Good Old Faithful Velvia

Discussion in 'Film and Processing' started by mauro_franic, Jul 18, 2009.

  1. Just got back from Montana and scanned the first slide. I shot only TMAX and Velvia (Thank G I left my DSLR home....)
    00TyEi-155927584.jpg
     
  2. Hey she looks great and you even own a DSLR? Why? :) I was cleaning out my freezer and found some of the old Velvia 50 in 220 in it. I need to get out and crank off a roll.
     
  3. I use the DSLR in the studio for commercial stuff to be printed small. It is convenient.
    I don't use the DSLR for pictures I take for myself.
    00TyGQ-155935584.jpg
     
  4. LOL I have a Digital P&S I use and you know what? It gets used much less than any of my 100 other cameras. I even have the unfinished roll/Memory card problem with it... I will down load it and say. "Damn when did i take this?" LOL
     
  5. It is weird, DSLR pictures make me dizzy. - not a joke.
    Velvia keeps poping through nicely....
    00TyHA-155939684.jpg
     
  6. I just got back from Italy. I took 2 35mm film cameras and left the DSLR at home as well. I shot mostly slide film (Velvia 50 and Provia 100F) and some colour negative film (Reala and Porta 160NC). I was so pleased with the Velvia results that in the future I will take just Velvia for landscape shots and some colour neg for everything else (perhaps Kodak Ektar?)
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dwmitchell/3719120076/
     
  7. Brother you got that down what scanner you using? and what software? I get dizzy just editing but that may be the fun I have.
     
  8. I've limited the backs I carry to only three. Tmx 100 (or 400), Velvia 50 and Ektar. I shoot 70% Tmax, 25% Velvia, 5% Ektar and 0% digital.
     
  9. The edge of the small leaves on the tree show a brit of the ground tremor but it is not vissible on the 24x32 print I just made. I had to actually take the gamma from 2.2 to 1.8 on the printer because of how rich Velvia is. Looks fantastic.
     
  10. I wil await the full outcome and you are good.
     
  11. This is a snap from te airplane above the clouds during sunset...
    00TyKe-155957684.jpg
     
  12. It is a crop of the RZ. When the mirror slapped a few people reached for cover. I only brought the RZ.
     
  13. I've only recently begun experimenting with E-6, and just shot off a roll of the new Velvia 50. I already have an icc profile based upon an Ektachrome target. Do you think that will be good enough for scanning Velvia? I'm obviously not a pro, so things don't have to be perfect.
     
  14. What scanner do you use?
     
  15. This is a shot with Velvia+polarizer of a sulfer mountain. No better way to capture the yellow and blue contrast.
    This is unprocessed straight from the scan:
    00TyNh-155975584.jpg
     
  16. Luscious color! Thanks for sharing.
     
  17. Yep.
    Straight off the slide. The polarizer adds some diagonal gradation on the sky as well.
     
  18. Mauro,
    I use a Nikon 9000 (one of my last big splurges in life). I'm starting to think that I'm getting some false colors when scanning print film because of my scanner. For example, a brownish red comes out too magenta. This happens for all Portra films. I don't blame the films, because I didn't get that problem when I used to make optical prints. At least with slides, I can use an icc profile when scanning.
     
  19. Wow....that sulfur mountain picture is great.
     
  20. "they ask where is the LCD"
    I get that all the time where I'm out. Especially with the F4s. I had one young guy come up to me and tell me I was living in the past. I was using the F4s with a 20mm AI-s. I told him to look through the viewfinder. He was stunned at the size and clarity. Film rocks.
    I've got a D300 but it just does not do it for me and its such a hassle setting all those menus.
     
  21. You do make a strong case for film shooting. Very nice.
     
  22. Benny, I have a Coolscan 9000 too and don't use any profiles. Mainly because the majority of my pictures are TMAX and Velvia.
    If I shoot color negatives they ussually comeout nice without any adjustments. In nature there is also not a need for the colors to be accurate as long as they look as you intended. Here you can adjust using levels per channel in PS if needed. If for some particular application you need color accuracy you can use a gray card (or color card better) when shooting.
     
  23. Stephen, I agree. It goes beyond just the higher resolution of film, there is something that makes film superior - especially for landscapes- it could be the uninterpolated color or algorithm free image, I don't know. I don't see myself using my DSLR for landscapes ever in the future.
     
  24. Mauro,
    How do you scan negative film with the Nikon 9000? I use SilverFast.
     
  25. I use Nikonscan. Either no ICE or ICE normal. Most settings off.
    Once or twice I scanned a blank frame for color temerature adjustment but the majority of the time I just adjust individual levels if needed - or no adjustment at all.
     
  26. Interesting, Mauro. Before purchasing SilverFast, I compared it to NikonScan and Vuescan, and found it was usually better. But I don't have PS, so I need to get the scans correct from the beginning. Many times, my scans of print film look very good, or at least good. But not always. And now that I am experimenting more, I'm finding out that there are some color inaccuracies, enough that they sometimes bother me a little, particularly not getting reds correct. With icc profiles, the scans of slides look just like the original, and of course, proofing is fast because one just needs a light table. But I really like the huge scene recording range of negative print film.
     
  27. Negative film has great dynamic range but print has a wider color space - both have their strengths.
    What program do you use for printing? It may have levels per channel adjustments to serve you. I dont worry much about color accuracy in color negs.
    If I make adjustments, they are to match the color balance I think the picture needs (or I want). Another reason could be that you want a set of pictures delivered for a job to match. That's about it for me.
    For people, you may use a color card (or a just an 18% gray card).
    Weird but I never got procupied with it too much.
     
  28. For printing, I just upload the jpegs to Adoramapix.com. I sometimes adjust with Lightzone after scanning with SilverFast. But for some reason, Lightzone does not work on my Vista machine. Vista is another story for another time! Anyway, as I mentioned before, SilverFast works well with print film. But when comparing to a QpCard, I see errors of my scans of print film. In experimenting with Astia, it looks like after spending some time with it and Ektar, that Astia may be a bit more accurate. But again, I'm talking about scans, not what is actually recorded on the film. I'm trying not to get obsessed. But when looking at pictures of my kids playing in front of an old barn, the reddish-brown doors in shade come out a dark magenta. The picture looks fine...just not accurate for that color.
     
  29. jbm

    jbm

  30. I understand. The explanation could be that it is a result of scanning a normally exposed negative and then an underexposed one in the same strip usind the same colorbalance used on the first one.
     
  31. You guys are nuts.
    FYI, I shoot 120 film with an ETRSi and digi on a canon d5.
    The comparisons here are not valid. You shoot film and then convert to digital using a scanner. Effectively you're shooting digital no matter how many dpi you set the scanner to or whatever bit depth you scan.
    The result can be no better than a decent digi camera saving RAW images as the same limitations of dynamic range etc apply.
    A traditional print on a decent piece of paper processed R41 will blow away a digi print for sure, but comparing onscreen images and saying the one that originated on Velvia is somehow better is just nonsense. An LCD screen has less dynamic range than the digi cam sensor for gods sake, let alone compared with film.
    Talk about the blind leading the blind.
     
  32. So how do you show the results here without scanning the film. I know, scan the print.
     
  33. Graham, "You shoot film and then convert to digital using a scanner. Effectively you're shooting digital no matter how many dpi you set the scanner to or whatever bit depth you scan."
    As you know:
    - a DSLR pixel captures only one color and a scanner captures a full RGB sample.
    - a DSLR makes up detail and colors from different algorithms whereas a scanner is a straight sample.
    - films like velvia and tmax outresolve DSLRs (both in detail and tonality/color). They also have a balance of colors and tonal ranges that has been perfected to provide the best possible capture for their individual style. That is why people try to replicate the look with SW applications all the time.
    - that if you scan Ektar, Velvia or TMAX or anyother film the results are different. Since they are all different from eachother, they cannot be all the same as a DSLR.
    All that is just redundant information, what really matters is the print. I print up to 24x72 at home and for larger I send out. In my thousand of comparisons, even from 35mm film, in my opinion a landscape with Velvia is far more pleasing than a landscape from a DSLR. That is why people in this thread have gone back to film.
    Funny enough, although say a 24x30 picture from Velvia 6x7 is obviously much higher quality than from a DSLR; I have observed that even if I make small prints like 8x10, film still looks better. It may be a personal preference so you should only regard it as my opinion.
    How do you compare prints from Velvia and your Canon 5D? I am interested in hearing your opinion.
     
  34. Velvia makes it hard to waste time on editing because is just naturally so darn good looking.
    This is from my room window:
    00TyhO-156163584.jpg
     
  35. Mauro,
    This is from my room window:
    Is that view from your "everyday" room window. If that is from your home, then I am jealous!!!
     
  36. That was from my hotel. I am not that lucky (yet).
     
  37. One thing I don't like about Velvia, including some pictures I've taken with it, is that sometimes, Velvia colors just don't look realistic.
     
  38. They look better than real.
     
  39. I don't see anything here that couldn't be captured just as well or better with a DSLR. Shots 2 and 3 in particular are too blue green and look too "dark" for the time of day. This is typical for slide film in harsh mid day light. DSLRs and print film do much better in that light. If you're shooting film you need to match the contrast of the film to the light in the scene, low contrast for harsh light and high contrast for soft light. Velvia is a magic hour film, an overcast sky film, not a sunny mid day film. With digital you choose the balance and contrast you want in camera, or in RAW conversion, and a DSLR would have absolutely yielded better tonality, color, and contrast for the situation.
    Shot 5 is over cooked. A high contrast film at mid day with a polarizer? You brag that there's no processing, that it's all done "in camera", but it looks like someone took Photoshop and painted in a fake sky. Way over the top and unnatural given the scene and light.
    Shots 1, 4, and 6 are more Velvia's forte. 1 and 6 in particular are very nice shots. But they don't exhibit any qualities of tonality or color that are outside the capabilities of a DSLR.
    The big prints argument is a dead horse. There are countless photographers producing countless digital prints that give up nothing to the smaller film formats. If you're having trouble producing quality digital prints at any size, get out and find a local artist who can show you how.
     
  40. Daniel, you are confused.
    "Daniel said: I don't see anything here that couldn't be captured just as well or better with a DSLR" ---> These are 100MP RGB uninterpolated color scans. You could stitch 10 DSLR shots but good luck catching the geyser burst ha ha.
    "Daniel said: If you're shooting film you need to match the contrast of the film to the light in the scene, low contrast for harsh light and high contrast for soft light. Velvia is a magic hour film, an overcast sky film, not a sunny mid day film." --> You should use the film as you envision, not as you read on a book.
    "Daniel said: Shot 5 is over cooked" ---> LOL. Funny you don't even know what Velvia looks like. There is no post processing (zero cooking). It is Velvia 50 with a polarized straight of the scanner. You should try to understand Velvia.
    "Daniel said: Shots 1, 4, and 6 are more Velvia's forte. 1 and 6 in particular are very nice shots. But they don't exhibit any qualities of tonality or color that are outside the capabilities of a DSLR." ---> Once again, these are 100MP 6x7 Velvia uninterpolated color scans. What DSLR are you imagining has these capabilities?

    "Daniel said: If you're having trouble producing quality digital prints at any size, get out and find a local artist who can show you how." ---> Nope - no trouble at all. Prints came out gloriously beautiful.
     
  41. Pay attention junior. There is absoulity no way these could have been taken with a DSLR. He left it at home :)
     
  42. Daniel, if you believe your DSLR gives you the quality you need and see no difference from a 6x7 Velvia slide, then enjoy it. Like I always say, DSLRs are wonderful tools.
     
  43. Please don't let this beautiful thread degrade into Digital vs Film.
     
  44. How did you scan these? I've finally gotten to the point I can get a good scan but it's a laborious 4-step process (VueScan to create raw, PS to assign scanner profile, ColorNeg or ColorPos for conversion and color correction, back to PS in Lab mode for contrast). Looking for something turnkey.
     
  45. You are right Larry.
    Just focusing on Velvia 6x7: 100MP scan at 100%, look at the detail of a tiny spot of the picture:
    00TyyW-156294184.jpg
     
  46. Edward,
    all these scans were run with the Nikon Scan software with ICE Normal and everything else turned off. The images you see is what the scanner produced with no color adjustments.
     
  47. Mauro, don't rise to the bait. This thread and indeed the whole section is a celebration of film in general and Velvia in particular. And Daniel, it is digital because he scanned it. He just used a different capture device. If you look at many famous landscape photographers...the ones that make a lucrative living out of selling their prints like our Ken Duncan, then you would know that the combination of a Fuji or Linhof 617 and Velvia is unbeatable.
    www.kenduncan.com
    There is also something about the fine texture of a sub-100 ISO slide that outshines the pixels of a digital image. Film grain (if you can even see it with Velvia!) seems to cluster in the details and thin out in the highlights to create this almost 3D texture that makes such photographs seem to be a window to a real scene. Digital to me, at the high fine art end, still seems flat and 2D.
    A case in point. Look at the B&W image of the girl sitting at the table on the photo.net home page editors pics today. Nice composition but now imagine that done with a 100 ISO B&W film in medium format. It would be completely different.
    Its not legitimate any more to pronounce that one form of capture is better than the other. Today we are acknowledging the beauty of Velvia. And for those who knock film, bear in mind that Fuji has had to increase production of film every month this year, as photographers rediscover the beauty of film. The only problem is that so many E6 pro labs have dropped that service in the rush to get on the digital bandwagon.
    Digital is more convenient, but by no means superior.
     
  48. Mauro, just to address what I said before, that at times, I find Velvia's colors to be unrealistic. Perhaps others will feel differently, but this is a shot I took on the Boston Public Garden in May 2007, around 8 am, using 35mm. It just doesn't look real to me...
    00Tyzn-156307584.jpg
     
  49. However, on the following two shots, also taken using Velvia 50 and a 6x9 camera, I really like the colors and find them to be very representative of the scenes I shot.
    00Tyzt-156307784.jpg
     
  50. Stephen, I'm happy to hear that Fuji has been increasing film production this year. The lab I frequent in Toronto mentioned that they've been doing "tons" of E6 and have no intention of dropping it anytime soon (although the prices have been raised slightly).
    John-Paul - I find all of the images you've posted pleasing to the eye, even if the first one doesn't match the scene as you saw it. Personally I find that the beauty of Velvia is that it generally enhances a scene.
     
  51. Stephen, I agree the textures are beyond belief. Here are some more tiny crops from the images above:
    00Tz0D-156311584.jpg
     
  52. And even so, my work in TMAX (under the microscope) gets even much finer than Velvia 50.
     
  53. John, I am not sure I can tell whether your if picture looks unrealistic without being at the scene. Velvia has its own tonal signature that's for sure. What scanner did you use?
     
  54. If all films looked the same we would only have 1 type of film I figure so every film has a place.
     
  55. Daniel, you are confused.
    No, you just can't take an honest critique.
    These are 100MP RGB uninterpolated color scans. You could stitch 10 DSLR shots but good luck catching the geyser burst ha ha.
    I don't care if they're 1 GP scans, the color balance/contrast complaints still stand. Your detail crops don't blow me away as being better than well shot full frame digital, particularly the branches which look worse than I would expect from 6x7. But regardless of the detail you think you have, who cares if the color and contrast are all wrong?
    You should use the film as you envision, not as you read on a book.
    I didn't read that in a book, I learned it from experience. It probably is in a book because I would imagine it's a pretty common experience. When I shot film I stopped shooting Velvia, any slide film in fact, under harsh light because it just doesn't look good. The contrast goes way over the top leading to blocked shadows, harsh colors, and yet the entire time you look at the image you feel like you're wearing a pair of dark sunglasses. Velvia under full mid day sun just never looks right.
    Funny you don't even know what Velvia looks like. There is no post processing (zero cooking). It is Velvia 50 with a polarized straight of the scanner. You should try to understand Velvia.
    Yes, I understand there's no Photoshop involved. And I understand that you assume the shot is gold because you didn't use Photoshop and you think this makes it a "real" photograph. Never the less, the image is way over the top and unnatural. You cooked it by shooting a high contrast film with a polarizer under harsh light. You don't need Photoshop to cook a scene.
    I understand Velvia quite well and that's why I would have never thought to shoot Velvia under that light. And if I only had Velvia in the bag with that light I certainly would not have added a polarizer, and then shot at that angle to the sun. The sky is practically black in the top right corner. Where on Earth do you see dark blue fade to black sky under mid day sun? That shot is unnatural in a way which detracts from the image. It screams "manipulation." Again, you don't need Photoshop to manipulate a scene.
    But if you want to shoot harsh, blue green photos at mid day you can do so with a DSLR. Just shove the contrast and saturation to the max, and manually throw off the color balance. Velvia duplicated. Thing is you wouldn't want to duplicate Velvia for the mid day scenes.
     
