Does Disneychrome alter the reality of your nature?

[dan_smith]

With the advent of Velvia the face of Nature Photography changed, possibly not for the better. With colors we don't see in nature, saturation we don't find in reality, do we convey a false representation of the nature we try to show to others? I love Velvia for sunsets and some scenics, where it shines and comes close to the internal experience I feel in many of the places I shoot. But I have changed to Astia for my wildlife to try and get more accuracy in colors, more detail and less contrast in feathers & fur. Do we, photogs, editors and all involved in the process actually have a negative effect by using films that superexaggerate what is seen? Does the magazine reader who goes out to see what we photographed come away disappointed as a result of reality not looking like our Disneychrome images show him it should be? In our quest for more POP and Intensity, are we liars on film?

[andreas_carl]

In a sense all photographs are a lie, since nature rarely looks the way it is depicted, no matter what color palette you use (not to mention black and white !). Right now supersaturated is fashionable, but I wouldn't be surprised if in a couple of years people get tired of that look and soft pastels will be "in". Go, for what looks best to you!

[piaw]

I don't know if I would single out Velvia for "unrealistic representation." In the mid seventies, Kodak replaced Kodachrome II (a fairly saturated film) with Kodachrome 25 and Kodachrome 64, both with less silver content (and therefore less saturation). Apparently, Ernst Haas bought a thousand rolls of Kodachrome II for his refrigerator at the time.

<p>

To some extent, we don't always remember reality by its norm. I mean, it doesn't rain in Seattle all the time, but if you ask somebody who's lived there for a year (as I have), you'll get replies like, "it's grey and rainy all the time." For symbolic representation of a scene, sometimes, "heightened reality" can be a good thing. And what is a photograph but a symbolic representation of a scene?

<p>

Because nature photography takes place in situations with less than perfect light (fog, murky air, or rain), a film that can help with produce nice colors and saturation is a good tool to have around. Any artist has to learn his or her tools, so a photographer has to learn his medium (film). I've chosen to learn to see the way Velvia does simply because of all the compromises I've seen, I like Velvia's compromises the best.

<p>

Ultimately, the test of a tool is whether you're willing to live without it. Make this thought experiment for yourself: if Fuji were to discontinue production of Velvia tommorrow (with no replacement with similar characteristics forthcoming). What would you do? Would you mirror Haas' rush to acquire a thousand rolls of Velvia for your refrigerator? I know I would, and that reaction says to me that Velvia's overall contribution has been positive. I don't know how many others would feel similarly.

[paulo_bizarro]

The "Velvia issue" is either you hate it or love it. Well, I have tried it, don't like the results, so I don't use it anymore, period. I also don't like other emulsions, but I am glad that today us photographers have plenty to choose from, suited to our needs.

 

<p>

 

As for the particular case with Velvia, the reason I don't like is because it gives artificially looking results. If I try to portray nature, I want to achieve natural results, meaning naturally looking colours, not exagerated ones. But this is my way of seeing and understanding, others' are different for sure. However, I do not think that using Velvia is cheating. It's the same thing as using warming filters, etc, just tools of the trade.

[james_r_babb]

No doubt Velvia produces unreal images, exactly as does a polarizer or a split-neutral-density filter. But among magazine photo editors, Velvia has become normal, not unreal. I've shot identical scenes at exactly the same time of day, using the same lens (and different bodies), one on Velvia, one on other emulsions, and sent them off to the art director in the same sheet of chromes. The Velvia chrome is always their choice.

My own quest for more POP and Intensity translated directly into more sales, and drawing back from that quest in search of ideological purity would translate directly into fewer sales. Doubtless that's made me a liar, but then for better or for worse, I've fallen into the business of selling to liars, as have most of us. Which is why I never go anywhere without a body or a back loaded with Velvia: It's a buyer's market.

[pete_su]

All films have unrealistic color. If you want to see realistic color, don't take pictures.

[chris_hawkins]

The answer is dependent upon the intent of the photographer. If the photographer is trying to convey emotional reality (a "feeling" as opposed to visual reality), then all forms of image manipulation are acceptable. If the photographer is attempting to display visual reality, then I believe that some very strict rules should apply. I�m clear that for scientific documentation of animal and plant species, the use of Velvia (aka Disneychrome) should not be permitted. The film which most closely reproduces the wavelengths of light which a spectrophotometer would record should be the film used.

