Jump to content

Good Old Faithful Velvia


Recommended Posts

<p>I'm a product of the digital revolution, I've shot digital since starting photography, using full-frame Canon DSLRs. A few months ago I started shooting B&W 35mm just for fun. I got so hooked on film, I picked up a Fuji 6x9 and some Velvia. <br>

Holy mother... My Canons have been collecting dust, and probably will for some time.<br>

The best part is, my clients see the film shots, and they're blown away, even ones that aren't compositionally that interesting (at least, to me). I don't know what it is, but there is something about film that is ethereal - you just see it and it's like you're there, like you can feel it, like it's in your bones. It's so organic. It's really quite extraordinary. All these photos exemplify this to me, thanks for sharing.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 227
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>Velvia and blue: for many folks, it's an adjustment to see the saturated blues in shadowed light that Velvia shows. To me, Provia was always a little more unnaturally blue, but Velvia will kick you with intensely saturated blues when that's what the light offers. If that's not what you want in that situation, then you would need to use a warming filter or a different film. For many folks, that rich shadow tonality is part of why they are using the Velvia in the first place. As with any tool, part of the process is learning to use it to get what you want from it.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>All I've ever shot with professionally is Velvia 50 and my F5. It has supported my family and I <strong>for</strong> <strong>ten years now</strong>.<br /> <br /> I've also used Provia along with Velvia 100 (for some wildlife and seascapes). But Nothing compares to 50 for me when it comes to landscape work.<br /> <br /> I also own a $47,000 Eversmart Supreme II scanner to scan those bad boys. I love Velvia. It seems more real, organic, natural blah blah blah to me.<br /> <br /> That said, I am soon to switch over to digital and say goodbye to my precious Velivia 50.<br /> <br /> Why would I kick out of bed what has been so good and loyal to me for so long?<br /> <br /> The answers:<br /> <br /> 1- <strong>NO MORE SCANNING!!!!!!</strong><br /> <strong></strong><br /> 2- Hundreds to thousands of images, non-stop, to a memory card verses having to change rolls <strong>every </strong><strong>36 photos. </strong>(I have lost great shots because I ran out when I ran out).<br /> <br /> 3- No film costs. (One Pacific Northwest 30 day trip cost me $2000 in film alone). Do some math, I've been doing this <strong>10 years</strong> now.<br /> <br /> 4- No developing film costs. (That same Pacific Northwest trip cost me almost the same amount in developing). Do some math, I've been doing this <strong>10 years</strong> now.<br /> <br /> 5- Instant results. I have lost MANY ROLLS because of problems such as a sticky aperture that I would have known with digital. Or because I set ASA to 6 by accident one day. When I finally noticed it (12 rolls later) I almost cried.<br /> <br /> 6- Ability to change ISO settings whenever I want to.<br /> <br /> 7- Ability to change size of image file settings whenever I want to.<br /> <br /> 8- Cameras like new D3X which shoot 24.5 megs which now competes with medium format. (AND LOOKS AMAZING!!)<br /> <br /> 9- No more squinting on lightbox editing. (Sometimes I swear I was going blind from too much of that).<br /> <br /> 10- No more airport hassles having to scan or hand inspect all my rolls of film.<br /> <br /> 11- No moor having to keep my film <strong>cold</strong> when traveling all over.<br /> <br /> 12- Did I mention NO MORE SCANNING!!!! That's worth a second time here. Scanning is a pain in the <strong>A$$</strong>.<br /> <br /> Every film slide that gets chosen then has to get to be scanned, cleaned up, cropped, sized which TAKES A LOT OF TIME and hassle.<br /> <br /> Sometimes the scans suck and I get to rescan it. Weeeee. Oftentimes with Veliva there is a magenta cast when scanned. weeeeee<br /> <br /> With digital every single image is like a clean scan all ready to print.<br /> <br /> If digital was just slightly inferior I'd still switch because of all teh reasons above.<br /> <br /> But folks, all of my professional labs say (more like YELL IT) that today's digital is BETTER than film today.<br /> <br /> I cannot interpolate my film scans anywhere near as much as my son can interpolate his digital images. They fall apart much faster. And I have one of the best scanners in the world. Nat Geo uses two of what I have.<br /> <br /> And remember, I love my Veliva and it has been sooo good to me and has completely supported me and family in Hawaii.<br /> <br /> But when I finally get that D3X <strong>knowing all scanning is now over </strong>and all the other things on my little list, I'l be happy to say goodbye to my precious Velvia 50 for good.<br /> <br /> Today I rent inexpensive Nikon D-60's for our photo tours biz to customers and also use them for all webwork because it's so easy and fast and NO MORE SCANNING. It takes super images.<br /> <br /> I can't wait to get that bog boy for professional landscape work soon!<br>

