Good Old Faithful Velvia

steve_larese1 · July 21, 2009

Mauro, I love the color and depth in your image :)

francois_p._garnier · July 21, 2009

Dave,

I have to disagree from my own experience and the experience and work of my photography friends. We've made optical prints from slides in 50x75cm from Velvia, Astia, Provia, Sensia, E100G which are almost grain free. You have to put your nose on the print to really see grain. Optical prints on Ilfochrome. Similar results with drum scans.

Grain is not limiting resolution at these enlargement factors. We have also looked at 100x (!) enlargements via microscope. No problem at all to see the resolution even at this extremely high enlargement factors. If grain would limit the resolution at 20x factors as you say, than it would be impossible to see such high resolution values at 100x enlargement.

And when you project a slide, in most cases you have resolution factors higher than 30x, and with good projection lenses you can see the high resolution on the screen. We have made lots of tests to analyse this, testcharts, landscapes, portraits, and we have always got the same results. With portraits we could count every single hair at the eye brows, even if we got extremely close to the screen. The projected pictures were 1m x 1,5m big.

The bottle neck with film, the resolution limiting factor, is the lens. With zoom lenses or mediocre primes you will not get the best out the film. With excellent primes you will.

michael_bradtke · July 21, 2009

Francois

What format did you use to make these 50X75cm prints from?

vincetylor · July 21, 2009

I only have time for a few replies this morning. "Everyone knows that I think digital is way too expensive and I bang on about it. But $45k for a scanner?? "

**** That's what a new one costs today. I paid only $30,000 including an oil station for a twice used show demo. Very few scanners have the capabilities of this one. I scan all of my slides as 222 meg (24x36) TIFFS. They are clean and beautiful files even at that size. It helps that I only use Nikon's best glass, a tripod most of the time and as close to F8 whenever possible.

Labs, even today, charge a hefty price for scans of this size and quality. Having my own scanner then made sense. We sell a lot of prints in retail accounts as well as online in four locations. And am building up our stock images department. But I can tell you that scanning takes time. Far more time than I ever wanted to spend. And I want out if digital can get me out... which finally now it can.

"Vincent, I notice that when you speak of the benefits of digital you are using the future tense, e.g. "I'll be editing on a big, wide, 23 inch Apple monitor[...]" Why not wait for six months or a year and tell us how it is, not how it will be?" **** I probably will. But, I have already seen what my son's Nikon D2X (that he purchased several years ago) can do. Go here: <a href="http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/8524016_hYZX2/6#P-1-15">http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/8524016_hYZX2/6#P-1-15</a> His fine art PRINTS are nothing short of stunning. That older model D2X camera has noise issues and now considered as a dinosaur when compared to the newest technology. I have already seen what our photo tours rental cameras (Nikon D60's) can do. I have used those for website and advertisement brochure work. Probably 90 percent of photos on this page were taken with a D60 and kit lens both costing less than $550 combined. And all shot in J-peg rather than raw. <a href="http://www.hawaiianphotos.net/kauai_tour_photos.htm ">http://www.hawaiianphotos.net/kauai_tour_photos.htm</a> I have read what photo editors and real world users have said about the D3X (on top of what I have seen with my eyes above). And time involved in scanning is completely eliminated. Film and developing costs are a thing of the past.

"Just wondering, do you expect Velvia-like images to pop out of your D3X? Digital photography is all about post-processing and it can take HOURS to get the colors the way you want. Of course, sometimes it takes just a couple of minutes. The D3X is no doubt a great camera (the greatest small format dSLR out there), however since you have been working with Velvia exclusively over the past 10 years, I hope you don't think that the D3X produces Velvia-like photos straight out of the box. You will spend A LOT of time in front of the computer." **** I absolutely do know this. I spend hours in editing every single day. But I can tell you one thing that I believe so many people seem to overlook here. No scan in the world can perfectly replicate what Velvia looks like on a lightbox. NONE. The scanning process alone causes a significant amount of degradation to what you see on a lightbox. And, it takes time in scanning process to lose that quality. How do you like that!

"Vincent, you are not only talented but also very seasoned, I am looking forward to hear how many endless nights you will spend trying to make the D3X landscapes look like the Velvia 50 you brought alongside." **** Remember Mauro, every digital file, straight out of the camera is like an already scanned, cleaned and cropped ready to edit file. That means no more scanning. That means no more sending out film to get developed and squinting through a loupe for hours along with many other things already listed. That means having 24.5 megapixels of often gorgeous imagery to do whatever I need to do with while eliminating so many hassles and time consuming elements that currently bog me down with film. But just to be sure I will come back and report exactly what I find. Though I have seen and read enough to know what to expect. We all love how Velvia looks on a light box. But Velvia never looks the same as a scan. And it takes TIME in photoshop to get it as close as possible.

