Fuji Velvia, or, I want those saturated colors...

[linda_vesci1]

To Philip: Can you explain why you would shoot Superia Reala at ISO 80. Thanks.

[discpad]

"Can you explain why you would shoot Superia Reala at ISO 80. Thanks"

 

Yes: That's shooting it 1/3 stop slower, which compensates for manufacturing tolerances in the toe of the curve; i.e. you get cleaner shadow detail

 

Since I process my own film, I shoot at box speed and push process 1/3rd stop; in other words the film spends 205 seconds (instead of the normal 195 seconds) in the color developer bath, in order to clean up the toe.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Re <i>Velvia's inaccurate and fake-looking</i><BR><BR>When Veliva first came out, some early batches were real wonky. Thats how it got is slang name Velveda, after the fake processed chesse. To some straight commerical studio product shot shooters weaned on Kodaks stuff, Velvia was more like a Toys are us pumped up fake colors, that now folks love!

[john_silvey]

I'm stunned.

 

So many of you have provided valuable insight (and opinions) as to which film I should use. I think I should clarify by stating that I have two very good labs available to me here in Austin, TX. Moreover, my equipment is limited to a Nikon N90s, and Nikon F3. I cannot afford to purchase what I'd like in a film scanner, nor can I afford the digital camera I desire. In the meantime, I use film, and need to have it printed. Of course, C-41 processing is cheaper, but I can still obtain prints from E-6 for a reasonable price.

 

What I'd like is those saturated colors. I will try Reala, and also EktachromeVS. I've seen some phenominal shots done with Fuji Velvia, and I'd like to use it... but it may not be the film choice for me.

[garethspics]

I think there is some confusion between what the film is capable of actually capturing and what can be seen on a print. A correctly exposed slide will give excellent colours and dynamic range when projected in a darkened room. Overexpose the film and you will ruin the highlights. Negative film can record a much wider dynamic range, but much of it is lost at the printing stage. The printer has to decide whether highlights burn out or shadows get crushed to produce an adequate print that can be viewed under typical conditions. Most compromises end up with a bit of both. However, if I scan a neg to produce the full range of tones the print looks very flat and dark. However, take that same print and put a really strong light on it ( like in an exhibition) and it jumps into a different league.

[scott_eaton]

Some comments here.

 

(1) The subject matter used in R Lee's test support my mocking of film tests that only shoot boring, monochrome architecture. Try shooting a subject with a lof of strong color range, and watch the Reala barf.

 

(2) The quality of the scans is wretched. The Provia shot looks both soft from the camera perspective, and also lacks sufficient sharpness in the scan. either learn to scan slide film unmounted, or get a scanner that can handle floppy, mounted slides correctly. I've made sharper scans with my Epson 1640 flatbed.

 

(3) Astia 100 has more lattitude than Provia, so stop using low lattitude films like Provia and Velvia as 'straw horses' for the lattitude arguement.

[david_henderson]

Your initial concern is that the films you know will give you the saturation you seek are also hard to use- because they have no latitude. In essence this problem is real, and whilst exposure error can be overcome by bracketing, the possibility that the brightness in the scene is simply too great for the film to hold cannot be. In that case you need a metering method that allows you to see what the brightness range is (any more than five stops with Velvia and it wont cope without either black shadows or blown highlights depending on how you expose it). The things that might well help are polarisers -if the problem is glare- , neutral density grads - if there are distinctly bright layers in a scene; or fill in flash. But basically if you want to use high saturation slide film you have to be able to expose just right.

 

I have to say that my experience with colour neg film and volume (amateur) processors is also that I was more likely to get blown highlights than with slide film. But of course thats comparing a print with a slide and it seemed to me invariably the case that the neg. could hold more detail only for the printer to mess it up. But of course different labs perform differently- and charge differently. If you choose you printer and paper carefully, you ought to be able to get good brightness range on a print from a neg. But I don't think you'll get the same saturation as you'd get with a velvia.

 

Either you vote for the most saturation and learn to expose it; or take an easier film to shoot and make do with less saturation.

[randall_pukalo]

Gary, 1)my Print from negative film(not the negative itself) had blown facial highlights, while the slide did not. Yes, the negative had this highlight detail on it, but that was not very useful, I needed it on the print. Yes, a custom dodge/burn or software could fix it, but what a hassle.

2)I do NOT claim slide film has the same dynamic range as print film, I know it is far less, I simply have not had issues with it, as Prints (the photos) themselves have less dynamic range than slide film. So, you will blow your prints befor your slides (unless you scan/use phtotshop or SHO or similar fixes), particularly with standard processing at local labs.