<br /> And I love my Velvia 50...</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If you know the film and shoot with it accordingly, it's amazing. (i.e. Vincent) But it is very tough to nail the exposure. I met a very well known NatGeo shooter a few years ago. He had just spent a year on one story, and shot 1000 rolls for a spread that featured 19 images. At that point he was still shooting Velvia and Provia and a bit of 1600 neg for the low light stuff. He said he "bracketed like a madman" on almost every shot. (1/2 step)<br>

I think you have to be prepared to do this to get the right exposure. For the record, I don't see anything in the above samples that couldn't have been done digitally.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong><em>"He said he "bracketed like a madman" on almost every shot. (1/2 step)"</em></strong></p>

<p>**** That goes without saying. I ALWAYS bracket when using Velvia. One third in each direction works for me. 1/2 was just too much.<br>

<br /> I cannot count the number of times doing that saved the day. Which is one reason why my film costs are through the roof. I'd probably still bracket with digital especially with significant subject matter just to be sure as well as to have backup if wanting HDR.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Congratulations on the D3X. It is a great camera. Very convenient also for all the points you mention.</p>

<p>On film quantity, I usually take my time before shooting a picture and I don't bracket and I almost never off in exposure. I believe it is a combination of skill and a lot of luck. <br>

Conveniences are great to the point you decide to live with the trade offs. Before your own standards hurt when you used Velvia 100 instead of Velvia 50. Now you pick a camera with off the shelf interpolated color, scroll the ISO wheel at will, and you are completely happy. Funny how things change.<br>

I can tell you that it is impossible to me to shoot 12 rolls with the ISO at 6 set 4 stops off where normal daylight scenes at f11 would require a shutter speed of over 1/800 with Velvia 50 without thinking something is wrong. Also every time you change a roll the camera should read the ISO. In medium format I meter manually.<br>

What did you mean by the D3X's competing with medium format Velvia 50?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p >Vincent,</p>

<p > </p>

<p >You’ll love the D3X. I had a chance to play with one in a park recently. A fellow had just bought one and he let me use my CF card for a few shots. At iso 100, based on what I viewed, at 16x20, you won’t see any difference between a good scan of MF and the D3X….at least on a cottonrag paper like HM308. It’ll be quite the upgrade from 35mm for you. What was interesting was the fact that at that size, it made MF Astia look grainy. It was only because the D3X file had absolutely no noise that the Astia looked noisy in comparison.</p>

<p > <br>

You’ll find the D3X a suitable match for MF at 16x20….unless you like viewing prints through a loupe.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong><em>"On film quantity, I usually take my time before shooting a picture and I don't bracket and I almost never off in exposure. I believe it is a combination of skill and a lot of luck."</em></strong><br /> <strong><em></em></strong> <strong><em><br /></em></strong><br /> **** When paying big bucks to travel to a location and when you need to get it the shot right, I never leave it up to luck. Bracketing has saved images many times.</p>

<p><strong><em>"Conveniences are great to the point you decide to live with the trade offs. Before your own standards hurt when you used Velvia 100 instead of Velvia 50. Now you pick a camera with off the shelf interpolated color, scroll the ISO wheel at will, and you are completely happy. Funny how things change."</em></strong></p>

<p>**** Nonsense! You listed just <strong>ONE</strong> thing on my list. <strong>I posted 11 reasons</strong>. And notice you never commented on most of them including all the time going into <strong>scanning</strong>. Scanning is a time consuming deal that you completely avoid with switching to digital. How come you missed all those other things Mauro??</p>

<p>There are MANY REASONS why switching over to digital will make sense as placed on your lap. Not just one as you tried to quote. I would <strong>not switch </strong>if the <strong>only advantage</strong> was changing ISO settings.</p>

<p>But since there are numerous other advantages including all the time going into scanning along with no more film and development costs (you skipped those too) along with hassles of carrying film and keeping it cool (where are those in your reply?) and even more... I can safely say that a switch makes all the sense in the world for me.</p>

<p>And I do this thing for a living, full time.</p>

<p><strong><em>"I can tell you that it is impossible to me to shoot 12 rolls with the ISO at 6 set 4 stops off where normal daylight scenes at f11 would require a shutter speed of over 1/800 with Velvia 50 without thinking something is wrong. Also every time you change a roll the camera should read the ISO. In medium format I meter manually."</em></strong><br /> <strong><em><br /></em></strong></p>

