Alternatives to Velvia

[david_henderson]

Velvia 50 has been my colour film of choice for a decade, and in

general I'm very happy with it. I shoot landscapes and cities; not

people or products, on 120 and 220.

 

But there's one thing about Velvia that is increasingly getting to

me - exaggeration of the colours specifically in low light

conditions - before and after sunrise and sunset. Now I don't

want this to turn into a Velvia -bashing session because I know

what it looks like and I'm going to stick with it for the majority of

my work. I've just got less tolerant of a mildly bluish after sunset

light turning into vivid blue trannies; almost neutral pre-dawn

scenes rendering as blue/magenta, and dawns /sunsets with

the intensity of warm colours exaggerated. In short I want more

control over what my images look like. Velvia seems to spot

any little tendency to colour in the light and magnify it , specifically

when the light itself is weak. For avoidance of doubt what I'm

referring to here is not reciprocity failure - its a failure of the film

to render colour accurately or even predictably around dawn or

dusk.

 

Question is whether there are other transparency films in 120 at

least that offer a reasonably saturated but more controlled and

realistic solution for these times. I have a holiday coming up that

offers moderate and not very important photographic opportunity,

so I have an opportunity to test some alternatives. I've tried

Provia 100F with mixed results- some evidence of greater

delicacy in sunrise/sunsets but if anything the performance pre

dawn and after sunset seems worse. I'm not sold on Velvia

100F's palette. What else should I try for these quite specific

applications?

[ruslan safin]

try Astia

[swenson]

I use E100VS

[jay_.]

David, before giving up on Velvia try shooting some rated at EI 40 and 32 (processed normally). It tones down the color saturation and broadens the conrast range.

[keith_laban]

<a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">Keith Laban Photography</a><p>David, as you no doubt appreciate there are not a lot of really good saturated transparency films to choose from ;-( Astia has already been mentioned but will probably be way to subtle for someone who is looking for a replacement for Velvia.<p>There are only two other transparency films that I'd thoroughly recommend, Kodak E100G & E100GX. Yes, I know they are Kodak, but believe me they are both superb, GX being the warmer version. Apart from Velvia these two films are the only others that I now use and they have replaced Provia 100F. I would describe them as saturated but not overly so and very capable of capturing those subtle hues. Well worth a try!<p>Good luck.

[marshall]

Nothing will be quite the same effect, but E100G and E100GX are both nice films (caveat: I haven't used very much GX). Then again, I do use V100F, even though it's not all that and a bag of chips, either...

[oskar_ojala]

Provia 100F, Astia 100F and E100G (not necessarily in that order) would be the ones I suggest (I've managed to shoot something fun on Ektachrome 64 too, but haven't that much experience with it.) If you have saturated color to begin with, you don't need saturated film... :)

[arnabdas]

Have you tried Provia 100F pushed-1-stop? It yields great results for me, and I've been a Velvia 50 affictionado as well.

[martin_patek_strutsky]

I would choose Astia 100F if you plan to stay with Velvia 50 and add a counterpart with less contrast and more neutral colors .

 

If you look for a replacement it is much more difficult. Should Fuji stop producing Velvia tomorrow I would switch to Kodak E100G with 81C filter.

[robert_potts1]

I am not sure where you are or what you are dealing with, but in my neck of the woods, during the times you speak of, the light is virtually never neutral. The colors you describe sound as if they could be countered by lengthening what are already probably long exposures. Also you might try achieving more control of your colors by using a warming polarizer. If you doubt that this filter works without the sun, take one to the beach at dusk and see how it changes things. Astia does look better than Velvia when it is underexposed, but I do not believe that changing film will make a big difference for you.

[peter_langfelder]

If you don't mind skies that tend to be slightly more magenta than Velvia/Astia, try E100G. It is more contrasty than Astia, but the colors aren't pushed nearly as far as with Velvia. I never liked the older Ektachromes (E100S, SW).

[anton_de_flon]

Another vote for E100G. I shot some post-sunset snow scenes this past winter and it picked up the subtle warm tones in the sky nicely, without exaggerating blue in the snow or shadows.

[david_henderson]

Thanks to all for the answers to date. I can respond to some of the issues arising.

 

Robert- believe me this isn't reciprocity failure, which in any case would be likely to give a nasty green cast rather than what I'm seeing. You're right that the light is rarely neutral and indeed I'm not looking for a film to make scenes look neutral; but a film that avoids exaggerating the tendencies that are there.

 

Jay. I think I have this covered off through bracketing. Seems to me that a half stop more bracket is equivalent to the re-rating you suggest. Sadly it doesn't solve my problem.

 

Arnab. Sure I do sometimes push Provia one stop though these days never more. I can see how pushing boosts speed and contrast. I can't see that it will otherwise improve the film though and I don't often need 160 ISO for the sort of photography I'm talking of here.

 

Keith- I'm not really anti-Kodak products, in fact I use Tri-X all the time in b&w. It's the Kodak business I feel negative about for trying to foist several generations of inferior picture making technology on their customers. I seem to recall you recommending these films before and maybe I should give one a try- which do you prefer/use most please?

 

So far I'm inclined to test Velvia vs Provia rated normally vs Kodak 100G or GX. I'm keen to stay with transparencies if I can here since editing is just so much easier.