"Also by not carrying your film camera it means you cannot shot B&W film anymore. If there is one thing more difficult to do than making a DSLR look like Velvia, that is making a decent B&W out of a DSLR." **** I have seen stunning B&W from digital. I have seen stunning B&W from digital again and again. I have seen stunning B&W from digital. I have seen....

"I think that sometimes the format gets in the way of simply saying "those are some gorgeous pictures". Those are some gorgeous pictures." **** I consider my current print line to have some gorgeous photos. So much so that we make a living from those photos. And just about every photo I have today was captured with Velvia 50. Believe me, I know what it can do. But I also know what today's digital world has accomplished and can do as well. And I am well aware of how much more time and expense using film requires. Which is why the time to switch for me has arrived. I would not switch with 12 megapixels. My film and scanner can match and often beat that. But not 24.5 megs it can't. I cannot do with 35mm film what 24.5 megs can do today. And if I switch to medium or large format then I lose the many advantages of using 35mm gear and lenses. I also get even LESS images per roll and more expense in film and developing. And I still have a ton of scanning to do. I am tired of scanning.

"Our result: Slides projected on a screen, that is a class of its own. Probably one of the reasons why we like to go to cinema ;-)." **** But nobody sells/uses Velvia projected on a screen. It has to be scanned and then cleaned and then edited and finally printed. The scanning process alone takes away any advantages film has over digital's quality, IMHO. Not to mention the added time and expenses.

"Before this thread degrades further, we should all keep in mind Vincent's reasoning for making the switch - it is a business decision. It's very easy for those of us who shoot for pleasure to say what someone should or shouldn't do for purely aesthetic reasons, but at the end of the day, ya gotta do what ya gotta do to make ends meet." **** Sorry, but I do not see this thread has degraded at all. Opinions and discussions are a good thing. But you are correct, if I loved shooting film as a hobby, I'd probably be content to just stay on course. But it's not a hobby. And I do see what digital can do.

And for me, being out there is far more enjoyable than scanning. Spending money on traveling is better than spending money on film and developing costs. Like already mentioned, I spent approx $3500 in film and developing alone on my 30 day Pacific Northwest trip a few years back. Just telling you how it is. Using digital back then would have saved me most if not all of that. And guess what? I HAVE STILL YET TO SCAN ANY OF THOSE PAC NW SHOTS!!!! I finally edited it all two years ago and there are some truly beautiful photos in there. But scanning has to get in line with other business priorities I have right now. Which is why doing this is not the brightest thing for me and why I am trying to be quick in my replies.

"(nothing like that pro scanner from Vincent - and yes, scanning takes time). It's a complimentary combination. I find that film also costs a hell of a lot of money - I've probably spend at least 300 or 400€ on paper, films and chemicals - and that would get me a really nice DSLR body or lenses. In the future I'm probably going to spend money primarily on digital, because I get really nice results from it, but will on time to time dime out for film (but, being a student, every € counts)" **** This is the paradox many film lovers find themselves in. And I am one of them. It simply takes a lot of time and money to keep doing with film what going to digital will allow me to avoid to a great degree. Nobody that I know of prefers scanning to shooting. Nobody that I know of prefers paying out money if they don't have to. If the end result of shooting digital was an inferior fine art print, then count me out. But that's just not the case any longer here folks. You can now print beautiful and LARGER prints with 35mm digital than with 35mm film. And at a fraction of the cost and time it takes with film. This is not rocket science here. This is not hyperbole.

"The problem I see with 35mm Velvia enlarged in print form that size is that at 20x30, 24x36 and 30x45, grain becomes more of an issue than resolution. Even at 16x24 you'll see grain lessen resolution. That is why I found that while these exceedingly high resolution figures mean little on print. In the end, at 20x30, I haven't seen any 35mm film, be it Velvia or Astia or Provia, match the PERCEIVED resolution of 21 or 24mp digital capture. " **** Dave is telling us what I see as well. Now, because I invested in a world class scanner, I can go larger than most without losing too much quality. In fact we have sold several 40x60's with outstanding success over the past few years. And 24x36's with regularity.

But every scan takes a lot of time from beginning to end. With today's 21-24 35mm digital cameras you are exceeding what you can do with 35mm film. And scanning is GONE AND DONE!!! Along with no film to lug around. Add to that no more film and developing costs. No more having to change rolls at 36 frames or less. Instant results, change ISO in a second etc etc etc

"I like the thread, a lot of good points being made and would love to see some more velvia scans as well. Nice gallery Vincent!" **** Thank you for the compliments. And I agree this has been a good thread to get involved with. Initially I did not realize this is in the film forum. I simply saw it on the Photo.net front page. I would probably have been a little more careful in what I wrote had I recognized that knowing that most people here are film lovers. If I missed anything pertinent feel free to let me know. I'll try to catch up again later. All the best,

Vince

irenej_f · July 21, 2009

Also checked out your son's page - his photos are excellent as well, makes me want to try some more and learn from it!

steppenwolf · July 21, 2009

Nice to see good old Velvia in the limelight!