<p>**** I eventually did catch it. But on the F5 it's poorly located and very small. And I was highly focused on photography in northern California on a trip. I eventually just went back and actually had better conditions than the first time. Still, the point is that with digital <strong>you know right away.</strong> So now what?</p>

<p>Same with the sticking aperture problem that cost me many rolls on Oahu. You can make adjustments on the fly with digital. I learned the hard way the first time I shot nighttime volcano shots that there is just too much contrast unless shooting close into the lava. Digital would have spared me the expense and hard knock lessons.</p>

<p><strong><em>"What did you mean by the D3X's competing with medium format Velvia 50?"</em></strong></p>

<p><strong><em></em></strong><br /> <strong><em></em></strong></p>

<p>**** From Nikon's own website: <strong>"resolution is amazing, rivaling digital medium–format camera offerings."</strong></p>

<p>I didn't type that, Nikon did. Think they might know?<br /> <br /> <br /><br /> Or, if you don't trust what Nikon says just type in Nikon D3X compares to medium format in Google and then hold onto your hat.</p>

<p>And Mauro, let me quote your first sentence again way up top:<br>

<br /><strong><em> "Just got back from Montana and scanned the first slide. I shot only TMAX and Velvia (Thank G I left my DSLR home....)"</em></strong></p>

<p>**** You didn't really mean you just got back, right? Unless you do all your own film developing of course. Because it will likely take at least ONE WEEK for film to get developed. And more time to edit through your images to selecdt which gets scanned.</p>

<p>And then more time to actually SCAN ALL THOSE SLIDES. You really meant to say you just got back from Montana <strong>a week or two ago</strong>, right Mauro?</p>

<p>Whereas if you did bring your digital outfit (the one you are so happy you left behind) you'd have been posting photos within an hour or less.</p>

<p>heh</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Here we go. I sure hope you do well and continue to support your family. I see room for all of us in this world including Digital and Film people.</p>

<p> I see no reason for acting angry and yelling. I don't think it is worth the time of any of us here to fight when we can be helping each other.</p>

<p> Enough of this enjoy all of each others work and don't worry about how they created it just that they did.<br>

Larry</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong><em>"Which pictures in your gallery are not from Velvia?"</em></strong></p>

<p>**** All are from using Velivia (and most all with 50). Which is why I hope my points have some credibility. I have been one of the biggest fan of Velvia for 10 years.</p>

<p>But now I see far too many reasons to switch to Nikon's new D3X. I did not switch with just the 12 megapixels and the (D2X) or any of the newer D3 series. I can already compete with those with my film and top class scanner. Plus am still scanning all those older trips which take a ton of time.</p>

<p>But the D3X changes things and now I am about ready to jump in.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Why does this topic keep coming up? No one is going to suddenly say "oh, you're right, I'll just switch to film/digital!" The next step is going to be getting out a few test shots and charts to prove that digital is better than film, followed by charts proving that film is better than digital. Then we'll have a debate over convenience versus the act of taking the photo and so on. Please, everyone stop baiting one another and responding to the bait. </p>

<p>That being said, I think that both digital and film have their place and I like to use both. For work I shoot digital. I'm a journalist and that's just the way things are today. For my own pleasure I shoot film because that's what I like to do, and its my free time to do with as I wish. I'm just glad that both options are available and that I have all of these wonderful options and facets to explore on both sides.</p>

<p>If your reasons for going with one or the other or both are sufficient for you to do so, then I guess I fail to see the need to use the same reasoning to berate others for not doing likewise. It often sounds like a person is trying to convince themselves more than they are trying to convince others. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>

 

 

<p><strong><em>"Is your scanner up for sale?"</em></strong></p>

<p>**** Are you kidding me. I'll be scanning old stuff your years to come. It takes <strong>a lot of time </strong>to scan large files, as you must know.</p>

<p>But when I do sell it, I'll be sure to call you first.</p>

<p>I'll check back on this later, am heading out for a bit.</p>

 

 

 

</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Didn't mean it as a critique to the decision Vincent. Even Dave quotes he has seen comparable results from the D3X to medium format up to 16x20 unless you stick the nose to the print.</p>

<p>I actually got back over a week ago. I developed the TMAX myself and sent the Velvia out.</p>

<p>I personally love the Velvia 50 - 35mm and 6x7 detail and colors. I am not even sure how to reproduce the colors in PS from a DSLR.</p>

