Good Old Faithful Velvia

[dan_south]

<p>Mauro, I'm judging by the look of prints made with files from the D700, a Nikon F100, and a Pentax 67 II. When I get time, I'll pull up some of my 35mm and 6x7 scans and compare them to the D700 files. That might be a better test.</p>

[wtlwdwgn]

<p>Getting back to the images and not the medium. I really like your sunrise geyser image. Great composition, color, and light. It is the pictures after all not the tools.</p>

[mdc002]

<p>Good grief!!!!</p>

[vincetylor]

 

<blockquote>

<p>Dan South Quotes me: <strong><em>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."</em></strong><br>

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

</blockquote>

<p>Dan South Replies to my quote: <strong><em>"You can compete how, exactly? What film are you using for low-noise, fine-grained images at ISO 1600, 3200, and beyond?"</em></strong><br>

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

<p>**** I am a landscape photographer exclusively. I shoot with Velvia 50 almost exclusively. (<strong>Very</strong> <strong>Fine Grain Film</strong>). And I have one of the best scanners available. So under these circumstances, with this film and scanner combination, shooting slow landscapes, I can compete with and even exceed what 12 megapixels can do for my specific application of landscape photography.</p>

<p><strong>If </strong>I was a landscape shooter and also did weddings, then digital wins, IMO.</p>

<p><strong>If</strong> I shoot landscape and do sports photography, digital wins, IMO.</p>

<p>But because I shoot ONLY landscapes and because I do have a top scanner and only use a very rich, colorful and fine grained film, I can beat 12 meg digital system for what I do.</p>

<p>That all said, and I believe all true from first hand experience, I <strong>cannot</strong> beat or compete (using all of the above that I listed), with a 24.5 megappixel Nikon D3X camera.</p>

<p>The 24.5 meg outfit <strong>wins</strong>. Which is why it's time for this Velvia lover to move into digital now.</p>

<p>This is what I was waiting for from Nikon.</p>

<p>This is where Vinny jumps ship.</p>

 

[vincetylor]

<blockquote>

<p><strong><em>"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."</em></strong></p>

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

</blockquote>

<p>**** Exactly.</p>

<p>This is what I've been saying. Beautiful, colorful Velvia transparencies lose plenty of that colorful beauty once you take it in to get scanned.</p>

<p>Scanning <strong>ANY SLIDE FILM</strong> loses quality from the original.</p>

<p>But with new digital D3X <strong>you avoid scanning altogether</strong> and still have huge, clean files to do whatever you want with straight out of the camera.</p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

[benjamin_kim]

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/9506176-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="645" /></p>

<p>Hi, here's my contribution taken with Velvia 50.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>I'm begining to thin the Coolscan 9000 is not too bad after all. To my eyes it captures most if not all the dynamic range and color from my film.</p>

<p>That said, looking at a slide, not only first generation but also translusive instead of reflective on a print it will always look better. This is the result of having light reflected from paper instead of filtered through a transluscent film. It comes with the fact we sell prints.</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>I shoot with Velvia 50 almost exclusively. (<strong>Very</strong> <strong>Fine Grain Film</strong>).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've been shooting various forms of Velvia almost exclusively for several years, so I'm very familiar with it's capabilities and limitations.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>And I have one of the best scanners available.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'd be curious to know which one. Imacon?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>So under these circumstances, with this film and scanner combination, shooting slow landscapes, I can compete with and even exceed what 12 megapixels can do for my specific application of landscape photography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But which 12MP are you talking about? The 12MP of a D2X? The 12MP of a D300? Or the 12MP of the D3/D700? I guarantee that if you put a D3 image beside a D2X image, the D3 will BLOW IT AWAY. Again, I don't know how they engineered this phenomenon, but the difference is more than subtle. It's jaw dropping. 12MP isn't a definitive measurement of image quality. Unless you're familiar with the D3 or the Canon 5D, you may be underestimating the potential IQ of a 12MP camera.</p>