 

Another thought crossing my mind is to use a neutral film like Astia for pre-dawn /after sunset work and Provia or 100G/GX for after sunrise/before sunset. I could probably handle this as I've got a few backs. Any thoughts on this anyone?

 

Thanks again for the replies.

[keith_laban]

<a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">Keith Laban Photography</a><p>David, the difference between the two films is mainly but not entirely a matter of temperature, E100GX being warmer. That said there are other differences, for instance and rather surprisingly the greens of the warmer film are stronger and more saturated although both films handle greens beautifully, even in poor light. Indeed this is another strength of these films they both perform well in poor light, unlike Provia 100F. I rate both films at 100.<p>It's probably stating the obvious, but if you need a cooler look then go for E100G, or E100GX when more warmth is needed. I probably use both films in roughly equal quantities.<p>I'm not at all sure about the Astia option, could be going from the sublime (Velvia) to the ridiculous, or should that be from the ridiculous (Velvia) to the sublime?<p>Good holiday and shooting to you.

[andre_noble4]

"In short I want more control over what my images look like."

 

I assume you've already considered appropriate Kodak gel type CC filtration for your particular shooting problems, but also Lee Filters will make you a custom graduated resin filter (pricey)for example, 06ND/81B warm-up, etc. etc.

 

BTW, the Velvia is more than likely simply responding to the color of light that is actually there, but which our human eyes adjust for unbeknownst to us. It's your job anticipate the prevailing color temp of existing light, use apropriate filters/process in anticipation, for more satisfactory results.

 

Finally, just want to give you "props" on your efforts with film anyway. I was in a Borders bookstore today, some photog had mounted 20x24 Epson 9600 ink jets scenic photos he was trying to sell for $600 US! What a joke... oops, that's another rant.

[keith_laban]

<a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">Keith Laban Photography</a><p><i>"some photog had mounted 20x24 Epson 9600 ink jets scenic photos he was trying to sell for $600 US! What a joke... oops, that's another rant.</i><p>Sorry Andre but I don't get the joke. Is it the inkjets that are the joke? Or perhaps the scenics? Or is it the $600?<p>One of the foremost "scenic" photographers here in the UK is selling (and I mean selling,) his "ink jet" prints for up to $1400 a time. That's what I would call a damned good living, not a joke.

[oskar_ojala]

$600? If they're good, that's not expensive at all.

 

By now I think we've all agreed on the films. Since you have multiple backs, it would probably be the best for you to go out at dusk/dawn and systematically try the films, see how you like them. Hope you find something that works.

[robert_potts1]

David:

When the sun is below the horizon, the light that reaches you is largely reflected off the atmosphere. Everything you try to shoot will be bathed in skylight. It seems like you should be able to either peel back this light layer with a polarizer or change it with a colored filter. I have used a B+W warming polarizer for this purpose and like the result with Velvia 50. An interesting tactic you might try is E100vs. This will not make the problem go away, but will change its flavor. E100vs tends to look even more grainy in this kind of light, but with medium format, it won't matter so much.

[andre_noble4]

Christopher Burkett charges about $1,400 for his 30x40

cibachromes of nature scenics. His philosophy about 'veracity'

rings a bell with me. Check out his web site if you're interested. I

don't consider this asking price a joke, if your a person of means

with fine taste. However, I would personally (Andre Noble) have

problems accepting that kind of money for an inkjet print.

[david_henderson]

Andre- this is a long way from the question I asked, but surely the real issue here is that Christopher Burkett is a very fine photographer indeed and that his values reflect that rather than the medium he chooses to represent his work best. I have seen his prints but not his transparencies, so I don't know whether his Ilfochromes reproduce his work more accurately than would a LightJet. Personally I have seen a lot of analogue prints from slides that have been a mile away from the tranny and my visualisation. I've moved to digital prints in order to recreate the transparency more closely(if that's what I want)or to achieve the vision I have of how an image should look. Both of these are indicators of authenticity. Persisting with a technique that has been surpassed and in any case was sometimes far from accurate is a personal choice but it isn't a decision made to achieve veracity. For example I think Micharl Fatali follows the same path but you might not say his work is strong on veracity.

 

Incidentally have you seen Burkett's pricing for his most popular images?

[andre_noble4]

Yeah, I just rechecked his web site. I see his 30x40's can go to $10,000 US!. Now, o.k., maybe traditional dye-sub prints which have lengendary archival properties and are no longer made, are worth $10,000....

 

Actually, I'm not a purist to the point where I don't accept the Light Jets prints onto traditional photographic paper. Light jet is the more positive aspect of digital which utilize both analog and digital in their 'synergistic' roles.

 

I like photgraphic film, photographic paper, and the liquid chemical processes that transforms these materials. I accept this process as having photographic veracity even if it includes a digital intermediary step.

 

Still I feel a hand made, purely optical print made with mechanical contrast controls, dodging, etc done to strive for perfection by a master artist is generally worth more than same image off a light jet because it's an "original" in the sense that the next one is going to be better or worse, or at least different from the last, whereas you can run off 100 identical light jet prints with the push of a button or two.

 

I do have real problems (personally again) with 'photographs' made from sprayed ink. I have some I've made myself.