<p>I look forward to seeing some of your pictures and hearing your experiences with the D3X.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Amen from me too. It interesting how a discussion can turn into a debate. Anyone with an open mind will appreciate the virtues of both film and digital. But two things cannot be denied. They are that digital becomes very, very expensive in an exercise to match the output straight out the camera of low ISO film. I know, because I am in the midst of the exercise. And the other is the complexity and technological expertise required to make digital perform to the quality of Velvia.<br>

I for one do not want to be sitting at a computer playing graphic artist in an attempt to transform an image into acceptability or quality. I don't have time. I have a family and a real job. I like being able to drop off my film for processing and pick up the slides, unmounted, with a high res scan done, the next day. I don't want to be an expert developer, I want to become an expert shooter. I would rather invest the extra thousands in great glass or an MF kit than on IT. And digital has an awfully long way to go before it can match the output of say the combination of Velvia 50, and a quality 617 camera. Wide format landscapes are probably the last holdout for film, and it will be some time before that wall is breached at an affordable level.<br>

In the meantime I will just continue enjoying and refining my technique, gradually learn digital as well, but still wonder at what is possible with this fine film.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Al I know is that very few people have used Velvia like I have over the years professionally for landscapes.</p>

<p>I simply love this film.</p>

<p>But anybody with eyes can see that today's digital cameras have improved to the point nowadays where one can easily match, if not surpass, what film can do overall. I have seen it again and again from other professionals today.</p>

<p>In the not too distant past digital images were too noisy, lacking dynamic range, could not produce large enough files for large printing etc. etc.</p>

<p>Not so any longer.</p>

<p>It's not just the fact that digital files are big, colorful and beautiful today. It's also the fact (for me) that you can avoid all the hassles that do come with using film. I already listed many of these in detail in my first comment here. A 4, 6, 8 or 16 gig memory card means you can just continue shooting until <strong>YOU are finished</strong>, and not because your 36 exposures (and far less if using medium or large format) film are finished.</p>

<p>It means no more lugging around 80-250 rolls of Velivia film for a shooting trip, keeping it cool, dealing with airport scanning and more.</p>

<p>It also means I can use 35mm gear, with the fastest and widest lenses available anywhere today. Take a look at how much you lose when using 6x7 gear or larger. Even 645 gear and lenses can't compare to 35mm in terms of speed and features.</p>

<p>It also means no more developing and film costs.</p>

<p>And as mentioned several times, though not mentioned in anybody's replies here that I have seen, the greatest reason for a switch is t<strong>he complete elimination of scanning</strong> and all the time/hassles/cleaning that comes with it!</p>

<p>That is no small thing here folks. Scanning is a real deal breaker for some.</p>

<p>I cannot think, as a professional that supports himself solely on my photography, of any good reason to stay with film any longer.</p>

<p><strong>And I love my Velvia 50. </strong>And for those that stick with film as a hobby or that do not mind all the time involved with scanning and costs with shooting/developing film professionally, I say <strong>good for you.</strong></p>

<p>If somebody could beat me in the argument, I'd stick with film too. Heck, I've already got a great setup to do just that.</p>

<p>But take a look at the best of the best in landscape photography today, and probably 90 percent are shooting digital today, because the digital <strong>process</strong> is just that much better.</p>

<p>And now, adding to a better process, finally, many are admitting that the digital image itself is at least every bit as good if not better than film.</p>

<p>As good an image, and a better, faster more affordable, less hassles <strong>process</strong> just seems to make sense.</p>

<p>I will probably always keep my F5 and keep my hand in film to at least some degree. But when it comes to making a living and doing this on a daily basis I just can't see any good reason to stay away from the digital world of photography any longer. And trust me guys, I have sure tried.</p>

<p>Thanks for the interchange.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I missed this one:</p>

<p><strong>quote:<em> "I am not even sure how to reproduce the colors in PS from a DSLR."</em></strong><br /> <strong><em><br /></em></strong></p>

<p>**** I agree nothing looks like an amazing colorful slide of Velvia 50 on the lightbox.</p>

<p>But remember, Mauro, you still have to <strong>SCAN THAT SLIDE</strong>. You never get that slide's amazing colors and richness once it is scanned.</p>

<p><strong>You LOSE a full generation through the scanning process alone.</strong></p>

<p>I have used many scanners over the years before plopping down money for that $47,000 Eversmart Supreme II film scanner. And even with that YOU LOSE a lot from the original transparency itself. There is no way around it.</p>

<p>Which, again, only points me back into the direction of digital today because of the tremendous progress digital cameras have made overall during the past few years.</p>

<p>Just one man's .02...</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...