<p>That said, I'm sure that the D3X will give better IQ than the D3 in ideal shooting conditions. I haven't used a D3X, so I haven't seen HOW much difference there is. Does it really give twice the resolution of the D3, or do those smaller pixels contribute noise and diffraction constraints that the D3 does not have. Time will tell, but I'm looking forward to getting my hands on a D700x one day (after the initial feeding frenzy subsides).</p>

<p>Regardless of questions about resolution - on which there will never be an accepted consensus - the thing that I love about positive film is its color and contrast. I've never been able to match film's tones in PS.</p>

<div></div>

[lilserenity]

<p>This could have been a lovely thread with Velvia pictures and that was it.<br>

Now it's the same old beaten to death debate with the flinging of the proverbial at each other, which I can go down to the zoo and see if I wanted.<br>

Vincent -- good luck with the new camera and hope you enjoy it, your reasons are valid and sensible by the sounds of it.<br>

I only shoot film but all this bitching that happens ahhh what's the use; that's why I don't use this forum much.<br>

<br /> No one slapped your mum, they just use or are switching to something different to your choice. Anyone want to start a thread with just Velvia pictures for what they are? Or are we going to bang on about lp/mm's and other stuff that doesn't really matter when we're viewing good photos because they're good photos?<br>

Vicky</p>

[francois_p._garnier]

<p>@ Michael Bradtke:<br>

To answer your question: We are using 35mm. Our tests were 35mm film with best primes vs. 35mm digital (Nikon D3X) with best primes (Zeiss ZF). We got higher resolution with the Zeiss glass than with best Nikon primes. Film is more benefitting from better glass, because with digital resolution is limited by the Nyquist frequency, therefore sensor limited.</p>

[leon_b1]

<p>Whilst (as a slide shooter) I'm also standing slack-jawed at the rapidity with which this thread has degenerated into the usual digital-v-film ranting and gibbering, I have to say that if the OP includes remarks like "Thank G I left my DSLR home" then they're really hanging the bait out.</p>

<p>Can't people just post some scans without mentioning different media <em>at all</em>?</p>

[User_4136860]

<p>I only shoot film and don't own a scanner, I shoot my velvia with a Mamiya C330F and project it onto a 50"X 50" screen, IMHO it doesn't get much better than that.</p>

[oistein]

<p>I've shot digitally for many years now (basically I converted after losing 13 films that was sent by post for development - Royal Mail!! ://) however I still feel the magic of putting the slides on the light table. Got a 4x5" Arca Swiss a few months ago and will use it for shots where I really need the high res. This is a shot taken back in 2003. Velvia (not 50 but 100F).</p><div></div>

[Dave Luttmann]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2071900">Dan South</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Jul 22, 2009; 01:54 a.m.<br>

I shoot with Velvia 50 almost exclusively. (<strong>Very</strong> <strong>Fine Grain Film</strong> ).<br>

I've been shooting various forms of Velvia almost exclusively for several years, so I'm very familiar with it's capabilities and limitations.<br>

And I have one of the best scanners available.<br>

I'd be curious to know which one. Imacon?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Eversmart Supreme II</p>

<p>It doesn't get much better then that Dan. The Eversmart spanks the best Imacons out there!</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Dan, that lighthouse is breathtaking. </p>

[marshall]

<p>Leon - Exactly right.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>People are asking me how I developed the slides.</p>

<p>Basically, I mainly carry the film one way. After I'm done with a roll I mail it from wherever I am to A&I so I don't have to carry it with me or pass it through airport security. By the time I get home either the film is waiting for me or it arrives a few days later.</p>

<p>If I do carry the film back with me, it is mainly TMX 100 and some Velvia 50 which are not affected by airport scanners (in my experience). The only faster film I may carry is TMX 400 but I have never had problems bcs of the airport scanner.</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>Dan, that lighthouse is breathtaking.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks! That's why I'll never give up on film.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Yep. Even if Velvia had only 1 megapixel of detail it would be totally worth it just bcs of the colors.</p>