  56. Don't take the bait.
     
  57. Larry, I saw your comment and went back and deleted my response. Thank you.
    I love Velvia.
     
  58. wow. those crops Mauro keeps doing are AMAZING! I haven't found any shops locally that sell the Velvia but the next time I take a road trip I am picking it up by the CASE! John-Paul, that second Jockey Hollow image is awesome. You guys have deffinatly sold me on some Velvia.
     
  59. Life is grand.
     
  60. It sure is.
     
  61. Glad we could sell some people on Velvia! I don't just have complaints with Velvia tho, I also have my issues with Kodak reversal film. I shot a roll of EPN back in March that had a very blue/neutral/cold tint to it. I've also shot EPP and Kodachrome that had a blue hue, especially if the scene wasn't in direct sunlight, but also Kodachrome, EPP and EPR that came out with no color tints at all. Perhaps it's because of the lower dynamic range? These are just some things I've noticed about reversal film that I've not so much noticed with print film.
     
  62. Real quick, just to make sure I'm on the same page lingo wise, reversal film is negative, print film is a slide? Is Velvia a negative or slide film?
     
  63. Scott, it's the other way around - reversal film is slide film and print film is negative film. Velvia is slide film. Slide films have better color saturation compared to negative films, but negative films have a greater dynamic range and are much more forgiving if your shots are over or underexposed.
     
  64. Look at Ken's galleries.....he sells these for $2500 a print. Velvia at its best in my opinion. Saturated colours, infinite depth and grainless texture. But hey...being slide film, there is no latitude for error and little scope for changes in post. Most are printed to order, hence the price.
    www.kenduncan.com
     
  65. Some great images there Mauro. Velvia is a film I revisit time and again. Here is one of my favourites taken on 35mm Velvia (the old 50 speed Velvia that reads just RVP on the perforated edge, not the new Velvia 50 that reads RVP 50):
    00TzBW-156401584.jpg
     
  66. Hi gents - nice to be reading posts from folks NOT being defensive about the glories of film. I find the digerati to be pretty much made up of the same bunch that think MP3 files sound just as good as analog, and that typing sentence fragments devoid of vowels with their thumbs on tiny keyboards is an acceptable form of communication. Whatever is the most convenient for must therefore be the best...
    cheers
    bernard
     
  67. Daniel,
    Maybe I could be enlightened if you produced some equivalent crops comparing your DSLR to 6x7 120 film scanned well. Please post some!
    Regards,
     
  68. These images are absolutely inspiring.
     
  69. "Please don't let this beautiful thread degrade into Digital vs Film."
    To be fair, the thread was started with the comment "(Thank G I left my DSLR home....)".
    I'm not getting into the points about whether Velvia is good, whether digital is somehow "bad" or even just "worse", and I don't think it should be a surprise to anyone that 6x7 film gets you a lot of detail. But I also don't think anyone should be surprised if a thread started with that parenthetical generates *some* reaction about digital. That is especially true given Mauro's obvious enthusiasm for stating his preferences.
    People should use the tools that help them get the pictures they want.
     
  70. Mauro (and other Velvia guys here):
    I've always had trouble with Velvia images coming out very cool or blueish. I switched to Provia and it seems to match the scene a little better usually. I'd like to get my Velvia shots to look as good but it just hasn't happened. Are you using a warming filter in these images and if so, which one? Thanks.
     
  71. No warming filters. Just a polarizer occasionally.
    What camera and scanner do you use? The only time I had bluish results from Velvia was when I was using an old TLR with a first generation coating on the lens.
     
  72. Here is an example:
    00TzIq-156455684.jpg
     
  73. Mauro, I have a Nikon CS 9000 for all my scanning. Also, in terms of comparing Velvia to Provia, I find Provia to have much more of a bluish tint to it.
     
  74. That is true in my experience too John. Provia is definitely bluer than Velvia.
     
  75. I'm a product of the digital revolution, I've shot digital since starting photography, using full-frame Canon DSLRs. A few months ago I started shooting B&W 35mm just for fun. I got so hooked on film, I picked up a Fuji 6x9 and some Velvia.
    Holy mother... My Canons have been collecting dust, and probably will for some time.
    The best part is, my clients see the film shots, and they're blown away, even ones that aren't compositionally that interesting (at least, to me). I don't know what it is, but there is something about film that is ethereal - you just see it and it's like you're there, like you can feel it, like it's in your bones. It's so organic. It's really quite extraordinary. All these photos exemplify this to me, thanks for sharing.
     
  76. My Velvia shot
    00TzM9-156477584.jpg
     
  77. Organic is a good word. It makes you feel like you can tough the scene if you get close enough to the print.
     
  78. Velvia and blue: for many folks, it's an adjustment to see the saturated blues in shadowed light that Velvia shows. To me, Provia was always a little more unnaturally blue, but Velvia will kick you with intensely saturated blues when that's what the light offers. If that's not what you want in that situation, then you would need to use a warming filter or a different film. For many folks, that rich shadow tonality is part of why they are using the Velvia in the first place. As with any tool, part of the process is learning to use it to get what you want from it.
     
  79. Cool blues are one of the reasons I switched from Provia to Astia. Astia has a better DR and more neutral colors. It helps avoid some of the issues of Velvia with bocked up shadows.
     
  80. All I've ever shot with professionally is Velvia 50 and my F5. It has supported my family and I for ten years now.

    I've also used Provia along with Velvia 100 (for some wildlife and seascapes). But Nothing compares to 50 for me when it comes to landscape work.

    I also own a $47,000 Eversmart Supreme II scanner to scan those bad boys. I love Velvia. It seems more real, organic, natural blah blah blah to me.

    That said, I am soon to switch over to digital and say goodbye to my precious Velivia 50.

    Why would I kick out of bed what has been so good and loyal to me for so long?

    The answers:

    1- NO MORE SCANNING!!!!!!

    2- Hundreds to thousands of images, non-stop, to a memory card verses having to change rolls every 36 photos. (I have lost great shots because I ran out when I ran out).

    3- No film costs. (One Pacific Northwest 30 day trip cost me $2000 in film alone). Do some math, I've been doing this 10 years now.

    4- No developing film costs. (That same Pacific Northwest trip cost me almost the same amount in developing). Do some math, I've been doing this 10 years now.

    5- Instant results. I have lost MANY ROLLS because of problems such as a sticky aperture that I would have known with digital. Or because I set ASA to 6 by accident one day. When I finally noticed it (12 rolls later) I almost cried.

    6- Ability to change ISO settings whenever I want to.

    7- Ability to change size of image file settings whenever I want to.

    8- Cameras like new D3X which shoot 24.5 megs which now competes with medium format. (AND LOOKS AMAZING!!)

    9- No more squinting on lightbox editing. (Sometimes I swear I was going blind from too much of that).

    10- No more airport hassles having to scan or hand inspect all my rolls of film.

    11- No moor having to keep my film cold when traveling all over.

    12- Did I mention NO MORE SCANNING!!!! That's worth a second time here. Scanning is a pain in the A$$.

    Every film slide that gets chosen then has to get to be scanned, cleaned up, cropped, sized which TAKES A LOT OF TIME and hassle.

    Sometimes the scans suck and I get to rescan it. Weeeee. Oftentimes with Veliva there is a magenta cast when scanned. weeeeee

    With digital every single image is like a clean scan all ready to print.

    If digital was just slightly inferior I'd still switch because of all teh reasons above.

    But folks, all of my professional labs say (more like YELL IT) that today's digital is BETTER than film today.

    I cannot interpolate my film scans anywhere near as much as my son can interpolate his digital images. They fall apart much faster. And I have one of the best scanners in the world. Nat Geo uses two of what I have.

    And remember, I love my Veliva and it has been sooo good to me and has completely supported me and family in Hawaii.

    But when I finally get that D3X knowing all scanning is now over and all the other things on my little list, I'l be happy to say goodbye to my precious Velvia 50 for good.

    Today I rent inexpensive Nikon D-60's for our photo tours biz to customers and also use them for all webwork because it's so easy and fast and NO MORE SCANNING. It takes super images.

    I can't wait to get that bog boy for professional landscape work soon!

    And I love my Velvia 50...
     
  81. it

    it

    If you know the film and shoot with it accordingly, it's amazing. (i.e. Vincent) But it is very tough to nail the exposure. I met a very well known NatGeo shooter a few years ago. He had just spent a year on one story, and shot 1000 rolls for a spread that featured 19 images. At that point he was still shooting Velvia and Provia and a bit of 1600 neg for the low light stuff. He said he "bracketed like a madman" on almost every shot. (1/2 step)
    I think you have to be prepared to do this to get the right exposure. For the record, I don't see anything in the above samples that couldn't have been done digitally.
     
  82. "He said he "bracketed like a madman" on almost every shot. (1/2 step)"
    **** That goes without saying. I ALWAYS bracket when using Velvia. One third in each direction works for me. 1/2 was just too much.

    I cannot count the number of times doing that saved the day. Which is one reason why my film costs are through the roof. I'd probably still bracket with digital especially with significant subject matter just to be sure as well as to have backup if wanting HDR.
     
  83. Congratulations on the D3X. It is a great camera. Very convenient also for all the points you mention.
    On film quantity, I usually take my time before shooting a picture and I don't bracket and I almost never off in exposure. I believe it is a combination of skill and a lot of luck.
    Conveniences are great to the point you decide to live with the trade offs. Before your own standards hurt when you used Velvia 100 instead of Velvia 50. Now you pick a camera with off the shelf interpolated color, scroll the ISO wheel at will, and you are completely happy. Funny how things change.
    I can tell you that it is impossible to me to shoot 12 rolls with the ISO at 6 set 4 stops off where normal daylight scenes at f11 would require a shutter speed of over 1/800 with Velvia 50 without thinking something is wrong. Also every time you change a roll the camera should read the ISO. In medium format I meter manually.
    What did you mean by the D3X's competing with medium format Velvia 50?
     
  84. By the way, I saw your pictures and you seemed extremely talented to me. It'd be a shame for Velvia 50 to loose you....
    Which pictures in your gallery are not from Velvia?
     
  85. Is your scanner up for sale?
     
  86. Vincent,
    You’ll love the D3X. I had a chance to play with one in a park recently. A fellow had just bought one and he let me use my CF card for a few shots. At iso 100, based on what I viewed, at 16x20, you won’t see any difference between a good scan of MF and the D3X….at least on a cottonrag paper like HM308. It’ll be quite the upgrade from 35mm for you. What was interesting was the fact that at that size, it made MF Astia look grainy. It was only because the D3X file had absolutely no noise that the Astia looked noisy in comparison.

    You’ll find the D3X a suitable match for MF at 16x20….unless you like viewing prints through a loupe.
     
  87. "On film quantity, I usually take my time before shooting a picture and I don't bracket and I almost never off in exposure. I believe it is a combination of skill and a lot of luck."


    **** When paying big bucks to travel to a location and when you need to get it the shot right, I never leave it up to luck. Bracketing has saved images many times.
    "Conveniences are great to the point you decide to live with the trade offs. Before your own standards hurt when you used Velvia 100 instead of Velvia 50. Now you pick a camera with off the shelf interpolated color, scroll the ISO wheel at will, and you are completely happy. Funny how things change."
    **** Nonsense! You listed just ONE thing on my list. I posted 11 reasons. And notice you never commented on most of them including all the time going into scanning. Scanning is a time consuming deal that you completely avoid with switching to digital. How come you missed all those other things Mauro??
    There are MANY REASONS why switching over to digital will make sense as placed on your lap. Not just one as you tried to quote. I would not switch if the only advantage was changing ISO settings.
    But since there are numerous other advantages including all the time going into scanning along with no more film and development costs (you skipped those too) along with hassles of carrying film and keeping it cool (where are those in your reply?) and even more... I can safely say that a switch makes all the sense in the world for me.
    And I do this thing for a living, full time.
    "I can tell you that it is impossible to me to shoot 12 rolls with the ISO at 6 set 4 stops off where normal daylight scenes at f11 would require a shutter speed of over 1/800 with Velvia 50 without thinking something is wrong. Also every time you change a roll the camera should read the ISO. In medium format I meter manually."

    **** I eventually did catch it. But on the F5 it's poorly located and very small. And I was highly focused on photography in northern California on a trip. I eventually just went back and actually had better conditions than the first time. Still, the point is that with digital you know right away. So now what?
    Same with the sticking aperture problem that cost me many rolls on Oahu. You can make adjustments on the fly with digital. I learned the hard way the first time I shot nighttime volcano shots that there is just too much contrast unless shooting close into the lava. Digital would have spared me the expense and hard knock lessons.
    "What did you mean by the D3X's competing with medium format Velvia 50?"

    **** From Nikon's own website: "resolution is amazing, rivaling digital medium–format camera offerings."
    I didn't type that, Nikon did. Think they might know?



    Or, if you don't trust what Nikon says just type in Nikon D3X compares to medium format in Google and then hold onto your hat.
    And Mauro, let me quote your first sentence again way up top:

    "Just got back from Montana and scanned the first slide. I shot only TMAX and Velvia (Thank G I left my DSLR home....)"
    **** You didn't really mean you just got back, right? Unless you do all your own film developing of course. Because it will likely take at least ONE WEEK for film to get developed. And more time to edit through your images to selecdt which gets scanned.
    And then more time to actually SCAN ALL THOSE SLIDES. You really meant to say you just got back from Montana a week or two ago, right Mauro?
    Whereas if you did bring your digital outfit (the one you are so happy you left behind) you'd have been posting photos within an hour or less.
    heh
     
  88. Here we go. I sure hope you do well and continue to support your family. I see room for all of us in this world including Digital and Film people.
    I see no reason for acting angry and yelling. I don't think it is worth the time of any of us here to fight when we can be helping each other.
    Enough of this enjoy all of each others work and don't worry about how they created it just that they did.
    Larry
     
  89. "Which pictures in your gallery are not from Velvia?"
    **** All are from using Velivia (and most all with 50). Which is why I hope my points have some credibility. I have been one of the biggest fan of Velvia for 10 years.
    But now I see far too many reasons to switch to Nikon's new D3X. I did not switch with just the 12 megapixels and the (D2X) or any of the newer D3 series. I can already compete with those with my film and top class scanner. Plus am still scanning all those older trips which take a ton of time.
    But the D3X changes things and now I am about ready to jump in.
     
  90. Why does this topic keep coming up? No one is going to suddenly say "oh, you're right, I'll just switch to film/digital!" The next step is going to be getting out a few test shots and charts to prove that digital is better than film, followed by charts proving that film is better than digital. Then we'll have a debate over convenience versus the act of taking the photo and so on. Please, everyone stop baiting one another and responding to the bait.
    That being said, I think that both digital and film have their place and I like to use both. For work I shoot digital. I'm a journalist and that's just the way things are today. For my own pleasure I shoot film because that's what I like to do, and its my free time to do with as I wish. I'm just glad that both options are available and that I have all of these wonderful options and facets to explore on both sides.
    If your reasons for going with one or the other or both are sufficient for you to do so, then I guess I fail to see the need to use the same reasoning to berate others for not doing likewise. It often sounds like a person is trying to convince themselves more than they are trying to convince others.
     
