Is there any reason to stick to Velvia ?

I have been using Velvia since its introduction and I really

like the saturated colors and sharpness which add depth to

landscape. I know that many many color photographers think the

same. However in light of recent developments in imaging,

I've been wondering about this choice.

<p>

The developments I have in mind is digital printing. It seems that

with the exception of a few notable and very skilled printers

(such as Burkett or Fatali), most other color photographers, including Muench, Neill, Crammer, etc... have switched to Lightjet printing.

I have also done so four years ago, and I am convinced by the

advantages of this technology.

<p>

If you print digitally, you can enhance color saturation and

contrast as much as you want. True, the original transparency

might not look as good, but unlike in 35mm where it is often

what you show to clients, in LF, the transparency is just the

"score" to be played.

<p>

What you need is a film which records

as much information as possible. With this respect, a film like

Astia is much better at maintaining shadow/highlight detail.

Besides, the extra speed is very useful for the landscape

photographer to combat wind blur or reciprocity failure. The paradox

is that although we all use tripods, we need the extra speed for LF much critically than in 35mm where one doesn't stop down so much !

Velvia is

sharper, but again, this might be more relevant to 35mm. With the large chunk of film that we use, this doesn't seem so critical either.

<p>

What do you think ? Do you see any compelling reasons to stick to

Velvia in view of the above ?

I have had the same thoughts but I hedge my bet by using Velvia if

conditions permit; otherwise Provia or Astia. I have been meaning to

deliberately experiment by using two or three films on the same

subject and then trying a blind test of all three in Photoshop and

with a Lightjet prints to see if I like one over the other or if any

differences have been obliterated by the process.

<p>

My instincts tell me to use Velvia if that is what I like on the

light table but it more speed is needed then I just go it. I wish

there were an even faster positive 4x5 film I could like.

I, as well, have thought of the same situation. I have found that the

new RDPIII (Provia 100F) is a great film to work with. This way, I

use it in both my 35mm and 4x5 gear.

<p>

With my 35mm gear, I love to shoot wildlife, and Velvia would need to

be pushed 1 stop to get me there. This way, I can really learn the

film well, while satisfying both large and 35mm formats, and subjects.

<p>

Anybody else in the same situation?

<p>

I am heading out today to Costa Rica for a week with my wife, and I

am actaully leaving behind my 4x5, and opting for my Nikon gear. I

feel very confident that lighting will be incredibly difficult under

the rainforest canopy, so I am taking some higher speed films. I

testing the new Provia 400 last week. Not the greatest film I have

used, but it can be pushed to ASA800 if needed. I figure I would

rather have a decent photo on crappy film, than a crappy image on

great film.

Hi all

<p>

I don`t work with Velvia anymore since 2 years! I prefer Provia and

Astia and the thungsten 64 RTP II. In Negativ I like very much the

Kodak Portra family!

Good light!

QTL,

<p>

I have been thinking about the same thing since I made my first

digital print last fall, and it became apparent to me that the old

status quo is no longer the best way to work! (for me, anyway)

<p>

If you make submissions to publishers, I think you may still want to

use Velvia, to have the 'pop' on the light table. If not, then I

think you are exactly on track.

<p>

One additional note is that the use of another film may be beneficial

for other reasons. The additional speed is one reason, but the great

reciprocity characteristics of Astia, may be another, and the

slightly lower contrast is a third.

<p>

However, I suspect that this could be taken a little further,

shouldn't you consider using a print film? Assuming you can get a

good quality scan (some people have reported difficulty with negs)

print film has the widest latitude, and a great deal of exposure

tolerance. I'm not too familiar with the available negative films,

but it seems that there might be one that would be able to produce a

better digital print than any of the slide films out there.

<p>

Any thoughts, anyone?

<p>

---Michael

hallo Quang and everbody

<p>

there are still reasons to use different types of films, therefore I have the Velvia in the fridge, but I admit that the RDP II (exposure untill 5 min, without color shifts !!) is much more in use now:

<p>

If you can't really control the contrast of the light, cause you have to shoot outdoor on a day x (thats part of Pro live) , the wheater report is never really precise, Velvia can help you to enhance the contrast, if the light is getting "foggy" .