 

<p>

 

I understand why many photographers would find the strict recording of visual reality is too limiting for them. It would deny them the opportunity to use many of skills they have developed for conveying feelings.

[lightcraftsman]

Yes Disneychrome alters the reality of my nature photos, but no more so than using a Red #25 filter on black-and-white films. I use a red filter quite often with T-Max 1-00, but find Ektachrome 100SW and Agfa RSX 100 more to my liking than Velvia. I'm not sure what that says about me. Maybe because black-and-white is already altering reality it doesn't matter to me if I push the envelope. Maybe I just like black skies. But Disneychrome looks to me like someone went overboard in PhotoShop. Love it or hate it, there is nothing subtle about Velvia.

[chris_mysen]

I think altering reality is a misnomer...Each and every person sees something slightly different when confronted with the same scene and none of these people will see the absolute reality.<p>

 

Photography is just another point of view, the world through different eyes. It should be fairly clear that a camera sees the world very differently than we do, which is a strength or a weakness, depending on your point of view. I see the photography (like many people) as a tool to convey my take on reality.<p>

 

Film is just another part of the equation, in my mind. If velvia (or anything, for that matter) purveys your thoughts the best, then there is no reason not to use it. The audience (be it yourself, or millions of magazine subscribers) doesn't just look at a picture of a redwood forest and see trees, they also respond emotionally to the imposing image of the towering canopy the photographer has created. This is what people are paying for. It's almost like a vicarious experience of the scene through the photographer.<p>

 

I cannot say we are liars. True, some people interpret photographs as truth, it cannot be helped, but I do not believe it is my responsibility to try and limit my photography to absolute reality simply because some people will interpret it as such.

[stanley_mcmanus]

I am not one of Velvia's biggest fans, though I do use it from time to time. Compared to the image fakery I see being done with modern digital tools (I know, there he goes again!) I think any false impression created by Velvia is almost insignificant. Several months ago I visited a local gallery that exhibited various nature photographs. I have to say that some of the lovely and dramatic scences I saw left me with the distinct impression that they never existed or where significanlty altered when the print was made. In particular I saw a picture of a group of perched eagles. Upon close inspection I concluded that the eagles were triplets or clones. The photographer gave a false impression about the number of eagles in this area of No. Calfornia. That was much worse, in my opinion, that giving a false impression of their colour by using Velvia.

[matt_plunkett]

Since I've become serious about taking pictures, about 2 years ago, I have noticed a big difference in the way I perceive color in the world. Fine gradiations in the color of an object really jump out at me. So, for what it's worth, the supersaturation of modern films has made me appreciate beauty in nature that I wouldn't otherwise have noticed.

 

<p>

 

Heck, when you're actually looking at something beautiful like a sunset, a picture doesn't recreate the feelings that you had when you were there, so why not stretch it a bit with the film to recreate the original impact? :)

 

<p>

 

Good question, Dan!

 

<p>

 

-Matt

[paul_wilson2]

I think Chris Mysen's comment about individual perception is right on.

 

<p>

 

Velvia's saturation(or over-saturation) is the same issue as B&W IR or Ansel Adams playing with the contrast of his prints. To most people B&W IR is unrealistic since they can't see the light the film recorded. However, I have seen some studies of people who have some sensitivity to IR. So, to them B&W IR is at least more realistic.

 

<p>

 

Personally, I've shot some K64 and thought to myself afterwards that it looked much duller than what I originally saw. I almost always think that about prints.

[james_harrison]

"Do we, photogs, editors ... have a negative effect by using films that superexaggerate what is seen?"

That depends. Is the main goal of the photograph to dazzle and impress with rich, vibrant colors? Your answer is no, we don't. Or is the goal to help people identify a rock, tree, animal, etc., where "accurate" colors should be the main concern? Then the answer is yes, to a degree we are handing out misinformation and that, to me anyway, is a negative effect. While some might argue (and rightfully so) that NO film can reproduce colors with 100% accuracy, there are certainly many out there that are closer to "reality" than Velvia. Then again, under certain conditions I've had Velvia come closer to what I saw than another film.