  91. "Is your scanner up for sale?"
    **** Are you kidding me. I'll be scanning old stuff your years to come. It takes a lot of time to scan large files, as you must know.
    But when I do sell it, I'll be sure to call you first.
    I'll check back on this later, am heading out for a bit.
     
  92. Didn't mean it as a critique to the decision Vincent. Even Dave quotes he has seen comparable results from the D3X to medium format up to 16x20 unless you stick the nose to the print.
    I actually got back over a week ago. I developed the TMAX myself and sent the Velvia out.
    I personally love the Velvia 50 - 35mm and 6x7 detail and colors. I am not even sure how to reproduce the colors in PS from a DSLR.
    I look forward to seeing some of your pictures and hearing your experiences with the D3X.
     
  93. Clap Clap Clap Clap...........
     
  94. Amen from me too. It interesting how a discussion can turn into a debate. Anyone with an open mind will appreciate the virtues of both film and digital. But two things cannot be denied. They are that digital becomes very, very expensive in an exercise to match the output straight out the camera of low ISO film. I know, because I am in the midst of the exercise. And the other is the complexity and technological expertise required to make digital perform to the quality of Velvia.
    I for one do not want to be sitting at a computer playing graphic artist in an attempt to transform an image into acceptability or quality. I don't have time. I have a family and a real job. I like being able to drop off my film for processing and pick up the slides, unmounted, with a high res scan done, the next day. I don't want to be an expert developer, I want to become an expert shooter. I would rather invest the extra thousands in great glass or an MF kit than on IT. And digital has an awfully long way to go before it can match the output of say the combination of Velvia 50, and a quality 617 camera. Wide format landscapes are probably the last holdout for film, and it will be some time before that wall is breached at an affordable level.
    In the meantime I will just continue enjoying and refining my technique, gradually learn digital as well, but still wonder at what is possible with this fine film.
     
  95. Al I know is that very few people have used Velvia like I have over the years professionally for landscapes.
    I simply love this film.
    But anybody with eyes can see that today's digital cameras have improved to the point nowadays where one can easily match, if not surpass, what film can do overall. I have seen it again and again from other professionals today.
    In the not too distant past digital images were too noisy, lacking dynamic range, could not produce large enough files for large printing etc. etc.
    Not so any longer.
    It's not just the fact that digital files are big, colorful and beautiful today. It's also the fact (for me) that you can avoid all the hassles that do come with using film. I already listed many of these in detail in my first comment here. A 4, 6, 8 or 16 gig memory card means you can just continue shooting until YOU are finished, and not because your 36 exposures (and far less if using medium or large format) film are finished.
    It means no more lugging around 80-250 rolls of Velivia film for a shooting trip, keeping it cool, dealing with airport scanning and more.
    It also means I can use 35mm gear, with the fastest and widest lenses available anywhere today. Take a look at how much you lose when using 6x7 gear or larger. Even 645 gear and lenses can't compare to 35mm in terms of speed and features.
    It also means no more developing and film costs.
    And as mentioned several times, though not mentioned in anybody's replies here that I have seen, the greatest reason for a switch is the complete elimination of scanning and all the time/hassles/cleaning that comes with it!
    That is no small thing here folks. Scanning is a real deal breaker for some.
    I cannot think, as a professional that supports himself solely on my photography, of any good reason to stay with film any longer.
    And I love my Velvia 50. And for those that stick with film as a hobby or that do not mind all the time involved with scanning and costs with shooting/developing film professionally, I say good for you.
    If somebody could beat me in the argument, I'd stick with film too. Heck, I've already got a great setup to do just that.
    But take a look at the best of the best in landscape photography today, and probably 90 percent are shooting digital today, because the digital process is just that much better.
    And now, adding to a better process, finally, many are admitting that the digital image itself is at least every bit as good if not better than film.
    As good an image, and a better, faster more affordable, less hassles process just seems to make sense.
    I will probably always keep my F5 and keep my hand in film to at least some degree. But when it comes to making a living and doing this on a daily basis I just can't see any good reason to stay away from the digital world of photography any longer. And trust me guys, I have sure tried.
    Thanks for the interchange.
     
  96. I missed this one:
    quote: "I am not even sure how to reproduce the colors in PS from a DSLR."

    **** I agree nothing looks like an amazing colorful slide of Velvia 50 on the lightbox.
    But remember, Mauro, you still have to SCAN THAT SLIDE. You never get that slide's amazing colors and richness once it is scanned.
    You LOSE a full generation through the scanning process alone.
    I have used many scanners over the years before plopping down money for that $47,000 Eversmart Supreme II film scanner. And even with that YOU LOSE a lot from the original transparency itself. There is no way around it.
    Which, again, only points me back into the direction of digital today because of the tremendous progress digital cameras have made overall during the past few years.
    Just one man's .02...
     
  97. Mauro,
    It looks like you have some Newton rings on your Old Faithful shot, above the tree about the middle of the frame.
    Scott
     
  98. I noticed that after I scanned it. It is actually the not totally dry holder. I had cleaned the glass holder and couldn't wait to get that puppy thorugh.
     
  99. You have made your choice.... Move on Support your family. Let us who don't care have fun.
    I know you put much money into your job and with the price of that scanner I think I would have rented it out as a side job to someone. but that is just me.
    May you have peace all the rest of your life.
    Larry
     
  100. Vincent,
    Will you give up film altogether? Even 120 and 4x5?
    Would you carry some Velvia along your first trips alongside with the D3X for comparison of the same shot? I would love to see them side by side.
     
  101. Great - another digital v. film thread. Very entertaining -- and I have a lot of time to read it while I scan my film.
    Digital has much going for it in the form of convenience, ease of use, and remarkable image quality. In a few weeks, I will be headed out to write and shoot a story for the magazine I edit, and with me will go my Canon 5D.Our magazine's guidelines for photographers now stipulate digital files -- not because they are better (although they can be wonderful from a good photographer) but because they are so much easier to work with. One of my coworkers recently assigned a photo shoot and forgot to send along the guidelines. The result: hundreds of slides that someone will have to scan to meet our current work flow. I was not happy.
    But on weekends, I now work with MF film, because I love the process and the remarkable image quality, which is neither better nor worse than digital, but is different. Photographers have so few choices when it comes to image making, why beat one another up over one of the few ways we have to influence the character of our images. (Again, not quality, but character.)
    Peace, all.
    Bill Poole
     
  102. Oh, the Velvia yellows and reds together.....
    00Tzf3-156617584.jpg
     
  103. Bill, I believe it all good and full of positive sharing in this thread.
     
  104. Larry Dressler writes:
    "You have made your choice.... Move on Support your family. Let us who don't care have fun."
    **** It sounds like you are asking me to leave. I would think that as slightly rude, if true.
    "Would you carry some Velvia along your first trips alongside with the D3X for comparison of the same shot? I would love to see them side by side."
    **** Yes, I will compare both side by side and share details. But from all that I have seen and read and know already, I am convinced that this is the new direction. I can point to hundreds or thousands of pro photographers that have raved about the new digital world of photography.
    And have the images to prove it.
    The proof truly is already out there.
    That all said, will a Nikon D3X image blow away an image captured with Velivia 50 film, high quality scanned and then printed? NO.
    But it will likely be very close if not equal. And the process itself is far superior and simpler if one is doing this for a living.
    I already mentioned I may never give up film altogether. I love Velvia 50. Seriously.
    Have a good one.
    Vince
     
  105. 1. I like scanning better then RAW processing.
    **** Too bad we only live 70 some years. And for you a good part will be scanning while I will now be shooting. : )

    2. Get a video camera and shoot more.
    **** A Total WHIFF. Doesn't even make sense.
    "3. Get a celphone camera and you can text it . . . even faster."
    **** Another whiff. What does any of that have to do with paying for film?? You okay over there?

    "4. Cost of doing business, pass it along."
    **** Not any more! Now can cut costs, sell product for less and sell more of it to consumers. But hey you can still pass those extra charges along. : ))

    "5. Picture the image in your mine before you mash the shutter . . . even faster."
    **** Too bad following that advice still gets me blown rolls without knowing, even with a faster shutter press...

    "6. Mid roll rewind, even your F5 must have that. Multiple backs with MF."
    **** Or just use digital and press a button. Let me see, five minutes or five seconds... hmmmmm....

    "7. Who doesn't know how to change filesize is challenged."
    **** Big files for stellar landscape shots and little ole J-pegs for photos of rover. All in three seconds. But YOU gotta SCAN all of it first! Yep, I'm challenged alright.

    "8. Show me how a D3X competes with MF and I will show you someone who managed to show a 3mp digianything showed more detail then an Imacon scan of 35mm Provia 100F. You thinking Nikon will answer you without bias says it all . . ."
    **** That's why I said Google it and see what other pros say. Here, I'll even post one for ya:
    From:http://www.daveblackphotography.com/workshop/02-2009.html
    "So why did I buy a D3X? Primarily for the unparalleled image quality in a 35mm camera, and that image quality leads to commercial /advertising jobs and sales which translates to commercial/advertising income, which far exceeds income from editorial day rates and in my opinion makes the additional cost of $3,100 (over a D3) a sensible business decision. The market place for your images is a major component in determining what camera you use. My work still includes editorial work of which the D3 or D700 reign supreme, but if I use a D3X to cover football, swimming, tennis etc, etc, my images will stand out as higher quality than those photographers I'm competing against for clients. My business now goes beyond editorial and includes commercial jobs and sales every month and the Nikon D3X will help me achieve the higher standard of excellence that is required for that end of the industry.

    The quality of detail that each D3X file produces is remarkable. For jobs that I use arena lighting, Speedlights, or Lightpainting, and even for my landscapes or nature images to excel in the market place, whether published or in print enlargements, I have always looked forward to the reality of medium format quality in a 35mm camera and the Nikon D3X does that for me.
    **** But there are so many more like this all over the net from folks that OWN ONE. I am no longer living with blinders on though. That may make a difference. What you think?
    "9. Squinting in a puny viewfinder or LCD on the back in bright sunlight is considerably worst then a lightbox. Ever look in an MF viewfinder?"
    **** I won't be editing images captured on any puny viewfinder or LCD. I'll be editing on a big, wide 23 inch Apple monitor sitting back in comfort. And that sure beats squinting with one eye through a 4X loupe for hours at a time going blind...

    "10. Airport goes through your laptop and handhelds too."
    **** Bwaaaaahahaahahaaha .... Hey try handing over one laptop AND THEN try 100 rolls of film and request a hand-check rather than scanned. That was the worst one yet. Gotta love it.

    "11. I had film in my Las Vegas garage 10 years - over 120degrees for over 6 months a year, showed no failure after I finished the roll and had it processed."
    **** But when you pay up big bucks for special long photo trips and you then catch magical shots, you keep it cool anyway just to be sure. Know what I mean?

    "12. Only a haole complains about honest work . . . ;-)"

    **** Okay so you got me there. This "Haole" (Hawaiian term for white boy from mainland) wanting less work to capture more photos so he can spend less time working and more time on the beach with Mai Tai.
    Hey, while I'm on the beach and capturing all those photos sipping Mai Tai's I'll think about you scanning.
    Have fun.
    Aloha!!
     
  106. "I figured you would site the Ludicrous Lambaste shootout but your source is the same. That's ok, we know better."
    **** Yep they're ALL just made up bologna salami by folks who are just lost and clueless and have no idea what they are doing with a camera. That's why I said Google it yourself. This is fun.
    "You can always include some macadamia nuts to sell more of your work. I can understand that your market is what it is . . ."
    **** Well, if I keep charging more (as you suggest) to stay with film then can you pay for those Mac nuts for me?
    "That's a typical haloe alright, drinking umbrella drinks . . . ;-)"
    **** Yep, sorry umbrella drinks with coconuts, beach, turquoise waters and pretty Hawaiian gals doing hula while you're SCANNING.
    heh
    Gotta love it!
     
  107. "You might even try Wiki, everything there is also true . . . ;-)"
    **** Hey, does wiki write about wearing blinders. Look it up and let me know what you learn.
    : )
    Just having fun.
    Have a good one.
     
  108. "We know, business convenience yes, quality no. Got it, thanks."
    **** I asked will it "blow it away" (and answered no) but you seemed to miss that part. I wonder why. Could that be because of those silly blinders again?
    Come on, go to wiki and read up on blinders.
    That is, whenever you find time between scanning.
    : )
     
  109. Everyone knows that I think digital is way too expensive and I bang on about it. But $45k for a scanner?? We've reached new heights. That would pay for an H3-50, a new S3 and three lenses, or 6 Linhoff 617's.
    That also buys a lot of processing and expert scanning. I'll leave that to the experts.
    Sure its more trouble to process, scan, then post process. But I just like the simplicity of the picture taking with film. ISO, aperture, shutter speed and focus. That's all. Maybe some exposure compensation or bracketing if you are fussy. All up maybe 6 variables.
    I have a D300. A great camera. The most expensive individual piece of kit I own. BUT......The settings menu's have 136 different primary variables. I did not count sub menus. And the manual is 400 pages. Nikon even supply a piece of software to run on your PC to make setting it up easier. Trying to learn it all is a pain in the arse, and as for changing something out in the sunlight?...Forget it, no matter how big the LCD is. And Nikon get a gong for being more intuitive than the others? I even went the Nikonians way of downloading the spreadsheet of their recommended settings and creating four shooting profiles...P&S, LS, Portrait and Sports. That takes it all to over 200 items. It took hours and hours and I ran a battery dead doing it. Four pages of landscape spreadsheets. It should not be this hard. Yes, I know I could have bought a D90 with everything set up, but that's the point...I should not have to set it up if I choose a semi pro body. If I am finally going to move to digital completely, I'd hope I get the equivalent of an F3 with a sensor and no menus.
    I'll be staying a while with Velvia and film for the pleasure it gives me.
     
  110. Vincent,
    I notice that when you speak of the benefits of digital you are using the future tense, e.g. "I'll be editing on a big, wide, 23 inch Apple monitor[...]"
    Why not wait for six months or a year and tell us how it is, not how it will be?
    By the way I had a look at your website - nice images, very inspirational.
    An uncle many greats back was was one of two artists on Franklin's first Arctic expedition. I wonder if he ever got into debates over water colours and oils.
     
  111. was not being Rude. This is a Film Forum. I in no way meant to imply for you to leave. You are the one who told us you went on to digital from film. Maybe my choice of words was wrong but I would never be rude on a situation as trivial as this.
     
  112. Vincent,
    First let me say that I love a lot of your photos.
    You said: That all said, will a Nikon D3X image blow away an image captured with Velivia 50 film, high quality scanned and then printed? NO.
    But it will likely be very close if not equal. And the process itself is far superior and simpler if one is doing this for a living.