My entire portfolio is shot in Velvia. Those who want to see more Velvia examples may visit my profile. All shot in 35mm. I also shoot MF but don't have a scanner to share online.

It is a joy to get back the box in mail and put the slides on a projector in the night and have that almost 3D experience of a great landscape!

What I struggle with it is scanning to share online. I scan with a lower end Minolta scanner. I can never recreate the analog textures and the colours, and on top of the small Velvia latitude, I lose some dynamic range and sharpness. So if sharing online was the only thing, I would much rather shoot in DSLR.

Indeed, if not for the projector and some local slide competition I participate in I will be compelled to convert!<div></div>

mauro_franic · July 21, 2009

Good shot Steve. A nice composition with the clouds and the steam.

mauro_franic · July 21, 2009

Dave, my prints from TMX and Velvia 50 at 20x30 show no grain. This is scanned with my Coolscan 9000 and printed with my Epson 7880.

Dave Luttmann · July 21, 2009

Dave is telling us what I see as well. Now, because I invested in a world class scanner, I can go larger than most without losing too much quality. In fact we have sold several 40x60's with outstanding success over the past few years. And 24x36's with regularity.

But every scan takes a lot of time from beginning to end. With today's 21-24 35mm digital cameras you are exceeding what you can do with 35mm film. And scanning is GONE AND DONE!!! Along with no film to lug around. Add to that no more film and developing costs. No more having to change rolls at 36 frames or less. Instant results, change ISO in a second etc etc etc

</blockquote>

That's basically what I see. As to optical prints mentioned previously, I've yet to ever see an optical print that can match the sharpness of a well scanned file output to Lightjet, Chromira, or Inkjet. I've seen some of the best work around the world from people like John Sexton, Kirk Gittings, Clyde Butcher, David Fokos, and many others. The scanned files hold sharpness better.

As to grain free images from 35mm....whether scanned or optically printed very few films have no grain past a 25X enlargement.....Tech Pan, Rollei TP, Adox 20 being amoung the few. Being that I have no problem seeing grain from MF 6x7 Astia drum scans at 32x40.....I don't believe for a moment that grain is invisible at 30"+ from 35mm.....optical or scanned.

Here's a link to what Fuji Pro 160S looks like in a 6300ppi scan on an Imacon. You can see it's grain limited. Pro 160S is a very fine grained film that scans very well....with an RMS 3. While the rez holds up fairly well compared to a 24mp digital sensor, it's obvious that it's grain limited....not rez limited....and that's with one of the sharpest lenses on the planet! Copy the files, reduce to 50% on screen to get an idea what it would appear like on a 20x30 print. From what I've worked with, the Sony A900 looks better on print beyond 16x24 then the best 35mm can handle.

I think this is an exciting time for photography. We are finally reaching the point where some digital capture can match or exceed what some films can achieve. It's nothing to get upset about. It has me interested enough to seriously consider a 5D2 or A900 for some landscape work because as I said, print comparisons at 16x24 showed people unable to tell the 6x7 film vs the digital file when printed on HM Photorag 308 on an Epson 3800. Let's be honest.....most of the people complaining and anal-izing images are rarely printing professionally....and not at the sizes we're talking about anyway.

Sorry, long diatribe. But as a quality medium....35mm was never up to par. It is used for convenience. People after real quality output have been using MF and LF....and now have the option of high quality digital. Not a big deal. Nothing for everyone to get their backs up about!

<a href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=29704253">http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=29704253</a>

Dave Luttmann · July 21, 2009

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=3995956">Mauro Franic</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jul 21, 2009; 04:12 p.m.

Dave, my prints from TMX and Velvia 50 at 20x30 show no grain. This is scanned with my Coolscan 9000 and printed with my Epson 7880.

</blockquote>

Have you applied any sharpening to increase the acutance to match the digital file? I've never seen a scan from 35mm that had no grain at 20x30....sharpened or not....optically printed or not.

Just my experience. I wasn't using a 9000 for 35mm....I used an older Imacon 343 at the max rez of 3200ppi. Although Tango scans I've had done at 5400ppi show grain at those sizes quite clearly....on Lightjet and my old Epson 7600.

