on it the way they do on film. Don’t. It’s great, but it’s not better, and in fact not even that much different than the current high-end digital cameras, except by having much lower resolution which limits your ability to enlarge. However, 35mm film is limited in similar ways, so if you don’t mind film, you would mind older digital cameras even less. There’s all kinds of nonsense around about Olympus colors, E-1 colors, or Kodak CCD sensor colors from that camera. It’s all nonsense. Olympus E-1 has colors that are almost completely identical to the Canon 10d, which was very popular at the time, and so Olympus seemingly adjusted their color profile to match it. Yes, it has great colors, but that’s because high end digital cameras with big sensors have great colors in general. Canon has great colors, Olympus has great colors, Nikon has great colors and Sony has great colors. What doesn’t have great colors is Fuji, because they made profiles to emulate what people think is film, and is in fact the faded remnant of film they figured people are nostalgic for. So, Fuji colors look like aged dog shit, and Olympus, Canon, Nikon and Sony look so much like film, that the only actual difference is in the improved clarity, sharpness and dynamic range. If you reduce those slightly, they will look exactly like the best film emulsions that I remember.<\/p>\n