    Just wondering, do you expect Velvia-like images to pop out of your D3X? Digital photography is all about post-processing and it can take HOURS to get the colors the way you want. Of course, sometimes it takes just a couple of minutes. The D3X is no doubt a great camera (the greatest small format dSLR out there), however since you have been working with Velvia exclusively over the past 10 years, I hope you don't think that the D3X produces Velvia-like photos straight out of the box. You will spend A LOT of time in front of the computer. For some shots, it might be a simpler process, for other shots you might be a bit more frustrated to get things as you want (as you are used to). In terms of scanning - I presume you go through all the photos you've taken on a trip and just scan the few ones that you really like? Otherwise, it will be extremely time consuming of course. You should also be aware of that you might be clicking away more with the digital camera (less critical on what you actually shoot), hence you end up with even more photos and just the selection process will take more of your time than if you were shooting film.. Oistein
     
  113. The only wise path to film is not out of ignorance of digital but it is from having made the trip to digital and decided to come back to film.
    I think Oisten's point is very -if not the most- valid. On paper, and even after looking at an image with editing done, digital looks good. In reality, I think it is easy to understimate what velvia gives you out of the box.
    I say it honestly that I want to hear how your experience goes with the D3X and what your experience brings you to conclude. Whether you where underestimating what Velvia was giving you or not. (The gadgety factor plus the convenience of digital make it an awesome tool to play with - so it takes time ~years~ to make the path back to film). This is my experience.
    Vincent, you are not only talented but also very seasoned, I am looking forward to hear how many endless nights you will spend trying to make the D3X landscapes look like the Velvia 50 you brought alongside. And what is going to happen when you drop Velvia and you don't even have a point of reference any more? But maybe your experience will be that the D3X output matches or surpases the results from Velvia. Just presenting two 8x10s of landscapes (Velvia - D3X) and run a blind focus group with your clients and family will help.
    Looking forward to the results.
     
  114. Also by not carrying your film camera it means you cannot shot B&W film anymore. If there is one thing more difficult to do than making a DSLR look like Velvia, that is making a decent B&W out of a DSLR.
    I just finished reading the current article of Silver Shotz (a fine art photography publication) that includes all 8x10 B&W though the issue. It is mainly from film but it has some DSLR B&W conversions too. I'll make no comments - just browse through it at your local Barnes&Noble.
     
  115. I think that sometimes the format gets in the way of simply saying "those are some gorgeous pictures". Those are some gorgeous pictures.
     
  116. Concerning Velvia vs. Nikon D3X, some photography friends and me (professionals and experienced amateurs) have made lots of very very detailed tests. Results (short summary):
    1. Resolution is significantly higher with Velvia, if you use excellent prime lenses (optimize your system resolution!), e.g. Zeiss, Leica or best Nikon lenses. We have reached resolution values of 120 - 140 linepairs per millimeter with Velvia. With Zeiss ZF and Leica glass. Object contrast was quite low with 1:20. This object contrast is given in most scenes in daily photography.
    The resolution of the D3X is limited by the Nyquist frequency. This is a physical limit. It is impossible to get higher values. With this 24 Mp sensor it is at 85 Lp/mm. But because of the resolution decreasing effect of CAs it is very hard to reach this resolution limit with most lenses. We were successful with the Zeiss ZF 2/50.
    Above the resolution limit of Nyquist frequency you get aliasing artifacts with the sensor, details are not resolved anymore.
    Our test results correspond with the scientific tests made by K. Müller and Dr. Nasse at Zeiss (look at the Camera Lens News on the Zeiss homepage where all theses tests are published). They even got higher resolution values for film than we did.
    2. With the Nikon D3X you get very clean and noise free images compared to Velvia. If you like this or prefer the look of grain, is a matter of taste. I prefer the film look, because for me it looks more natural. The D3X look is too artifical, too perfectly clean for my taste. My eyes don't see in the way of the D3X. But, as I said, that is only my personal preference.
    3. I like my pictures very big and brillant, at least 1m x 1,5m, better more. We have tried this with negative film, 24 Mp digital and slides. The best wy to do it is to project slides. The color brillance and tonality is unsurpassed. It is impossible to get similar color brillance with prints. At these enlargement factors of 40x or more film, eyspecially slide films, deliver the best resolution and fineness of detail. We have compared it side by side. With the 24 Mp files you see aliasing artifacts and loss of detail. With a very good projection lens (e.g. Leica Super-Colorplan) we got 120 - 130 Lp/mm transferred on the screen (the Velvia / Zeiss ZF slides).
    It is impossible to get such high resolution values with digital beamers. We've tested the new Leica Pradovit digital beamer (10.000€) in comparison. No chance at all for the beamer, resolution is limited with only 25 Lp/mm. So, you get abot 20% of the resolution (and an only limited color space) at 20x higher price with the beamer.
    Our result: Slides projected on a screen, that is a class of its own. Probably one of the reasons why we like to go to cinema ;-).
     
  117. I think in this day we have our answer to the so-called digital vs. film debate: there is plenty of room for each, and one is not necessarily exclusive of the other. I miss the pointless Nikon vs. Canon debates, myself ;)
    Beautiful pics of Old Faithful :) I was just there last month, and photographed it with an ancient D2x; shot the falls with a Mamiya 7 and RDPIII.
     
  118. Before this thread degrades further, we should all keep in mind Vincent's reasoning for making the switch - it is a business decision. It's very easy for those of us who shoot for pleasure to say what someone should or shouldn't do for purely aesthetic reasons, but at the end of the day, ya gotta do what ya gotta do to make ends meet.
     
  119. I just bought 50€ worth of films and paper today (colour films but B&W paper for my B&W stuff obviously) :)
    I like shooting film and making my own prints, having negatives that I can work with that are not dependent upon Hard drive failure. Making pictures in a darkroom is a process and a practice that's enjoyable. And in the end, I find at my position, I end up with some pictures, when with my DSLR I don't print so often (but that's purely my problem:)
    However my Nikon D60, which is not at all a pro DSLR is also amazing in it's convinience and picture quality - I simply love some of the pictures I get from it.
    I started with Digital (okay that was only a year ago) the also shot with MF and 35mm making my own prints and scanning negatives with a flatbed scanner (nothing like that pro scanner from Vincent - and yes, scanning takes time). It's a complimentary combination. but however, I find that film also costs a hell of a lot of money - I've probably spend at least 300 or 400€ on paper, films and chemicals - and that would get me a really nice DSLR body or lenses.
    In the future I'm probably going to spend money primarily on digital, because I get really nice results from it, but will on time to time dime out for film (but, being a student, every € counts)
    This is just my experience - i don't care which is better in resoluton or soemthing, since I am not doing this professionally - it's more about the evaluation of different processes I have at my disposal (devoloping film, making a photo appear on paper and also getting nice pictures ona DSLR and tweaking it in Photoshop)
     
  120. Francois,
    The problem I see with 35mm Velvia enlarged in print form that size is that at 20x30, 24x36 and 30x45, grain becomes more of an issue than resolution. Even at 16x24 you'll see grain lessen resolution. That is why I found that while these exceedingly high resolution figures mean little on print. In the end, at 20x30, I haven't seen any 35mm film, be it Velvia or Astia or Provia, match the PERCEIVED resolution of 21 or 24mp digital capture. Where did the extra resolution of the film go? I don't know. But do know what I see on print. And trust me, I'm the most anal retentive film lover you've ever met. But at large size prints above 16x24, 35mm color looks like grainy mush compared to high resolution digial or MF or large format film capture.
    For prints at 24x30, I would never use 35mm film. MF would be the bottom limit for me on landscape prints that need detail. In fact, I'd prefer LF for the lack of grain and more accurate color pallette.
    But lets be realistic here. I've yet to see 35mm at 20x30 that looked anything but grainy....and that from the best photographers on the planet. 24mp digital will simply look better.....yes different as well, but that's up to personal taste.
     
  121. Ok, just one more thing - not having money to buy a D700 or better, for that kind of wuality I still love tu put film in my Mamiya C330 - it's kinda like having a lower starting cost but with higher running costs (but then agan, I don't shoot that much) :)
    I like the thread, a lot of good points being made and would love to see some more velvia scans as well.
    Nice gallery Vincent!
    p.s.: and sorry for the typos :D
     
  122. For grins, here's Old Faithful, Nikon D2x, 18mm 2.8, RAW first capture. Up 20 points in shadow and saturation, 50 percent sharpening, tons of dust removal from my filthy sensor.
     
  123. For grins, here's Old Faithful, Nikon D2x, 18mm 2.8, RAW first capture. Up 20 points in shadow and saturation, 50 percent sharpening, tons of dust removal from my filthy sensor.
    00U03E-156783884.jpg
     
  124. Mauro, I love the color and depth in your image :)
     
  125. Dave,
    I have to disagree from my own experience and the experience and work of my photography friends. We've made optical prints from slides in 50x75cm from Velvia, Astia, Provia, Sensia, E100G which are almost grain free. You have to put your nose on the print to really see grain. Optical prints on Ilfochrome. Similar results with drum scans.
    Grain is not limiting resolution at these enlargement factors. We have also looked at 100x (!) enlargements via microscope. No problem at all to see the resolution even at this extremely high enlargement factors. If grain would limit the resolution at 20x factors as you say, than it would be impossible to see such high resolution values at 100x enlargement.
    And when you project a slide, in most cases you have resolution factors higher than 30x, and with good projection lenses you can see the high resolution on the screen. We have made lots of tests to analyse this, testcharts, landscapes, portraits, and we have always got the same results. With portraits we could count every single hair at the eye brows, even if we got extremely close to the screen. The projected pictures were 1m x 1,5m big.
    The bottle neck with film, the resolution limiting factor, is the lens. With zoom lenses or mediocre primes you will not get the best out the film. With excellent primes you will.
     
  126. Francois
    What format did you use to make these 50X75cm prints from?
     
  127. I only have time for a few replies this morning.


    "Everyone knows that I think digital is way too expensive and I bang on about it. But $45k for a scanner?? "

    **** That's what a new one costs today. I paid only $30,000 including an oil station for a twice used show demo.


    Very few scanners have the capabilities of this one. I scan all of my slides as 222 meg (24x36) TIFFS. They are clean and beautiful files even at that size. It helps that I only use Nikon's best glass, a tripod most of the time and as close to F8 whenever possible.
    Labs, even today, charge a hefty price for scans of this size and quality. Having my own scanner then made sense. We sell a lot of prints in retail accounts as well as online in four locations. And am building up our stock images department. But I can tell you that scanning takes time. Far more time than I ever wanted to spend. And I want out if digital can get me out... which finally now it can.
    "Vincent,
    I notice that when you speak of the benefits of digital you are using the future tense, e.g. "I'll be editing on a big, wide, 23 inch Apple monitor[...]" Why not wait for six months or a year and tell us how it is, not how it will be?"





    **** I probably will. But, I have already seen what my son's Nikon D2X (that he purchased several years ago) can do. Go here:
    http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/8524016_hYZX2/6#P-1-15


    His fine art PRINTS are nothing short of stunning. That older model D2X camera has noise issues and now considered as a dinosaur when compared to the newest technology.



    I have already seen what our photo tours rental cameras (Nikon D60's) can do. I have used those for website and advertisement brochure work. Probably 90 percent of photos on this page were taken with a D60 and kit lens both costing less than $550 combined. And all shot in J-peg rather than raw.
    http://www.hawaiianphotos.net/kauai_tour_photos.htm


    I have read what photo editors and real world users have said about the D3X (on top of what I have seen with my eyes above).


    And time involved in scanning is completely eliminated. Film and developing costs are a thing of the past.
    "Just wondering, do you expect Velvia-like images to pop out of your D3X? Digital photography is all about post-processing and it can take HOURS to get the colors the way you want. Of course, sometimes it takes just a couple of minutes. The D3X is no doubt a great camera (the greatest small format dSLR out there), however since you have been working with Velvia exclusively over the past 10 years, I hope you don't think that the D3X produces Velvia-like photos straight out of the box. You will spend A LOT of time in front of the computer."




    **** I absolutely do know this. I spend hours in editing every single day. But I can tell you one thing that I believe so many people seem to overlook here. No scan in the world can perfectly replicate what Velvia looks like on a lightbox. NONE. The scanning process alone causes a significant amount of degradation to what you see on a lightbox. And, it takes time in scanning process to lose that quality. How do you like that!
    "Vincent, you are not only talented but also very seasoned, I am looking forward to hear how many endless nights you will spend trying to make the D3X landscapes look like the Velvia 50 you brought alongside."




    **** Remember Mauro, every digital file, straight out of the camera is like an already scanned, cleaned and cropped ready to edit file.


    That means no more scanning. That means no more sending out film to get developed and squinting through a loupe for hours along with many other things already listed.


    That means having 24.5 megapixels of often gorgeous imagery to do whatever I need to do with while eliminating so many hassles and time consuming elements that currently bog me down with film.


    But just to be sure I will come back and report exactly what I find. Though I have seen and read enough to know what to expect.


    We all love how Velvia looks on a light box. But Velvia never looks the same as a scan. And it takes TIME in photoshop to get it as close as possible.
    "Also by not carrying your film camera it means you cannot shot B&W film anymore. If there is one thing more difficult to do than making a DSLR look like Velvia, that is making a decent B&W out of a DSLR."




    **** I have seen stunning B&W from digital. I have seen stunning B&W from digital again and again. I have seen stunning B&W from digital. I have seen....
    "I think that sometimes the format gets in the way of simply saying "those are some gorgeous pictures". Those are some gorgeous pictures."


    **** I consider my current print line to have some gorgeous photos. So much so that we make a living from those photos. And just about every photo I have today was captured with Velvia 50. Believe me, I know what it can do.


    But I also know what today's digital world has accomplished and can do as well. And I am well aware of how much more time and expense using film requires.


    Which is why the time to switch for me has arrived. I would not switch with 12 megapixels. My film and scanner can match and often beat that. But not 24.5 megs it can't. I cannot do with 35mm film what 24.5 megs can do today.


    And if I switch to medium or large format then I lose the many advantages of using 35mm gear and lenses. I also get even LESS images per roll and more expense in film and developing. And I still have a ton of scanning to do. I am tired of scanning.
    "Our result: Slides projected on a screen, that is a class of its own. Probably one of the reasons why we like to go to cinema ;-)."


    **** But nobody sells/uses Velvia projected on a screen. It has to be scanned and then cleaned and then edited and finally printed.


    The scanning process alone takes away any advantages film has over digital's quality, IMHO. Not to mention the added time and expenses.
    "Before this thread degrades further, we should all keep in mind Vincent's reasoning for making the switch - it is a business decision. It's very easy for those of us who shoot for pleasure to say what someone should or shouldn't do for purely aesthetic reasons, but at the end of the day, ya gotta do what ya gotta do to make ends meet."




    **** Sorry, but I do not see this thread has degraded at all. Opinions and discussions are a good thing. But you are correct, if I loved shooting film as a hobby, I'd probably be content to just stay on course. But it's not a hobby. And I do see what digital can do.
    And for me, being out there is far more enjoyable than scanning. Spending money on traveling is better than spending money on film and developing costs.


    Like already mentioned, I spent approx $3500 in film and developing alone on my 30 day Pacific Northwest trip a few years back. Just telling you how it is. Using digital back then would have saved me most if not all of that.


    And guess what? I HAVE STILL YET TO SCAN ANY OF THOSE PAC NW SHOTS!!!!


    I finally edited it all two years ago and there are some truly beautiful photos in there. But scanning has to get in line with other business priorities I have right now. Which is why doing this is not the brightest thing for me and why I am trying to be quick in my replies.
    "(nothing like that pro scanner from Vincent - and yes, scanning takes time). It's a complimentary combination. I find that film also costs a hell of a lot of money - I've probably spend at least 300 or 400€ on paper, films and chemicals - and that would get me a really nice DSLR body or lenses.
    In the future I'm probably going to spend money primarily on digital, because I get really nice results from it, but will on time to time dime out for film (but, being a student, every € counts)"




    **** This is the paradox many film lovers find themselves in. And I am one of them. It simply takes a lot of time and money to keep doing with film what going to digital will allow me to avoid to a great degree.


    Nobody that I know of prefers scanning to shooting. Nobody that I know of prefers paying out money if they don't have to.


    If the end result of shooting digital was an inferior fine art print, then count me out. But that's just not the case any longer here folks.


