Good Old Faithful Velvia

[benny_spinoza]

<p>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.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Negative film has great dynamic range but print has a wider color space - both have their strengths.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>For people, you may use a color card (or a just an 18% gray card).</p>

<p>Weird but I never got procupied with it too much.</p>

[benny_spinoza]

<p>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. </p>

[jbm]

<p>Platinum work, gents. After a few years with digi, I went basically back to film...thought I am mostly a whatever works kind of guy. These are recent from trip to Nicaragua in Velvia 50 and 100. Great stuff, a little too saturated for me, though so I am getting into Provia with good results.<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/9434394">http://www.photo.net/photo/9434394</a><br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/9434393">http://www.photo.net/photo/9434393</a><br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/9434392&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/9434392&size=lg</a><br>

Cheers,<br>

Jay</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>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.</p>

[graham_broadbridge]

<p>You guys are nuts.</p>

<p>FYI, I shoot 120 film with an ETRSi and digi on a canon d5.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>The result can be no better than a decent digi camera saving RAW images as the same limitations of dynamic range etc apply.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Talk about the blind leading the blind.</p>

[thomas_hardy1]

<p>So how do you show the results here without scanning the film. I know, scan the print.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>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."<br>

As you know:<br>

- a DSLR pixel captures only one color and a scanner captures a full RGB sample. <br>

- a DSLR makes up detail and colors from different algorithms whereas a scanner is a straight sample.<br>

- 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.<br>

- 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.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>How do you compare prints from Velvia and your Canon 5D? I am interested in hearing your opinion.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Velvia makes it hard to waste time on editing because is just naturally so darn good looking.</p>

<p>This is from my room window:</p><div></div>

[benny_spinoza]

<p>Mauro,<br>

<em>This is from my room window:</em><br>

Is that view from your "everyday" room window. If that is from your home, then I am jealous!!!</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>That was from my hotel. I am not that lucky (yet).</p>

[willscarlett]

<p>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.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>They look better than real.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Daniel, you are confused.</p>

<p>"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.</p>

<p>"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.</p>

<p>"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.</p>

<p>"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?<br /> <br /> "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.</p>

[todd_k.]

<p>Pay attention junior. There is absoulity no way these could have been taken with a DSLR. He left it at home :-)</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>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.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Please don't let this beautiful thread degrade into Digital vs Film.</p>

[ned1]

<p>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.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>You are right Larry.</p>

<p>Just focusing on Velvia 6x7: 100MP scan at 100%, look at the detail of a tiny spot of the picture:</p><div></div>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Edward,</p>

<p>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.</p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>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.<br>

www.kenduncan.com<br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

Digital is more convenient, but by no means superior.</p>

[willscarlett]

<p>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...</p><div></div>

[willscarlett]

<p>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.</p><div></div>

[willscarlett]

<p>one more</p><div></div>