I should try a Velvia scan on the 9000 and make a print to check for grain.

mauro_franic · July 21, 2009

I think I have some scans from Velvia, TMAX 100 and 400 35 mm uploaded full size on my website. Let me check and I will remove the protection so you can download them. On min....

mauro_franic · July 21, 2009

Here are full rez scans from TMAX 35mm I printed on Epson Ultrasmooth Fine Art at 24x36:

http://www.shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/8072306_QeWRb#525850046_GYyM6-O-LB

http://www.shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/8072306_QeWRb#525850601_ansHS-O-LB

Right click to save them on your computer and run a sample print.

Let me know when you are done downloading so I can put the protection back on.

Dave Luttmann · July 21, 2009

Give me a sec. I'm on a laptop and I'm blocked. Having my wife do it from work.

mauro_franic · July 21, 2009

This is full rez from 35mm Ektar (All the Velvia I have full rez appears to be MF). Velvia has much much finer grain than Ektar and even so I didnt see grain on this picture at 16x20. - Same printer and paper.

http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/popular/6/412869552_SU8dE#412869552_SU8dE-O-LB

Dave Luttmann · July 21, 2009

AOK to remove Mauro.....

Thanks.

mauro_franic · July 21, 2009

Cross country team work.

mauro_franic · July 21, 2009

Setting the protection back on...

Dave Luttmann · July 21, 2009

Thanks Mauro. For some reason the wireless I'm using in a coffee shop won't permit Smugmug or Flickr....probably bandwidth issue. Hilarious....she downloaded it, emailed it home so it's ready for me.

Cross country indeed.

Cheers,

mauro_franic · July 21, 2009

At least you are out at a coffee shop.

Dave Luttmann · July 21, 2009

I need coffee when I'm working on wedding photos ;-)

I checked the drum scan I have of Velvia. Apparently the micron mask was set to maximize sharpness...which accentuates grain. I'll have to rescan and resharpen in order to do a proper comparison. A lot of variables involved.

mauro_franic · July 21, 2009

Yep. With my punny Coolscan 9000 there is not much I can mess up since I turn everything off with the exeption of ICE normal.

jason · July 21, 2009

I have stopped using slide film. I use negative film only with digital for jobs.

Most of the time my PRO-work, almost all for internet, is with a point and shoot.

I noticed that having scans done, highlights are affected! It seems that might as well shoot only digital.

I loved doing slide shows. The cost today prohibitive and risky with the QC at most labs..

Velvia a very unreal color, so why bother.. Yes a film camera is more tactile, quicker but to what end?

Why have only 36 shots..I still process my own Black and white, making enlarged prints.

Prints not posters or billboards. Anyway luved your pix.

dan_south · July 21, 2009

Vincent K. Taylor: "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."

</blockquote>

You can compete how, exactly? What film are you using for low-noise, fine-grained images at ISO 1600, 3200, and beyond?

Hey, I LOVE film and still shoot it regularly, but the D3 and D700 do things that film (and, to be fair, MOST digital sensors) just CANNOT DO, no matter what the format and no matter what scanner you use. These cameras are in a class by themselves. The D3X can't compete with the D3 above ISO 800, but I'm sure that, like film, it takes beautiful images at low ISO values.

Further, Nikon must have turbocharged the processing engine in the D3 and D700. I upgraded from a D200 (10MP) to a D700 (12MP). A two megapixel jump doesn't sound like much, but when you compare images from the two camera, the D700 looks as though it has TWICE the resolution, not 20 percent more. How they did it, I don't know - engineering sleight of hand? new interpolation algorithms? who knows? - but the difference is that striking. The D700 makes me want to jump on a plane and reshoot everything I once took with the D200.

Anyway, I'm sure that your new D3X will be amazing. Just be careful not to dismiss the quality of the D3 and the D700 just because the number "12" appears somewhere in their specifications.

For an anecdotal comarison with film - I have thousands of Velvia and Provia 100 chromes of various sizes in my files - I would say that a PROPERLY POST-PROCESSED D3/D700 image is considerably more detailed than 35mm film but somewhat less detailed than a perfectly shot 6x7 chrome (i.e. top notch lens, sturdy tripod, no vibration, no wind). That said, it's a lot easier to "shoot perfectly" with a Nikon or Canon DSLR than any 6x7 camera that I've ever used, and the newest Nikon lenses are very good. Maybe not Hassy good, but pretty darned good. And a bunch of them come with VR. Given the surprising image quality of the D3 and D700, I could see the D3X competing with MF film at low ISO levels.

mauro_franic · July 21, 2009

Dan, if you can capture considerably more detail with a 12MP digital camera than with 35mm Velvia more power to you.

How do you determine that to be the case though?

brad_woodville · July 21, 2009

gotta love velvia

Sign In

Good Old Faithful Velvia

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in