    You can now print beautiful and LARGER prints with 35mm digital than with 35mm film. And at a fraction of the cost and time it takes with film. This is not rocket science here. This is not hyperbole.
    "The problem I see with 35mm Velvia enlarged in print form that size is that at 20x30, 24x36 and 30x45, grain becomes more of an issue than resolution. Even at 16x24 you'll see grain lessen resolution. That is why I found that while these exceedingly high resolution figures mean little on print. In the end, at 20x30, I haven't seen any 35mm film, be it Velvia or Astia or Provia, match the PERCEIVED resolution of 21 or 24mp digital capture. "




    **** Dave is telling us what I see as well. Now, because I invested in a world class scanner, I can go larger than most without losing too much quality. In fact we have sold several 40x60's with outstanding success over the past few years. And 24x36's with regularity.
    But every scan takes a lot of time from beginning to end. With today's 21-24 35mm digital cameras you are exceeding what you can do with 35mm film. And scanning is GONE AND DONE!!! Along with no film to lug around. Add to that no more film and developing costs. No more having to change rolls at 36 frames or less. Instant results, change ISO in a second etc etc etc
    "I like the thread, a lot of good points being made and would love to see some more velvia scans as well. Nice gallery Vincent!"




    **** Thank you for the compliments. And I agree this has been a good thread to get involved with.


    Initially I did not realize this is in the film forum. I simply saw it on the Photo.net front page. I would probably have been a little more careful in what I wrote had I recognized that knowing that most people here are film lovers.


    If I missed anything pertinent feel free to let me know. I'll try to catch up again later.
    All the best,
    Vince
     
  128. Also checked out your son's page - his photos are excellent as well, makes me want to try some more and learn from it!
     
  129. [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG] [​IMG]
    Nice to see good old Velvia in the limelight!
    My entire portfolio is shot in Velvia. Those who want to see more Velvia examples may visit my profile. All shot in 35mm. I also shoot MF but don't have a scanner to share online.
    It is a joy to get back the box in mail and put the slides on a projector in the night and have that almost 3D experience of a great landscape!
    What I struggle with it is scanning to share online. I scan with a lower end Minolta scanner. I can never recreate the analog textures and the colours, and on top of the small Velvia latitude, I lose some dynamic range and sharpness. So if sharing online was the only thing, I would much rather shoot in DSLR.
    Indeed, if not for the projector and some local slide competition I participate in I will be compelled to convert!
    00U06Q-156815584.jpg
     
  130. Good shot Steve. A nice composition with the clouds and the steam.
     
  131. Dave, my prints from TMX and Velvia 50 at 20x30 show no grain. This is scanned with my Coolscan 9000 and printed with my Epson 7880.
     
  132. Dave is telling us what I see as well. Now, because I invested in a world class scanner, I can go larger than most without losing too much quality. In fact we have sold several 40x60's with outstanding success over the past few years. And 24x36's with regularity.
    But every scan takes a lot of time from beginning to end. With today's 21-24 35mm digital cameras you are exceeding what you can do with 35mm film. And scanning is GONE AND DONE!!! Along with no film to lug around. Add to that no more film and developing costs. No more having to change rolls at 36 frames or less. Instant results, change ISO in a second etc etc etc​
    That's basically what I see. As to optical prints mentioned previously, I've yet to ever see an optical print that can match the sharpness of a well scanned file output to Lightjet, Chromira, or Inkjet. I've seen some of the best work around the world from people like John Sexton, Kirk Gittings, Clyde Butcher, David Fokos, and many others. The scanned files hold sharpness better.
    As to grain free images from 35mm....whether scanned or optically printed very few films have no grain past a 25X enlargement.....Tech Pan, Rollei TP, Adox 20 being amoung the few. Being that I have no problem seeing grain from MF 6x7 Astia drum scans at 32x40.....I don't believe for a moment that grain is invisible at 30"+ from 35mm.....optical or scanned.
    Here's a link to what Fuji Pro 160S looks like in a 6300ppi scan on an Imacon. You can see it's grain limited. Pro 160S is a very fine grained film that scans very well....with an RMS 3. While the rez holds up fairly well compared to a 24mp digital sensor, it's obvious that it's grain limited....not rez limited....and that's with one of the sharpest lenses on the planet! Copy the files, reduce to 50% on screen to get an idea what it would appear like on a 20x30 print. From what I've worked with, the Sony A900 looks better on print beyond 16x24 then the best 35mm can handle.
    I think this is an exciting time for photography. We are finally reaching the point where some digital capture can match or exceed what some films can achieve. It's nothing to get upset about. It has me interested enough to seriously consider a 5D2 or A900 for some landscape work because as I said, print comparisons at 16x24 showed people unable to tell the 6x7 film vs the digital file when printed on HM Photorag 308 on an Epson 3800. Let's be honest.....most of the people complaining and anal-izing images are rarely printing professionally....and not at the sizes we're talking about anyway.
    Sorry, long diatribe. But as a quality medium....35mm was never up to par. It is used for convenience. People after real quality output have been using MF and LF....and now have the option of high quality digital. Not a big deal. Nothing for everyone to get their backs up about!
    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=29704253
     
  133. Mauro Franic [​IMG], Jul 21, 2009; 04:12 p.m.
    Dave, my prints from TMX and Velvia 50 at 20x30 show no grain. This is scanned with my Coolscan 9000 and printed with my Epson 7880.​
    Have you applied any sharpening to increase the acutance to match the digital file? I've never seen a scan from 35mm that had no grain at 20x30....sharpened or not....optically printed or not.
    Just my experience. I wasn't using a 9000 for 35mm....I used an older Imacon 343 at the max rez of 3200ppi. Although Tango scans I've had done at 5400ppi show grain at those sizes quite clearly....on Lightjet and my old Epson 7600.
    I should try a Velvia scan on the 9000 and make a print to check for grain.
     
  134. I think I have some scans from Velvia, TMAX 100 and 400 35 mm uploaded full size on my website. Let me check and I will remove the protection so you can download them. On min....
     
  135. Here are full rez scans from TMAX 35mm I printed on Epson Ultrasmooth Fine Art at 24x36:
    http://www.shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/8072306_QeWRb#525850046_GYyM6-O-LB
    http://www.shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/8072306_QeWRb#525850601_ansHS-O-LB
    Right click to save them on your computer and run a sample print.
    Let me know when you are done downloading so I can put the protection back on.
     
  136. Give me a sec. I'm on a laptop and I'm blocked. Having my wife do it from work.
     
  137. This is full rez from 35mm Ektar (All the Velvia I have full rez appears to be MF). Velvia has much much finer grain than Ektar and even so I didnt see grain on this picture at 16x20. - Same printer and paper.
    http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/popular/6/412869552_SU8dE#412869552_SU8dE-O-LB
     
  138. AOK to remove Mauro.....
    Thanks.
     
  139. Cross country team work.
     
  140. Setting the protection back on...
     
  141. Thanks Mauro. For some reason the wireless I'm using in a coffee shop won't permit Smugmug or Flickr....probably bandwidth issue. Hilarious....she downloaded it, emailed it home so it's ready for me.
    Cross country indeed.
    Cheers,
     
  142. At least you are out at a coffee shop.
     
  143. I need coffee when I'm working on wedding photos ;-)
    I checked the drum scan I have of Velvia. Apparently the micron mask was set to maximize sharpness...which accentuates grain. I'll have to rescan and resharpen in order to do a proper comparison. A lot of variables involved.
     
  144. Yep. With my punny Coolscan 9000 there is not much I can mess up since I turn everything off with the exeption of ICE normal.
     
  145. I have stopped using slide film. I use negative film only with digital for jobs.
    Most of the time my PRO-work, almost all for internet, is with a point and shoot.
    I noticed that having scans done, highlights are affected! It seems that might as well shoot only digital.
    I loved doing slide shows. The cost today prohibitive and risky with the QC at most labs..
    Velvia a very unreal color, so why bother.. Yes a film camera is more tactile, quicker but to what end?
    Why have only 36 shots..I still process my own Black and white, making enlarged prints.
    Prints not posters or billboards. Anyway luved your pix.
     
  146. Vincent K. Taylor: "I did not switch with just the 12 megapixels and the (D2X) or any of the newer D3 series. I can already compete with those with my film and top class scanner."​
    You can compete how, exactly? What film are you using for low-noise, fine-grained images at ISO 1600, 3200, and beyond?
    Hey, I LOVE film and still shoot it regularly, but the D3 and D700 do things that film (and, to be fair, MOST digital sensors) just CANNOT DO, no matter what the format and no matter what scanner you use. These cameras are in a class by themselves. The D3X can't compete with the D3 above ISO 800, but I'm sure that, like film, it takes beautiful images at low ISO values.
    Further, Nikon must have turbocharged the processing engine in the D3 and D700. I upgraded from a D200 (10MP) to a D700 (12MP). A two megapixel jump doesn't sound like much, but when you compare images from the two camera, the D700 looks as though it has TWICE the resolution, not 20 percent more. How they did it, I don't know - engineering sleight of hand? new interpolation algorithms? who knows? - but the difference is that striking. The D700 makes me want to jump on a plane and reshoot everything I once took with the D200.
    Anyway, I'm sure that your new D3X will be amazing. Just be careful not to dismiss the quality of the D3 and the D700 just because the number "12" appears somewhere in their specifications.
    For an anecdotal comarison with film - I have thousands of Velvia and Provia 100 chromes of various sizes in my files - I would say that a PROPERLY POST-PROCESSED D3/D700 image is considerably more detailed than 35mm film but somewhat less detailed than a perfectly shot 6x7 chrome (i.e. top notch lens, sturdy tripod, no vibration, no wind). That said, it's a lot easier to "shoot perfectly" with a Nikon or Canon DSLR than any 6x7 camera that I've ever used, and the newest Nikon lenses are very good. Maybe not Hassy good, but pretty darned good. And a bunch of them come with VR. Given the surprising image quality of the D3 and D700, I could see the D3X competing with MF film at low ISO levels.
     
  147. Dan, if you can capture considerably more detail with a 12MP digital camera than with 35mm Velvia more power to you.
    How do you determine that to be the case though?
     
  148. gotta love velvia
     
  149. Mauro, I'm judging by the look of prints made with files from the D700, a Nikon F100, and a Pentax 67 II. When I get time, I'll pull up some of my 35mm and 6x7 scans and compare them to the D700 files. That might be a better test.
     
  150. Getting back to the images and not the medium. I really like your sunrise geyser image. Great composition, color, and light. It is the pictures after all not the tools.
     
  151. Good grief!!!!
     
  152. Dan South Quotes me: Vincent K. Taylor: "I did not switch with just the 12 megapixels and the (D2X) or any of the newer D3 series. I can already compete with those with my film and top class scanner."
    Dan South Replies to my quote: "You can compete how, exactly? What film are you using for low-noise, fine-grained images at ISO 1600, 3200, and beyond?"

    **** I am a landscape photographer exclusively. I shoot with Velvia 50 almost exclusively. (Very Fine Grain Film). And I have one of the best scanners available. So under these circumstances, with this film and scanner combination, shooting slow landscapes, I can compete with and even exceed what 12 megapixels can do for my specific application of landscape photography.
    If I was a landscape shooter and also did weddings, then digital wins, IMO.
    If I shoot landscape and do sports photography, digital wins, IMO.
    But because I shoot ONLY landscapes and because I do have a top scanner and only use a very rich, colorful and fine grained film, I can beat 12 meg digital system for what I do.
    That all said, and I believe all true from first hand experience, I cannot beat or compete (using all of the above that I listed), with a 24.5 megappixel Nikon D3X camera.
    The 24.5 meg outfit wins. Which is why it's time for this Velvia lover to move into digital now.
    This is what I was waiting for from Nikon.
    This is where Vinny jumps ship.
     
  153. "What I struggle with it is scanning to share online. I scan with a lower end Minolta scanner. I can never recreate the analog textures and the colours, and on top of the small Velvia latitude, I lose some dynamic range and sharpness. So if sharing online was the only thing, I would much rather shoot in DSLR."
    **** Exactly.
    This is what I've been saying. Beautiful, colorful Velvia transparencies lose plenty of that colorful beauty once you take it in to get scanned.
    Scanning ANY SLIDE FILM loses quality from the original.
    But with new digital D3X you avoid scanning altogether and still have huge, clean files to do whatever you want with straight out of the camera.
     
  154. [​IMG]
    Hi, here's my contribution taken with Velvia 50.
     
  155. I'm begining to thin the Coolscan 9000 is not too bad after all. To my eyes it captures most if not all the dynamic range and color from my film.
    That said, looking at a slide, not only first generation but also translusive instead of reflective on a print it will always look better. This is the result of having light reflected from paper instead of filtered through a transluscent film. It comes with the fact we sell prints.
     
  156. I shoot with Velvia 50 almost exclusively. (Very Fine Grain Film).​
    I've been shooting various forms of Velvia almost exclusively for several years, so I'm very familiar with it's capabilities and limitations.
    And I have one of the best scanners available.​
    I'd be curious to know which one. Imacon?
    So under these circumstances, with this film and scanner combination, shooting slow landscapes, I can compete with and even exceed what 12 megapixels can do for my specific application of landscape photography.​
    But which 12MP are you talking about? The 12MP of a D2X? The 12MP of a D300? Or the 12MP of the D3/D700? I guarantee that if you put a D3 image beside a D2X image, the D3 will BLOW IT AWAY. Again, I don't know how they engineered this phenomenon, but the difference is more than subtle. It's jaw dropping. 12MP isn't a definitive measurement of image quality. Unless you're familiar with the D3 or the Canon 5D, you may be underestimating the potential IQ of a 12MP camera.
    That said, I'm sure that the D3X will give better IQ than the D3 in ideal shooting conditions. I haven't used a D3X, so I haven't seen HOW much difference there is. Does it really give twice the resolution of the D3, or do those smaller pixels contribute noise and diffraction constraints that the D3 does not have. Time will tell, but I'm looking forward to getting my hands on a D700x one day (after the initial feeding frenzy subsides).
    Regardless of questions about resolution - on which there will never be an accepted consensus - the thing that I love about positive film is its color and contrast. I've never been able to match film's tones in PS.
    00U0MT-156937584.jpg
     
  157. This could have been a lovely thread with Velvia pictures and that was it.
    Now it's the same old beaten to death debate with the flinging of the proverbial at each other, which I can go down to the zoo and see if I wanted.
    Vincent -- good luck with the new camera and hope you enjoy it, your reasons are valid and sensible by the sounds of it.
    I only shoot film but all this bitching that happens ahhh what's the use; that's why I don't use this forum much.

    No one slapped your mum, they just use or are switching to something different to your choice. Anyone want to start a thread with just Velvia pictures for what they are? Or are we going to bang on about lp/mm's and other stuff that doesn't really matter when we're viewing good photos because they're good photos?
    Vicky
     
  158. @ Michael Bradtke:
    To answer your question: We are using 35mm. Our tests were 35mm film with best primes vs. 35mm digital (Nikon D3X) with best primes (Zeiss ZF). We got higher resolution with the Zeiss glass than with best Nikon primes. Film is more benefitting from better glass, because with digital resolution is limited by the Nyquist frequency, therefore sensor limited.
     
  159. Whilst (as a slide shooter) I'm also standing slack-jawed at the rapidity with which this thread has degenerated into the usual digital-v-film ranting and gibbering, I have to say that if the OP includes remarks like "Thank G I left my DSLR home" then they're really hanging the bait out.
    Can't people just post some scans without mentioning different media at all?
     
  160. I only shoot film and don't own a scanner, I shoot my velvia with a Mamiya C330F and project it onto a 50"X 50" screen, IMHO it doesn't get much better than that.
     
