Kappabeast wrote:HAHAAH I am 22 but I really like the way film looks. I know digital is a lot easier to work with and more convient but I one of my professeurs has all these pictures from when he was in Africa (about 20yrs ago) and they have that nice attic look to them which I think adds a lot of character, plus the lens for the "old school" cameras are a lot cheeper

Thanks for the advice on films!
I just spent a whole role of the High Def Kodak on a white Heron and a tri colored heron feeding on minnows. Hopefully the pictures place doesn't misplace this roll and if they are good I will post them on here for you guys.
I am really excited about my new hobby!
well if you want that nice old attic look, and it was 20 years ago, it probabl y is kodachrome or just plain old ektachrome 64. Both can still be bought but a place in Kansas can do the k-14 development for the kodachrome and just about every major city can do e-6 same day.
Color neg vs. slide...there is no 'better' in generalities. There is 'better for a certain end purpose'! For portraits or wedding photography, color neg is better because the end goal is a wall enlargement or 8x10 for the desktop or the wedding album.
You can still make an enlargement from a slide easily.
.Color slide would be greatly inferior in that setting. Color slide is better when 'publication' or 'print press media' like brochures and magazines and spec sheets are the end goal. My own preference for 'exhibition' was to shoot color slide and then print myself on Cibachrome (Ilfochrome) which I understand is not longer available!
Well one of the main reasons people shoot slides is WYSIWYG, unlike negs where there may be slight shifts while printing.