[swilson]

<p>

<p>Velvia has a spectral sensitivity that differs from the human eye in that the curves don’t overlap much at all, see page 8 of this <a href="http://www.fujifilm.com/products/professional_films/pdf/velvia_50_datasheet.pdf">link</a></p>

<p>The spectral dye curves matter for direct viewing of the slide, but not so much when the slide is scanned, the thing that will be Velvia scans look different from digital images and other film scans is the spectral sensitivity curves.</p>

<p>

<p>It would be interesting to put a filter with a notch at around 490nm and 590 nm in front of both a digital camera and a film camera loaded with a more neutral film.</p>

<p>Of course much of the look of Velvia can me had by turning up both the saturation and contrast of an image, but depending on the subject Velvia's lack of sensitivity in the areas of 490 and 590 can make it hard to fully match the colors.<br>

 

<p>Personally I have not had much luck with Velvia, maybe it was not process right but I found the contrast to be way too high for my liking.</p>

</p>

</p>

 

<p>

<p> </p>

</p>

</p>

 

[dan_south]

<p>Velvia 50's contrast is EXTREMELY high. I found this to be maddening at first, but once I learned how to harness it, I was able to employ the high contrast in creative ways. I almost always use graduated ND filters with Velvia in order to keep various parts of the scene in the film's "exposure sweet spot."</p>

<p>Velvia 100 has a little less contrast than Velvia 50, a little less saturation, and a little more exposure latitude. For example, if I were going to take a photo of the forest floor with shadows of trees on the ground, I'd prefer Velvia 100. Velvia 50 would render the shadows too dark.</p>

<p>When shooting with a digital camera I have to keep in mind that the contrast will be less noticeable. Shadows will tend to be less dark. It's just part of the different look of digital versus film. Metering is very different, also, albeit no less critical.</p>

 

[vincetylor]

<blockquote>

<p>Quote: <strong><em>"Dan, that lighthouse is breathtaking."</em></strong><br /> <br /><br /> Reply: <strong><em>"Thanks! That's why I'll never give up on film."</em></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>**** As if digital could not capture such a scene as your lighthouse shot? Ok sure. : )</p>

<p><br /><br /> Check out some of these guys photos: <a href="http://www.timecatcher.com/main.cfm?p=04_100">http://www.timecatcher.com/main.cfm?p=04_100</a><br /> <br /><br /> Hint hint, THEY ALL SHOOT DIGITAL!!! As well as do MOST landscape photographers today. I can post THOUSANDS MORE EXAMPLES.</p>

<p>Want me to?<br /> <br /><br /> I'm happy if you guys want to stick with film. I say good for you. But at least take off the blinders that lead you folks to believe ONLY FILM can capture nice landscapes like that. Digital can now bring home world class landscape images without all the hassles, time and costs of film. Sooner or later you're going to have to face the music.</p>

<blockquote>Quote: <strong><em>"I only shoot film but all this bitching that happens ahhh what's the use; that's why I don't use this forum much."</em></strong> <strong><em></em></strong><br /> <strong><em></em></strong><br /> <br /> <br /></blockquote>

<p>**** Sorry, but ths was (and still is) on the Photo.net <strong>F</strong><strong>R</strong><strong>O</strong><strong>N</strong><strong>T</strong><strong> </strong><strong>P</strong><strong>A</strong><strong>G</strong><strong>E</strong>. I shoot film by the way. I have shot nothing BUT FILM professionally for over ten years. And for me to post some facts on this thread after reading some very biased statements against digital is not "bitc*ing". <br /> <br /> Though some may consider your own little contribution on this thread just that.</p>