  161. I've shot digitally for many years now (basically I converted after losing 13 films that was sent by post for development - Royal Mail!! ://) however I still feel the magic of putting the slides on the light table. Got a 4x5" Arca Swiss a few months ago and will use it for shots where I really need the high res. This is a shot taken back in 2003. Velvia (not 50 but 100F).
    00U0Rd-157013584.jpg
     
  162. Dan South [​IMG] , Jul 22, 2009; 01:54 a.m.
    I shoot with Velvia 50 almost exclusively. (Very Fine Grain Film ).
    I've been shooting various forms of Velvia almost exclusively for several years, so I'm very familiar with it's capabilities and limitations.
    And I have one of the best scanners available.
    I'd be curious to know which one. Imacon?​
    Eversmart Supreme II
    It doesn't get much better then that Dan. The Eversmart spanks the best Imacons out there!
     
  163. Dan, that lighthouse is breathtaking.
     
  164. Leon - Exactly right.
     
  165. People are asking me how I developed the slides.
    Basically, I mainly carry the film one way. After I'm done with a roll I mail it from wherever I am to A&I so I don't have to carry it with me or pass it through airport security. By the time I get home either the film is waiting for me or it arrives a few days later.
    If I do carry the film back with me, it is mainly TMX 100 and some Velvia 50 which are not affected by airport scanners (in my experience). The only faster film I may carry is TMX 400 but I have never had problems bcs of the airport scanner.
     
  166. Dan, that lighthouse is breathtaking.​
    Thanks! That's why I'll never give up on film.
     
  167. Yep. Even if Velvia had only 1 megapixel of detail it would be totally worth it just bcs of the colors.
     
  168. Velvia has a spectral sensitivity that differs from the human eye in that the curves don’t overlap much at all, see page 8 of this link
    The spectral dye curves matter for direct viewing of the slide, but not so much when the slide is scanned, the thing that will be Velvia scans look different from digital images and other film scans is the spectral sensitivity curves.
    It would be interesting to put a filter with a notch at around 490nm and 590 nm in front of both a digital camera and a film camera loaded with a more neutral film.
    Of course much of the look of Velvia can me had by turning up both the saturation and contrast of an image, but depending on the subject Velvia's lack of sensitivity in the areas of 490 and 590 can make it hard to fully match the colors.
    Personally I have not had much luck with Velvia, maybe it was not process right but I found the contrast to be way too high for my liking.
     
  169. Velvia 50's contrast is EXTREMELY high. I found this to be maddening at first, but once I learned how to harness it, I was able to employ the high contrast in creative ways. I almost always use graduated ND filters with Velvia in order to keep various parts of the scene in the film's "exposure sweet spot."
    Velvia 100 has a little less contrast than Velvia 50, a little less saturation, and a little more exposure latitude. For example, if I were going to take a photo of the forest floor with shadows of trees on the ground, I'd prefer Velvia 100. Velvia 50 would render the shadows too dark.
    When shooting with a digital camera I have to keep in mind that the contrast will be less noticeable. Shadows will tend to be less dark. It's just part of the different look of digital versus film. Metering is very different, also, albeit no less critical.
     
  170. Quote: "Dan, that lighthouse is breathtaking."


    Reply: "Thanks! That's why I'll never give up on film."
    **** As if digital could not capture such a scene as your lighthouse shot? Ok sure. : )


    Check out some of these guys photos: http://www.timecatcher.com/main.cfm?p=04_100


    Hint hint, THEY ALL SHOOT DIGITAL!!! As well as do MOST landscape photographers today. I can post THOUSANDS MORE EXAMPLES.
    Want me to?


    I'm happy if you guys want to stick with film. I say good for you. But at least take off the blinders that lead you folks to believe ONLY FILM can capture nice landscapes like that. Digital can now bring home world class landscape images without all the hassles, time and costs of film. Sooner or later you're going to have to face the music.
    Quote: "I only shoot film but all this bitching that happens ahhh what's the use; that's why I don't use this forum much."


    **** Sorry, but ths was (and still is) on the Photo.net FRONT PAGE. I shoot film by the way. I have shot nothing BUT FILM professionally for over ten years. And for me to post some facts on this thread after reading some very biased statements against digital is not "bitc*ing".

    Though some may consider your own little contribution on this thread just that.
    Quote: "But which 12MP are you talking about? The 12MP of a D2X? The 12MP of a D300? Or the 12MP of the D3/D700? I guarantee that if you put a D3 image beside a D2X image, the D3 will BLOW IT AWAY."



    **** I never said the D2X was better than D3 or even equal. In fact I said the D2X was a dinosaur with noise issues to boot. What I wrote is that my using Velvia 50 film for landscapes, along with having an Eversmart Supreme II top class scanner would equal or surpass what the newer digital cameras can do for fine art printing ... especially for printing large.

    I currently print 24x36 regularly with perfect customer success with all of my photos on our website. I offer as large as 40x60 with most of my photos because files are still usually that clean and noiseless due to low grain slow film (Velvia 50), using tripod, expensive glass, high powered scanner etc etc.

    Now, the D3 is a natural 9x13 digital file. I can go from 9x13 to 24x36 (w/Genuine Fractals) with somewhat regularity from what I have seen because the digital images are just that good and clean right out of the camera. (Which is still a LOT amount of interpolation, btw).

    But going larger (a 9x13 up to a 40x60) is in many cases simply stretching things TOO FAR. Not so with a 24.5 meg D3X which files come out of the camera in the range of a 19x28.

    I have read 40x60 is a piece of cake with those D3X files. Which is what I was waiting for before going into digital.

    Yep, I have just defend BOTH sides of the digital vs film discussion in one single comment.
     
  171. Vincent,
    I've seen Patrick Di Fruscia's photos before, really good stuff in there. Visually pleasing. A bit surprised to see that he's shooting at f22 as the 5DII will run into diffraction way before that. That is actually be a problem with small format cameras with high pixel density (incl D3X). In landscape photography you often want to use a small aperture (unless you use a T/S lens) however the IQ will be reduced due to diffraction. Large format has a big advantage in this area (but it is a huge hassle to carry around :/). Anyway, I guess most customers won't notice this, so it doesn't really matter in the end..?
    Oistein
     
  172. Dan South [​IMG], Jul 22, 2009; 03:11 p.m.
    When shooting with a digital camera I have to keep in mind that the contrast will be less noticeable. Shadows will tend to be less dark. It's just part of the different look of digital versus film. Metering is very different, also, albeit no less critical.​
    A digital camera is much like negative film, the end contrast of the final image is largely up to you. How much contrast I put in the final image often depends on whether it is going to be viewed on a monitor or is going to be print, this is true of both my film and digital phtoos. High contrast photos often look cleaner.

    This is what the camera saw when the contrast and saturation were set to normal.
    [​IMG]
    Boost the saturation and contrast gives this.
    [​IMG]
    The second photo is going to look closer to a Velvia scan, but since the spectral response is not exactly the same there will be some differences, how much different this would look in velvia depends on the spectrum of the sky rock and trees.
     
  173. That said, I am soon to switch over to digital and say goodbye to my precious Velivia 50.​
    Vincent, I am not a professional photographer, but I went through the same thought process in the past and switched to digital several years ago. I think you won't be disappointed. You will find however, that there is a learning curve and that all knowledge from film photography does not automatically apply and that there are some new qualities in digital that we need to explore and tame. For example, raw digital capture does not have any character, because the chip does not distort the curves or color rendition as much as films do. If you shoot Velvia, you already get certain look, the Velvia look. With digital, you have to either find or create the look for yourself. Even the lack of grain may look boring and some people are therefore adding grain to their digital prints.
     
  174. I find it interesting that some people will complain about the lack of grain in a digital image, but not in a LF image. I know some people with choose 35mm film just for the gain, but I don’t remember anyone saying that LF images look unnatural because of the lack of grain, but I hear this often regarding digital image.
    I think some people hunt for whatever then can to dislike digital.
     
  175. **** As if digital could not capture such a scene as your lighthouse shot? Ok sure. : )​
    I never made such a statement. I've taken digital shots of this lighthouse, myself. I just prefer the look of the film shots. I prefer digital in many other instances, though. That's why I shoot both film and digital simulateously.


    Check out some of these guys photos:

    Hint hint, THEY ALL SHOOT DIGITAL!!! As well as do MOST landscape photographers today.​
    They're all very talented fellows, but there's nothing here that's on par with the film work of artists like Rowell, Dykinga, and Muench. Besides, when people use digital capture, you never know if the colors actually looked like that or whether they were added in Photoshop. When I have my film scanned I give strict instructions: MATCH THE CHROME. No ficticious colors!
    That said, I use digital capture, as well. It's great to be able to dial in an ISO of 1600 when the wind is whipping the leaves around. It's great to be able to leverage the added exposure latitude. Digital has advantages, and that's why I carry a D700 with me.
    Want me to?​
    I think I speak for the majority when I say, "No, thank you." ;-)

    I'm happy if you guys want to stick with film. I say good for you. But at least take off the blinders that lead you folks to believe ONLY FILM can capture nice landscapes like that.​
    I don't fit this description.
    Digital can now bring home world class landscape images without all the hassles, time and costs of film.​
    Point 1: "World class images" are not the product of a particular capture technology. World class images are the product of vision, composition, exposure, light, and the magic of the moment. It doesn't matter what camera you use, it's not going to create "world class images." Only YOU can do that.
    Point 2: Digital is not without its hassles. Dust on the sensor. Size and weight of the kit (including peripherals). Expense (camera, cards, computer, drives, software, monitors). File archiving compatibility - will anyone be able to read a TIFF file in 40 years? Memory card failure. Time and effort (post processing, archiving, color management). It's all a lot simpler with film.


    **** I never said the D2X was better than D3 or even equal. In fact I said the D2X was a dinosaur with noise issues to boot.​
    No, you claimed that you could exceed 12 MP. I merely asked you to specify which 12 MP. A couple of years ago the Nikon guys thought the D2X was the bomb. Thom Hogan called it "sublime." Now they call it rubbish. In a few years, your precious $8000 D3X will be considered rubbish. It's the way of the digital world, unfortunately.
    I currently print 24x36 regularly with perfect customer success with all of my photos on our website. I offer as large as 40x60 with most of my photos because files are still usually that clean and noiseless due to low grain slow film (Velvia 50), using tripod, expensive glass, high powered scanner etc etc.​
    35mm film blown up to 40x60 has grain the size of popcorn kernels. You can't defy physics. If you're printing 40x60 from film you should consider a 6x9 back or a 5x7 camera.


    Now, the D3 is a natural 9x13 digital file. I can go from 9x13 to 24x36 (w/Genuine Fractals) with somewhat regularity from what I have seen because the digital images are just that good and clean right out of the camera. (Which is still a LOT amount of interpolation, btw).​
    I would agree. D3 images look great at 20x30 and very good at 24x36.


    But going larger (a 9x13 up to a 40x60) is in many cases simply stretching things TOO FAR. Not so with a 24.5 meg D3X which files come out of the camera in the range of a 19x28.

    I have read 40x60 is a piece of cake with those D3X files.​
    40x60 is a pretty good stretch for a 24MP camera, but just like your film images, it will look fine as long as you stand back a bit. If you want to pixel peep a 40x60 print, you're going to need a MF digital back (or 5x7 film or larger).
     
  176. True Dan. 40x60 from 35mm is awful! I can see grain from 4x5 at that size so the talk of clean images from 35mm is laughable. At those sizes you need a MFDB or 4x5 film to have a clean, sharp, detailed landscape, like the Bryce shot above.
    And yes, you can get close to the Velvia look from digital capture….not 100%, but enough that people wouldn’t know by looking at the color print. I’ve played this prank before by posting a number of shots online, some Velvia and some digital. The ability to tell the difference was exactly what one would expect from guessing.
    In the end though, I’ve seen stunning large prints from 35mm, but they don’t compare to MF or sheet film. And a lot of the resolution one sees under a microscope simply does not show in print. That is why many find the D3X and Sony A900 to match MF film at 16x20.
    These threads normally turn to trash….especially when people argue about 40x60 prints and yet when they do their own work for sale, if any, rarely go beyond 16x20.
    I can understand people comparing MF and LF with high end digital capture….but in all truthfulness, 35mm was, and has never been a benchmark for quality capture…..just for convenience. If one is making 20x30 and larger prints, a 35mm film SLR should not be in their bag. Arguing otherwise is simply making excuses. Go get a Mamiya 7 or RB67, and a decent scanner like Mauro’s Nikon 9000, and don’t look back.
    And please, no more name dropping of landscape photographers. For every photographer shooting with a DSLR, I can show one shooting with 4x5 that will spank the DSLR on large prints. Can’t change the laws of physics.

    Of course, if you like grainy B&W like I do, then feel free to load HP5, pushed a stop, and blow it up large. Nice, beautiful, gritty look. In other words, people should use what works and quit their griping!
     
  177. Great thread, I hear the digital argument as scanning takes aaaaages, but for an amateur like me there's something magical about pressing the shutter, waiting a few days to get the result back and seeing those iridescent colours through my (makeshift 50mm manual lens) loupe.
    Here's a Velvia 50 contribution, taken in January 2006 on a very chilly Roman morning. I was in the city on a university photo society trip. Being students, we weren't really aware of lighting up times and my guesstimate left us shivering in the dark on the riverbank for an hour before this happened. The hot italian coffee and panini was a very welcome warmer after we'd shot a few frames.
    I'm not an experienced scanner - using a Minolta Scan Elite 5400 and manufacturer software, I scanned this 16 bit without any adjustments. I've lost some shadow detail in the trees to the left, trying to recover it mutes the orangey pinky sky. If anyone has suggestions, I'd really appreciate it.
    Some wonderful talent here, been enjoying your portfolios - has inspired me to get mine sorted. Keep up the good (digital or film) work.
    00U0of-157197684.jpg
     
  178. Quote: "Point 1: "World class images" are not the product of a particular capture technology. World class images are the product of vision, composition, exposure, light, and the magic of the moment. It doesn't matter what camera you use, it's not going to create "world class images." Only YOU can do that."
    **** Wrong! The lack of quality equipment can render a world class capture as totally useless. Try using a cell phone camera and see what you can do with it. Try taking a photo of Hawaiian turquoise waters without a polarizer. Try shooting a sunset without an ND. I can continue. World class images are a result of BOTH vision, composition, light etc and having the proper equipment to capture that moment with.

    Quote: "Point 2: Digital is not without its hassles. Dust on the sensor. Size and weight of the kit (including peripherals). Expense (camera, cards, computer, drives, software, monitors). File archiving compatibility - will anyone be able to read a TIFF file in 40 years? Memory card failure. Time and effort (post processing, archiving, color management). It's all a lot simpler with film."


    **** You must be in denial. I've seen a bit of that on this thread.


    Here just to refresh your memory:
    Jul 20, 2009; 03:43 p.m. Vincent K. Tylor

    All I've ever shot with professionally is Velvia 50 and my F5. It has supported my family and I for ten years now.

    I've also used Provia along with Velvia 100 (for some wildlife and seascapes). But Nothing compares to 50 for me when it comes to landscape work.

    I also own a $47,000 Eversmart Supreme II scanner to scan those bad boys. I love Velvia. It seems more real, organic, natural blah blah blah to me.

    That said, I am soon to switch over to digital and say goodbye to my precious Velivia 50.

    Why would I kick out of bed what has been so good and loyal to me for so long?

    The answers:

    1- NO MORE SCANNING!!!!!!

    2- Hundreds to thousands of images, non-stop, to a memory card verses having to change rolls every 36 photos. (I have lost great shots because I ran out when I ran out).

    3- No film costs. (One Pacific Northwest 30 day trip cost me $2000 in film alone). Do some math, I've been doing this 10 years now.

    4- No developing film costs. (That same Pacific Northwest trip cost me almost the same amount in developing). Do some math, I've been doing this 10 years now.

    5- Instant results. I have lost MANY ROLLS because of problems such as a sticky aperture that I would have known with digital. Or because I set ASA to 6 by accident one day. When I finally noticed it (12 rolls later) I almost cried.

    6- Ability to change ISO settings whenever I want to.

    7- Ability to change size of image file settings whenever I want to.