<p>

You are right about saturation and contrast control about computer. Yet, my experience was, that digital image data will be read very different on the different screens and systems, i.e. contrast of mac vs. win. If sending some datas to someone to print (in books & magazines), ist always good, to add a slide, because they have then a precisley defined reference.

<p>

Using-neg films makes sense to me in lightcritical shootings, (color balance, night shootings, etc)

Clearly, lots of people are thinking along similar lines here. I spoke

very recently to a magazine editor with considerable experience of

scanning transparencies, and he commented that Velvia trannies are not

the easiest to scan. I already felt dubious about the performance of

Velvia in high contrast lighting conditions, where the shadows block

up into dense black - only yesterday I carried Velvia and Astia on a

small outdoor job (shooting a couple of commercial exteriors) so that

I could use the Velvia in case of cloud and soft, diffused light.

Otherwise, I'd use the Astia. The latter and Provia F are excellent

films, and the saturation is very easily enhanced in Photoshop. Velvia

is incomparable to inspect on the lightbox, but increasingly it is no

longer king of the hill.

While in theory the idea to have a "palette" of different films

to use is an advantage of LF, I found that for myself, especially if

not using quickloads, having films of different speeds is

an invitation for exposure errors. Maybe it's just me who is always

rushed and forgetful.

<p>

Negative film ? I really want to have an

original I can view. A small fraction of my transparencies end up

enlarged, and I don't think I would be happy looking mostly at

contacts. Besides, negatives are much more difficult to market.

I recently asked some people about this as well. The reason for using

negatives when you know you will be scanning is that they have far

less contrast to begin with, a little over half. That means you need

to increase it when scanning, but you have that control. Negatives

also do not block up extremes anywhere near as badly as slides. Just

like in B&W, a color negative can hold highlights on the film far

above what papers can reveal. But, they can be scanned! Same goes for

shadows. Their range allows a much broader scale, one that can be

defined as needed.

I'm tired of Velvia for other reasons. Since I print everything on

Ilfochrome, I grew wary of battling the contrast. Almost

simultaneously I realized that the Velvia-Ilfochrome combination was

giving me saturation that was way beyond what I was seeing in the

field and really wanting. I sort of fell under the Velvia-Ilfochrome

spell, I guess, and didnt realize what I was doing for about 5 years

there. But I really dont see color like that in the field or in my

head so now I'm going for a more subtle look. Astia will be my film

of choice for a while, and hopefully I can kill (or wound) the

saturation and contrast birds with one film.

Q.-Tuan

You may already be familiar with this, but here is a commentary

comparing Provia to Velvia for scanning: http://luminous-

landscape.com/velvia_vs_povia.htm

Roger, in 35mm (and possibly MF) Provia F is a better choice than

Astia for scanning because of the finer grain. However, in LF (and

especially 5x7 and up) grain is not an issue, and Astia has

a wider exposure latitude than Provia F, whose characteristics

are mid-way between Velvia and Astia. Otherwise, the article

supports my thinking. I have decided on Astia for my next 500 LF

exposures.

I just got finished editing 10 rolls of 35mm film I shot last week

on a quick trip to Weisbaden, Germany. Some was Velvia, some

was RDPIII and a couple were Provia 400F (it would be great if

that film was available in Quickload!).<P>

The Velvia really stands out even with a quick glance: the colors

are more emotionally vivid and appear to have more depth,

especially for scenics and details of trees and plants and

cityscapes. BTW: this was the first RVP I've put in any camera in

over a year as I have been relying on RDPIII for the bulk of my

color image making<P>

Astia is about the last film I would choose for landscape

photography. While it would be great to have the addtional

shadow detail, you gain that at the expense of of saturation &

seperations in the mid tones and that is where most color exists.

ithink if you are pretty cognizant of what a film is going to do,

something that comes from experience, Velvia is still a great

choice. I hate it for the slow speed, but <P>BTW:Making

Cibachromes is a horrible thing to do to a wonderful image,

unless of course you enjoy making contrast and red masks for

each and every image you print.