 

<p>

 

"Does the magazine reader...come away disappointed as a result of reality not looking like our Disneychrome images show him it should be?"

I think the magazine reader would be more disappointed with the magazine than with the place. Think about the first time you saw something like the Grand Canyon. It might have been in that rich, sweet light we all desire, but I'll bet for most it wasn't. Were you disappointed? I doubt most people are going to compare their magazine photos with the real thing. I doubt most people would like their magazines with less-than-impressive pictures.

 

<p>

 

"In our quest for more POP and Intensity, are we liars on film?" Not me. If someone asks me what film I used, I tell them the truth! :)

[rich_waite]

People will be people. They will look at what they like to see and look away from what they don't. As long as editors and consumers continue to look at Velvia, those that sell pictures will be shooting it.

 

<p>

 

Sure, the stuff is vibrant but so are many colors in nature. Can any film really duplicate the vibrant and wide color spectrum of a low- angled sun glistening off a dollar green dew-damped meadow or a setting sun mirrored on the calm surface of a reflective pond? Colors in nature aren't always drab - often when we choose to trip the shutter when they are most spectacular. Why not use a super-saturated, super fine-grained film like Velvia to record the message?

 

<p>

 

I'm not pro velvia or, for that matter, pro any emulsion. We must remember that in many instances we are recording scenes for others to see and appreciate, not for us to remember them by. "Disnychrome" effectively grabs the attention of others and triggers emotional response, even if it's colors don't exactly match the scene.

 

<p>

 

In the pro's case at least, inspiration to take a photo is often derived from a need to record the scene in a way to stand apart from others. Those who merely take pictures for their walls may choose a different film. But in a consumer driven market of high-gloss magazines, calenders, etc., such a film seems likely to stay at the forefront of the market. Is this bad? I don't think so. Is it good?

No, not really. It is neither bad nor good. It is merely fact. Human imagination will always linger in the direction of the overly exagitory. People want to see spectacular not dull - even if dull is far more abundant.

[gary_watson]

Among the greater ironies of the late '90s is the nonchalance surrounding the reissue of Marx's Communist Manifesto. Marx was right: capitalism commmodifies everything, including nature photography. The current aesthetic among photo editors selects for punch and tonal impact--not accuracy, which really is a bit of a bother, right? Image merchants know their target markets are already media-adled, so success(sales)depends on novelty. Several older Canadian nature shooters I know are routinely bemused by the thickness of the dust on their K64 storage; only the traffic to the new Velvia and E100SW files disturbs it. Whenever I flip through a 50s National Geographic, those atrocious early colour spreads make me wince. But as a kid they impressed the hell out of me. Who cared if I had no reference to judge their wild inaccuracy? I have grave misgivings about plainly manipulated nature shots and the integrity of their makers; but there's no mendacity in putting Velvia's tonal exuberance to work in making a great image. Thoughtful question, as usual.

[yusmar_yahaya1]

It really depends on the way you look at it, is using filters considered as lying? Photos are captured with certain mood that the reader is looking for. If nature should be seen as it truly is, they have to be observed by very own eyes and not the cameras/films.

[howard_creech]

The answer to this question is really very simple...why do you shoot with Velvia? Is it because Velvia's supersaturated palette and increased contrast reflect YOUR true view of the world, or is it because "everyone expects serious photographers to shoot Velvia" An artist is not impressed with the popular view, he/she is concerned with the realization of a personnal vision. If you shoot Velvia because photo editors expect you to shoot Velvia (and in order to increase your sales) then your are a craftsman, creating the visions of others through the skilled use of complex equipment (much like a furniture maker who follows a plan) If on the other hand, you shoot Velvia (or any other film) because it best depicts YOUR realization of your vision, you are an artist creating a view of the world which never exsisted before. It may well be, that like Van Gogh or Edgar Allan Poe, no one other than you will appreciate or realize that something totally new has been created, but then you don't do it for them, you do it for you.

[vnc]

I'm not a follower of the Velvia religion. Velvia remains a special purpose film for me. It's nice to have that option when the subject matter calls for it. In my mind, black and brown tones seem to be rendered with outstanding richness. Some other hues look harsh and garish.

 

<p>

 

On the other hand, no film gives an accurate representation of all hues in a given scene. We've got to make choices based on our better judgement.