    8- Cameras like new D3X which shoot 24.5 megs which now competes with medium format. (AND LOOKS AMAZING!!)

    9- No more squinting on lightbox editing. (Sometimes I swear I was going blind from too much of that).

    10- No more airport hassles having to scan or hand inspect all my rolls of film.

    11- No moor having to keep my film cold when traveling all over.

    12- Did I mention NO MORE SCANNING!!!! That's worth a second time here. Scanning is a pain in the A$$.

    Every film slide that gets chosen then has to get to be scanned, cleaned up, cropped, sized which TAKES A LOT OF TIME and hassle.

    Sometimes the scans suck and I get to rescan it. Weeeee. Oftentimes with Veliva there is a magenta cast when scanned. weeeeee

    With digital every single image is like a clean scan all ready to print.

    If digital was just slightly inferior I'd still switch because of all teh reasons above.

    But folks, all of my professional labs say (more like YELL IT) that today's digital is BETTER than film today.

    I cannot interpolate my film scans anywhere near as much as my son can interpolate his digital images. They fall apart much faster. And I have one of the best scanners in the world. Nat Geo uses two of what I have.

    And remember, I love my Veliva and it has been sooo good to me and has completely supported me and family in Hawaii.

    But when I finally get that D3X knowing all scanning is now over and all the other things on my little list, I'l be happy to say goodbye to my precious Velvia 50 for good.

    Today I rent inexpensive Nikon D-60's for our photo tours biz to customers and also use them for all webwork because it's so easy and fast and NO MORE SCANNING. It takes super images.

    I can't wait to get that bog boy for professional landscape work soon!

    And I love my Velvia 50...


    **** I hope this refreshes your memory just a bit about all the HASSLES that you lose when using digital and giving up film.

    Quote: "They're all very talented fellows, but there's nothing here that's on par with the film work of artists like Rowell, Dykinga, and Muench. Besides, when people use digital capture, you never know if the colors actually looked like that or whether they were added in Photoshop. When I have my film scanned I give strict instructions: MATCH THE CHROME. No ficticious colors!"
    **** Nonsense! The best photos taken nowadays are with digital outfits. Plain and simple.

    Quote: (when asked if I should quote other digital photographers): "I think I speak for the majority when I say, "No, thank you." ;-)"
    **** I bet I know why...





    Quote: "Now they call it rubbish. In a few years, your precious $8000 D3X will be considered rubbish. It's the way of the digital world, unfortunately."




    **** If they call the D3, D300, D3X and Canon's similar models, "RUBBISH", in just a couple years, due to even greater progress than what we see now; then what do you think film we be considered by then? Digital already competes and even equals what film can do now with less costs time and hassles.

    Quote: "35mm film blown up to 40x60 has grain the size of popcorn kernels. You can't defy physics. If you're printing 40x60 from film you should consider a 6x9 back or a 5x7 camera."


    **** You really don't know, do you? Here's a scanned 35mm slide at 24x36, enlarged to 40x60 through Photoshop of all things. (Using Fractals is far superior). I have been doing this for many years now with success.
    What kernel sized grain??
    00U0pW-157207584.jpg
     
  179. Quote: "True Dan. 40x60 from 35mm is awful! I can see grain from 4x5 at that size so the talk of clean images from 35mm is laughable."
    **** What world are you living in? If you shoot it correctly, with good glass, tripod, scanned with no desktop junk scanner, you can get regular 40x60's, from 35mm, that is more than acceptable as just posted above. And we have sold several.
    And that crop was interpolated with photoshop and not fractals which takes more time. Fractals is even better.
    So where's the grain folks?
     
  180. no noise reduction on that one, Vincent? Is that crop 40x60" @ 300dpi??
     
  181. Quote: "no noise reduction on that one, Vincent? Is that crop 40x60" @ 300dpi??"
    **** Absolutely none. Yes at 300 DPI. Interpolated in photoshop. Fractals is even better.
    Here is another one from Maui. Zero noise reduction. Scanned at 24x36, 300 DPI TIFF. Interpolated to 40x60 through Photoshop.
    Where's all that grain the size of popcorn kernels??​
    00U0qg-157215684.jpg
     
  182. I can see the grain quite clearly. Beautiful photo, though! I'm sure it looks amazing at 16x24.
     
  183. Anyway, I am headed out for a few hours. But this is getting tiresome.
    The point is that some of you folks have no idea what you're talking about. In fact I just received an order ten minutes ago for a 24x36 of this print from our website:
    http://www.hawaiianphotos.net/detail.aspx?ID=301
    Subject: Hawaiian LandMark Images Merchant Order Notification
    Date: July 22, 2009 12:35:53 PM HST
    To: michele@hawaiianphotos.net
    Cc: vince@hawaiianphotos.net
    These products will be shipped to the above address:
    1. Product ID: K-41B
    Product Name: Kauai's Tunnels Beach
    Attributes (if any): Photographs and Giclees - 24x36 Photo Only
    Price: $198.00
    Quantity: 1
    **** This is nothing new. We sell large prints from 35mm all the time. Including 40x60 several times.
     
  184. ... using a Minolta Scan Elite 5400 and manufacturer software ... I've lost some shadow detail in the trees to the left, trying to recover it mutes the orangey pinky sky. If anyone has suggestions, I'd really appreciate it.​
    Hold the slide up to a strong light source. If you can see detail in the shadows, then there's image information to recover. The fundamental idea is to scan twice then merge.
    Do the first scan using normal settings. Do the second scan for the shadow areas - crank up the analog gain on the scanner (I use a Nikon 5000.) The CCD will bloom and show plenty of nasty artifacts on all but the densest part of the slide. That's okay because only the shadows are of interest on this second pass.
    Merging the two frames scan be as simple as layering and masking in Photoshop. However, one subtlety is the potential physical mis-registration between the two scans. If this is a problem with your scanner, use the "align_image_stack.exe" stand-alone utility that ships with Hugin (just Google it.) It does a great job and saves on time consuming manual adjustment.
    Additionally, use enblend/enfuse (Google that too) to automatically contrast blend the two exposures. The results can actually be better than manually painting in Photoshop layers, and is certainly much faster to do.
    Lastly, use a contrast mask to bring out further shadow details. This is actually a well known wet darkroom technique, but made much simpler to implement now in the digital domain. And yes, just Google it.
     
  185. Vincent, my Astia and Pro160S 4x5 sheets are scanned by West Coast Imaging and their Tango. I have no problem seeing grain from 4x5 at a print size 60" wide. What you're seeing is smeared film files. Fractals works very well on film files as it concentrates on edges at the expense of texture....and it sees film grain as texture and smears it.
    So please, spare me the "What world I live in" comments. If you don't understand that basic information on how fractals works with film grain, then I suggest you check out our world....called reality.
    Your tone here has become combative and tiring. Considering I've printed as part of my living for many years, I've seen, scanned, and printed files from 35mm through 8x10 trannies. I know what results look like very well thanks. If you mistake fractal smearing of texture for a lack of grain, then I'm sorry my friend, it's you who doesn't know what he's talking about.
    Oh, by the way, if you choose to scan below the film grain threshold, and interpolate to avoid grain, then by all means you'll have no grain. You'll also have what I normally see from 35mm.....mediocre quality and excuses for why larger formats weren't used.
    Best regards,
     
  186. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD AND COUNTRY, IN ADDITION TO JUSTIFYING WHY YOU PREFER
    FILM, DIGITAL, GLASS PLATE NEGATIVES, ETC.
    HOW ABOUT POSTING THE NAMES, LOCATIONS, WEBSITES, ETC. OF THE RELATIVE HANDFUL OF COMPANIES THAT STILL PROCESS E-6?
    I'm 30-something, and 10 years ago I took a photography class, taught by a professional, in an 150 year-old, semi-abandoned textile mill. We shot slides, had them processed at the now defunct, Motophoto chain and critiqued each other's work on a slide projector. I have 2 DSLR's and a digital P&S now, in addition to film gear however, I HATE messing with a computer. That class, shooting transparencies was the most fun I've ever had with photography.
    I'm in the northeastern U.S., anyone know of quality E-6 processors in this area of the country?
     
  187. Quote: "Vincent, my Astia and Pro160S 4x5 sheets are scanned by West Coast Imaging and their Tango. I have no problem seeing grain from 4x5 at a print size 60" wide. What you're seeing is smeared film files. Fractals works very well on film files as it concentrates on edges at the expense of texture....and it sees film grain as texture and smears it."
    **** How many times did I mention I did not use Fractals here?? Probably five or six at the least. Please read. And I never said there is no grain; what I asked was, "where is the popcorn kernel sized grain?", in reply to your and Dan's comments above.


    In case you can't remember let me post them for you here:
    Quote from Dan: "35mm film blown up to 40x60 has grain the size of popcorn kernels."


    Quote from Dave: "True Dan. 40x60 from 35mm is awful!"
    And I'll get back to those in a minute.


    What you saw posted were crops from 40x60 interpolated files by Photoshop. Fractals is even cleaner and smoother. But my G5 does not like fractals for some odd reason and starts to rev up when I use it for anything substantial. So using it here just aint worth it. If you have significant grain issues from 4x5 sheet film scanned by a Tango then perhaps you should try Velvia.


    What I posted is not a grain problem. What I sell at 40x60 looks very good. No, not as good as what a larger piece of film would produce, but definitely more than good enough. And at 24x36 size ALL of my prints are of excellent quality. So when you write:
    "True Dan. 40x60 from 35mm is awful!"
    It just shows me that you really do not know what you are talking about to come across as some kind of an authority, IMO.
    Quote: "So please, spare me the "What world I live in" comments. If you don't understand that basic information on how fractals works with film grain, then I suggest you check out our world....called reality."


    **** Fractals was not used here... again. That said, how do you think professionals print 24x36's from any digitally produced file? Answer: Through interpolation of some form.


    If I can create very sellable 40x60's by using Fractals on 24x36 original TIFFS, and our labs like how they print and our customers love what they receive, then who are you to tell anybody to check out the real world and that large prints from 35mm are awful? Your words not mine here. It is the one that denies the proof that is sitting on their laps that perhaps needs a little dose of reality check.
    Quote: "Your tone here has become combative and tiring. Considering I've printed as part of my living for many years, I've seen, scanned, and printed files from 35mm through 8x10 trannies. I know what results look like very well thanks. If you mistake fractal smearing of texture for a lack of grain, then I'm sorry my friend, it's you who doesn't know what he's talking about."
    **** YOU are the one saying 35mm does not work for large printing. I am simply replying. I'm not only telling you you are wrong here but showing you as well explaining why. Earlier up on this thread you stated this:
    Quote: "But at large size prints above 16x24, 35mm color looks like grainy mush compared to high resolution digial or MF or large format film capture. For prints at 24x30, I would never use 35mm film. MF would be the bottom limit for me on landscape prints that need detail. In fact, I'd prefer LF for the lack of grain and more accurate color pallette. But lets be realistic here. I've yet to see 35mm at 20x30 that looked anything but grainy....and that from the best photographers on the planet. 24mp digital will simply look better.....yes different as well, but that's up to personal taste."


    **** So now we go from your comment that 40x60 is just plain awful, to 20x30 is nothing but grainy and even 16x24 looks like mush. Your words not mine once again. Perhaps you should read your own quotes next time before posting.


    You have no idea what you are talking about here on this specific subject. I scan at 24x36 (larger than 16x24 and 20x30) and sell Lightjet Prints with stunning results. So now what?
    Quote: "These threads normally turn to trash….especially when people argue about 40x60 prints and yet when they do their own work for sale, if any, rarely go beyond 16x20."
    **** Well, I sell MANY prints above 16x20. I showed you one just today that came in for a 24X36. This just goes to show me that you quite possibly still stuck back in the 90's somewhere. Not much else to say about it. You are wrong on this one!
    Quote: "In the end though, I’ve seen stunning large prints from 35mm"
    **** So which is it now? Mushy, grainy, laughable and awful... or stunning? Sounds like you need to think things through just a little more.

    Quote: "You'll also have what I normally see from 35mm.....mediocre quality and excuses for why larger formats weren't used."


    **** Complete and useless nonsense. I use 35mm because they give me the absolute best process for creating winning photographs. I certainly could use medium or large format. So why would I choose 35mm format over larger formats? I wrote this a couple of years ago on another forum when discussing this very subject:


    "Because of the 35mm format, I have faster and wider lenses available than if shooting in medium and or large format. I can also get more photos to a roll. Because of this I am actually able to take more photos, from a greater variety of angles, at varying apertures, shutter speeds and focal lengths. And then, when getting to the lightbox, for me, such a format and process has resulted in more winning images overall to choose from, to then master and scan for printing, stock use etc.
    I have well over 300 images in our print line and on websites that we currently offer as 24x36 Lightjet prints. Do you know how many are unacceptable due to grain, softness, flatness or anything else? ZERO. The only issue I have to keep in mind is to make sure I am careful about sharpening the files for prints of that size, or grain CAN become more of an issue.
    IF a photographer uses consumer-grade lenses, does not use a tripod, stop down, is not careful with exposure etc etc, then yes the larger prints will certainly expose and magnify those issues. If the photographer takes pride in shooting it right the first time, then enlarging those originals to 24x36 or more will not be a problem in regards to print quality under any circumstances. At least not from my own experiences. And I have had plenty.Sure, a very large print from a 4x5 tranny will look smoother than one from a 35 mm slide. The differences however will not be THAT noticable to the naked eye in smaller sized prints. This fact is often overlooked and exaggerated.


    And let me also add this: While the photographer that uses large format will take perhaps a few different shots trying to capture a scene with his equipment, another photographer using 35mm with a variety of zooms, focal lengths, angles, shutter speeds, as well as bracketing for exposure, will undoubtedly produce the superior image overall.


    And perhaps many superior images in fact. It is much easier to produce *winners* with 35mm format than large format and even meduim for that matter. I would rather have a better variety of winning images, than one that will blow up to a larger size better.
    A size that very few people will ever purchase by the way or one that you will rarely need.



    Living on an island basically means that most of my shooting trips however involve airfare, rental cars, hotels etc. Basically it's a business trip. When I do get to a location I am focused on working these locations as carefully and thoroughly as I possibly can. This way, when I do get to the lightbox I will have the best opportunity to find a few real winners. I usually arrive to a location with my F-5 along with the Nikon 17-35 around my neck, and the F-100 with the 28-70 over my shoulder, and a tripod on the other hand (similar to what you see on my current self-portrait). This combination has allowed me to work a scene as thoroughly as I know how.


    The number of times an image from a very unusual angle, or different focal point worked over the ones I expected to work when shooting is more numerous than I ever would have guessed. I also make point of always bracketing by .1/3 in each direction wherever I am shooting. (With Velvia, I have found that decision has saved many a trip once they were developed regardless of how good my equipment or how careful I might be). The point is that 35mm has allowed my this opportunity to shoot an abundance of images, from many differing vantage points, at many different shutter speeds and aperture settings. Sometimes seven or more rolls from one location. When I do get to that lightbox, I am almost always grateful that I took that time to change it up and work it thoroughly.


    Last Fall, I was in the Blue Ridge mountain area where I found a beautiful rose in full bloom. A soft rain also happened to be falling which really gave me an outstanding opportunity. I shot perhaps four rolls of this one rose, with three different lenses (28-70, the 105 macro and the 80-200). I also shot it from f/3.5 to f/22 and everything in between while bracketing as well. When I started to edit that series back at home, I was disappointed by several of these images, yet my socks were knocked off by yet others. The point is, that for me, the 35mm system allows me to do this very thing (creating winning images) that has over and over again proved so very valuable. In the end (with the exception of perhaps digital down the road) I cannot see a better system for creating the best possible images we as photographers are possibly able to find.
    Thanks for the interchange, is always helpful and at times even can be fun.
    **** Back to current. I have no problems with film lovers shooting film for the rest of their lives. (I've loved my Velvia 50 as well).
    I have no problems if people think that digital is a bad idea. And I have no problems if people think 35mm is grainy mush. But when you make statements such as those I've seen on this thread, publicly, praising film as the only real way, claiming 35mm format is for convenience only, or that all prints over 16x20 are laughably awful grainy mush, and grain sized of popcorn kernels; then just be prepared do defend those silly accusations and claims.