<blockquote>Quote:<strong><em> "But which 12MP are you talking about? The 12MP of a D2X? The 12MP of a D300? Or the 12MP of the D3/D700? I guarantee that if you put a D3 image beside a D2X image, the D3 will BLOW IT AWAY."</em></strong></blockquote>

<p><br /> <strong><em></em></strong><br /> <br /> **** I never said the D2X was better than D3 or even equal. In fact I said the D2X was a dinosaur with noise issues to boot. What I wrote is that my using Velvia 50 film for landscapes, along with having an Eversmart Supreme II top class scanner would equal or surpass what the newer digital cameras can do for fine art printing ... especially for printing large. <br /> <br /> I currently print 24x36 regularly with perfect customer success with all of my photos on our website. I offer as large as <strong>40x60</strong> with most of my photos because files are still usually that clean and noiseless due to low grain slow film (Velvia 50), using tripod, expensive glass, high powered scanner etc etc. <br /> <br /> Now, the D3 is a natural 9x13 digital file. I can go from 9x13 to 24x36 (w/Genuine Fractals) with somewhat regularity from what I have seen because the digital images are just that good and clean right out of the camera. (Which is still a LOT amount of interpolation, btw). <br /> <br /> But going larger (a 9x13 up to a 40x60) is in many cases simply stretching things TOO FAR. Not so with a 24.5 meg D3X which files come out of the camera in the range of a 19x28. <br /> <br /> I have read 40x60 is a piece of cake with those D3X files. Which is what I was waiting for before going into digital. <br /> <br /> Yep, I have just defend BOTH sides of the digital vs film discussion in one single comment.</p>

[oistein]

<p>Vincent,</p>

<p>I've seen Patrick Di Fruscia's photos before, really good stuff in there. Visually pleasing. A bit surprised to see that he's shooting at f22 as the 5DII will run into diffraction way before that. That is actually be a problem with small format cameras with high pixel density (incl D3X). In landscape photography you often want to use a small aperture (unless you use a T/S lens) however the IQ will be reduced due to diffraction. Large format has a big advantage in this area (but it is a huge hassle to carry around :/). Anyway, I guess most customers won't notice this, so it doesn't really matter in the end..?</p>

<p>Oistein </p>

[swilson]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2071900">Dan South</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jul 22, 2009; 03:11 p.m.</p>

 

<p>When shooting with a digital camera I have to keep in mind that the contrast will be less noticeable. Shadows will tend to be less dark. It's just part of the different look of digital versus film. Metering is very different, also, albeit no less critical.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>

<p>A digital camera is much like negative film, the end contrast of the final image is largely up to you. How much contrast I put in the final image often depends on whether it is going to be viewed on a monitor or is going to be print, this is true of both my film and digital phtoos. High contrast photos often look cleaner.<br>

<br />This is what the camera saw when the contrast and saturation were set to normal.<br>

<img src="http://sewcon.com/contrast/low_contrast.jpg" alt="" width="720" height="480" /><br>

Boost the saturation and contrast gives this.<br>

<img src="http://sewcon.com/contrast/High_contrast.jpg" alt="" width="720" height="480" /><br>

 

<p>The second photo is going to look closer to a Velvia scan, but since the spectral response is not exactly the same there will be some differences, how much different this would look in velvia depends on the spectrum of the sky rock and trees.</p>

</p>

</p>

[mirek_elsner1]

<blockquote>

<p>That said, I am soon to switch over to digital and say goodbye to my precious Velivia 50.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Vincent, I am not a professional photographer, but I went through the same thought process in the past and switched to digital several years ago. I think you won't be disappointed. You will find however, that there is a learning curve and that all knowledge from film photography does not automatically apply and that there are some new qualities in digital that we need to explore and tame. For example, raw digital capture does not have any character, because the chip does not distort the curves or color rendition as much as films do. If you shoot Velvia, you already get certain look, the Velvia look. With digital, you have to either find or create the look for yourself. Even the lack of grain may look boring and some people are therefore adding grain to their digital prints.</p>

<p> </p>