    Because once in a while people that disagree and know better tend to show up.

     
  188. Dan writes: "I can see the grain quite clearly. Beautiful photo, though! I'm sure it looks amazing at 16x24."
    **** Man, this is good. Your friend Dave just tried explaining how it's not visible grain but like smeared invisible grain.
    And others are asking if I used any noise reduction program. But Dan says he sees grain problems.
    This is too funny. Who needs movies when we got this stuff going on here.
    Hey Dan, you are the guy that wrote the now famous, "35mm film blown up to 40x60 has grain the size of popcorn kernels." .
    But Dan, where are all those kernels?? : )
    You see folks we got people that are just totally set in their ways and will defend broken old ideas until they can't do it any longer. Such people can be likened to sticks in the mud. No presentation of evidence will likely mean anything of consequence to them. Fair enough then.
    And then you have folks who are open to what the real world comes up with, what the true facts show, even if it means an old way of doing things has just been improved upon and can be discarded; and, are willing to be refined, adjusted and to be humbled when the truth is put in front of them to be seen and grasped in full enough detail.
    I try to listen to whatever the evidence shows. I try to remain open minded under all circumstances. I am a Velvia lover too. I owe my livelihood to that fab film. I've defended film for many years.
    But I can also see that times have changed and the digital revolution is now allowing greater freedom to create better images with less hassles and costs beyond the short term than ever before.
    And nobody on this thread has shown me any reason to think differently.
    And we have covered a lot of territory. Just look at all these posts above.
    I have a ton of work to get back to now (yep, including a ton of scanning still to do) and will check back occasionally, but unless something significant comes up will just bow out now and thank you all for a lively exchange of opinion.
    No hard feelings intended. Happy shooting ... film and digital alike.
    My best to you all,
    Vince
     
  189. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD AND COUNTRY, IN ADDITION TO JUSTIFYING WHY YOU PREFER
    FILM, DIGITAL, GLASS PLATE NEGATIVES, ETC.
    HOW ABOUT POSTING THE NAMES, LOCATIONS, WEBSITES, ETC. OF THE RELATIVE HANDFUL OF COMPANIES THAT STILL PROCESS E-6?
    I'm 30-something, and 10 years ago I took a photography class, taught by a professional, in an 150 year-old, semi-abandoned textile mill. We shot slides, had them processed at the now defunct, Motophoto chain and critiqued each other's work on a slide projector. I have 2 DSLR's and a digital P&S now, in addition to film gear however, I HATE messing with a computer. That class, shooting transparencies was the most fun I've ever had with photography.
    I'm in the northeastern U.S., anyone know of quality E-6 processors in this area of the country?
     
  190. Robert Lee, thanks very much!
     
  191. For E-6 processing I like Manhattan Color Lab in New York.
    http://www.colorlab.com/
    I was also going to suggest The New Lab in San Francisco, but apparently they've closed down. It's a sad day.
     
  192. The point is that some of you folks have no idea what you're talking about.​
    And we've reached the moment where logical discourse ceases to be possible.
     
  193. Dave, were you able to print my 35mm scans at 24x36?
     
  194. Eversmart Supreme II
    It doesn't get much better then that Dan. The Eversmart spanks the best Imacons out there!​
    So which part of the Eversmart specification "spanks the best Imacons out there"? I would be interested to see side by side comparison if you have it.
    00U14Z-157339584.jpg
     
  195. You see folks we got people that are just totally set in their ways and will defend broken old ideas until they can't do it any longer. Such people can be likened to sticks in the mud. No presentation of evidence will likely mean anything of consequence to them. Fair enough then.
    And then you have folks who are open to what the real world comes up with, what the true facts show, even if it means an old way of doing things has just been improved upon and can be discarded; and, are willing to be refined, adjusted and to be humbled when the truth is put in front of them to be seen and grasped in full enough detail.
    I try to listen to whatever the evidence shows. I try to remain open minded under all circumstances. I am a Velvia lover too. I owe my livelihood to that fab film. I've defended film for many years.
    But I can also see that times have changed and the digital revolution is now allowing greater freedom to create better images with less hassles and costs beyond the short term than ever before.
    And nobody on this thread has shown me any reason to think differently.​
    There is no reason why you should think differently.... and no reason why we should think the same as you.
     
  196. [​IMG]
    Lex, thank you for posting this specs comparison - wow! I thought the Hasselblad might boast higher Dmax and possibly higher resolution, but honestly, I didn't think the two scanners would be this close.
    I wonder who manufactures the lenses for the Kodak scanners? Anybody know?
     
  197. This thread started out great, but alas, the insecurity of humanity has bubbled to the surface and has now left an unpleasant residue. Why are we so quick to point out our differences instead of enjoying something we all have in common?
    I LOVE film. Still got a freezer load of it. My only remiss is having a processor available still years from now when I still want to shoot it.
    Digital certainly has its place, and its here to stay. I shot digital for a while, but went back to film. I didn't abandon digital. I just now shoot digital when people are involved, since it's more snapshotty and there are lots of throwaways.
    However, my gravitation back to film was not more so for any distinct exemplary results produced by the medium (although they are clearly stunning), but it was just that I started photography with film and I like the workflow. Things are slower with film (obviously), but even at the time of exposure, it forces me to slow down. There is an inherent "cost" of the exposure. You can only carry so many rolls. But that has never bothered me. In fact, the challenge of making every shot count, makes it more interesting . . . for "me." It not only makes me think a bit before releasing, but the mentality and process is much less frantic . . . for "me". And its a hobby for me after all, so I pursue it in the way "I" wish to enjoy it, not in the way others say are "better." As a hobby, enjoyment is what it's all about, no? (I guess I've always been more about the ride than the destination.)
    With that said, it's also very easy to see why digital makes sense in a commercial environment. Faster workflow. Less material costs. Etc. Additionally, I can easily see how some who picked up photography in the digital age can't understand why folks would even consider film. It's funny.
    Again, I shoot both - film and digital - with not a minor investment in each. If forced to only have one, okay, I'll go digital. It's more convenient in the current world we live one. I know that. But if given a choice, I'll shoot film. It's my pasttime, it's what I enjoy, and hobbies were never meant to be "convenient." I get giddy when the processed slides appear in my mailbox. It's like Christmas! And seeing the slides on a light table is almost like witnessing a miracle. . . almost. Anyway, I am now looking into buying a larger light table and possibly a projector . . . before they stop making them.
    VELVIA IS BEAUTIFUL. Great shots on this page. Could they have been achieved with digital? Maybe. But that wasn't the intent of the thread.
    So, instead of knocking each other on the differences of our methods, we should enjoy the options we have. Having options is a beautiful thing. NOONE HERE IS BETTER and, we are ABSOLUTELY ALL CORRECT . . . for our own reasons.
    But FILM, more specifically, SLIDE FILM moves me . Period.
    [​IMG]
    Peace.
     
  198. For the folks still scanning film themselves and having trouble, I'm working on a tutorial now about techniques to blend multiple scans together and how to get consistent scans of color negative film.
    Re: slide film having popcorn-sized kernels- if you look closely at E6 slide film you won't see grain. You might see little bubbles (pepper grain) in the highlights of some Fuji films, but in my experience the dyes just get soft and mushy as you enlarge them. It's very different than how silver B&W film looks enlarged.
     
  199. With regard to "grain", I'd like to add that pepper grain is very typical for Hasselblad/Imacon scanners setting the sharpening too high in Flexcolor. It should not be confused with film grain though. Improper scanning technique can introduce artifacts which look like film grain when it's not.
     
  200. Here is another one from me:
    00U1EN-157433584.jpg
     
  201. I shoot with a Canon 5D Mark II, but after looking at these Velvia 50 Shots I sincerely think my camera may be broken :-( . Not to say I can't take good photos with that camera, but these are Excellent photos definetely at a different level above digital.
     
  202. I find it interesting that some people will complain about the lack of grain in a digital image, but not in a LF image. I know some people with choose 35mm film just for the gain, but I don’t remember anyone saying that LF images look unnatural because of the lack of grain, but I hear this often regarding digital image.
    I think some people hunt for whatever then can to dislike digital.​
    I think what I'm talking about is actually quite the opposite. Digital is relatively new medium and to get the best results, we have to learn about it. Why complains about grain (actually lack thereof) in digital and not LF? Well, I would say "observations", not "complaints". The digital has finite resolution and if you start blowing it up out of proportions, you will start seeing that the detail is missing. I am talking about print sizes where you have to upsample, like 24x36. This is where added grain can help. Printing 24x36 from LF will give you enough detail, so no reason to add some structure where it already exists.
     
  203. I'm not quite as anti-dig as some. But when I do shoot landscapes with film, it has to be velvia.
     
  204. This thread started out great, but alas, the insecurity of humanity has bubbled to the surface and has now left an unpleasant residue.​
    This thread started out with a sentence that suggests that such results would not be possible with digital. If you have personal working experience with both Velvia and digital and see it differently, it is not about insecurity in humanity, it is just expressing your standpoint. If this is a discussion forum, I don't see anything unpleasant on having different viewpoint.
     
  205. Mirek,
    I've heard some fashion photographers saying that they add a bit of noise to their H3D-39 photos because they look a bit too porcelein/glossy.
    Oistein
     
  206. mizore

    mizore A Gringa in Nicaragua

    Real estate beats anything else for details, but sometimes, what people want is something with relatively little texture that looks good over the sofa.
    My favorite photograph of mine was done of a friend and his dog, with studio lights and a old Calumet C-300 and a low end Caltar lens (I just spend more on one Carl Zeiss lens for Hasselblad than I spent on all my view camera rig). Had the film developed and printed at 16x20 by Philadelphia Photographic.
    What I liked was being able to see textures down to the twist of the thread in my friend's shirt and also to have a large enough print with a simple enough composition that it was viewable from across the dining room. The flower above was grainless, and veinless (at least on screen). If I'm doing macros, I like to see the reflections off the flower petal cell walls.
    Flower petals have veins:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/rebecca_ore/3592553328/sizes/o/
    But....
    I think I can get this either with digital or film depending, but it's just my preference, not the ultimate test of a macro shot. Likewise, what I liked about my 16x20 print isn't the only way to evaluate a photograph.
     
  207. Wonderful Photo Zoltan. All these great photos leads me to hold on to Velvia a tad longer, even with all the compelling case against professional use of the medium (and that I whole heartedly agree).
    Maybe its just me but I like to take a large LP out of the cover and put it on and feel smell of an old book, the touch of the paper texture rather than reading it on kindle. Sure I can print out a digital file and have the physical realilzation of a photo but somehow it is not the same. As long as slide film is even close to a digital photo, it still has an unique appeal. And for landscapes Velvia is still good enough!
    00U1JA-157479684.jpg
     
  208. Zoltan, that was a photo with beautiful colours, you managed to make a simpel scene look really great
     
  209. Mauro Franic [​IMG], Jul 23, 2009; 03:09 a.m.
    Dave, were you able to print my 35mm scans at 24x36?​
    Hi Mauro,
    Yes, I printed out the centre portion of a 24x36 on an 8.5x11 sheet. The first I printed with no sharpening. I could only make out a slight bit of grain. However, the image seemed a bit soft, so I applied some mild USM, and then the grain was apparent. I guess it stacks up to how the image is processed. I preferred the image with a bit of grain, but better sharpness.
    As to 40x60, your scan appeared better than the sample posted by Vincent. The fractal interpolation reduces texture and detail and addes acutance. Of course, because your scans showed more detail, and therefore more grain, I'd say your was the better scan. It's a common trick to scan just below grain thresholds and rely on interpolation to fill in missing data and not have to worry about grain. I'm of the opinion that I'd rather see some grain, as long as there is more detail and texture to the image as opposed to a horribly artifacted fractals routine. I used a Lanczos routine which I find maintains details and texture better....and avoids the painterly smearing of fractal routines.
    And Lex, I think we all understand how much the specs matter when comparing scanners. Should I post the specs for the Epson 4990. It'll spec with better resolution and DMax than the Eversmart.....but I think you know where the truth lies.
     
  210. From my understanding, too much sharpening in Flexcolor (or any sharpening at all) introduces pepper grain (not to be confused with film grain) when scanning with Imacon/Hasselblad. Here is an example. Velvia btw.
    00U1S5-157559584.jpg
     
  211. here is a 700 px version of the photo
     
  212. God this is becoming tiresome.
    How about some more pretty pictures?
     
  213. James Blachly , Jul 23, 2009; 06:38 p.m.
    God this is becoming tiresome.
    How about some more pretty pictures?​
    James, how can we possibly appreciate pretty pictures unless we blow them up to 40"x60" and view them @100% on screen to check for interpolation artifacts and grain? ;-)
     
  214. OMG! Vincent goes digital! Way to go, Vince! Your work will always be breathtaking, no matter the medium you're using. Just a quick addition, RE: resources in New England for slide processing services, that Euripides Smalls asked for: Slide Specialists in Lebanon, NH, slidespecialists.com, 603.448.1300 -- great quality work. Cheers!
     
  215. I guess with all this discussion involvement I should at least post something in honor of my fav film.
    00U1du-157673684.jpg
     
  216. Another.
    00U1dx-157673884.jpg
     
  217. Washington D.C.
    00U1eG-157678184.jpg
     
  218. Pacific Northwest
    00U1eN-157679884.jpg
     
  219. Last one
    00U1eb-157681784.jpg
     
  220. wow I particularly like the hawaii shot with the diver!
    Oistein
     
  221. I was away for a couple days.
    Dave, thank you for all the trouble in testing the prints. In some prints I also like grittiness and sharpness in others I prefer a more natural look with mild sharpening.
    Vincent, thank you for the pics. They are all very nice. I'll be looking forward to see how your overall impressions, preferences and results change with the move to digital.
     
  222. Mauro,
    I've been all over the map in my shooting habits lately. I discovered slide film (Velvia specifically) around a year ago; I found our Texas winter last year a perfect match for the film. I even started processing it myself. Over the summer I went back to my roots in the b&w darkroom for one reason or another. Since I've been back home from the summer I've been shooting Portra and basically hate all of the color in my scans. I miss Velvia. I've switched to a Mamiya 7 and am a bit worried about losing that stop from my Hassy 2.8 for low light.
    Anyway, I happened upon your celebration of Velvia tonight when pondering slide film. I just wanted to thank you for re-convincing me. I'll try to live without those 2 extra stops of 400NC in the coming months. The fact that your post turned into a debate is a bit distressing. I'm not a professional photographer, I'm an artist and don't plan on making much money anyway. Shooting film is about slowing down and picking shots.
    Fayetteville
    [​IMG]
    Alex
     
  223. The only wise path to film is not out of ignorance of digital but it is from having made the trip to digital and decided to come back to film.​
    That's what I did.
    I'n not sure if I would describe myself as wise but I know which process I prefer.
     
  224. I'm a really late comer to this thread. All I can say is that the Velvia scans look fabulous!.
    On a side note, I don' t know what's wrong with this guy call Daniel Lee Taylor. Just imagine what would be the response for the typical digital gear heads if someone were to jump into a digital forum and say this:
    Shot 1, 2, 3 can be easily done with Velvia, shot 4,5,6 can be done better with Kodak Gold 100. Even Kodak Gold 100 is better than D-3x yada yada yada....
    I guess he must have really really bad encounter with either film users or some nasty experience when using film..... Muahahahahahaha....
     

Share This Page