Good Old Faithful Velvia

swilson · July 22, 2009

I find it interesting that some people will complain about the lack of grain in a digital image, but not in a LF image. I know some people with choose 35mm film just for the gain, but I don’t remember anyone saying that LF images look unnatural because of the lack of grain, but I hear this often regarding digital image.

I think some people hunt for whatever then can to dislike digital.

dan_south · July 22, 2009

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

</blockquote>

I never made such a statement. I've taken digital shots of this lighthouse, myself. I just prefer the look of the film shots. I prefer digital in many other instances, though. That's why I shoot both film and digital simulateously.

Check out some of these guys photos: Hint hint, THEY ALL SHOOT DIGITAL!!! As well as do MOST landscape photographers today.

</blockquote>

They're all very talented fellows, but there's nothing here that's on par with the film work of artists like Rowell, Dykinga, and Muench. Besides, when people use digital capture, you never know if the colors actually looked like that or whether they were added in Photoshop. When I have my film scanned I give strict instructions: MATCH THE CHROME. No ficticious colors!

That said, I use digital capture, as well. It's great to be able to dial in an ISO of 1600 when the wind is whipping the leaves around. It's great to be able to leverage the added exposure latitude. Digital has advantages, and that's why I carry a D700 with me.

Want me to?

</blockquote>

I think I speak for the majority when I say, "No, thank you." ;-)

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.

</blockquote>

I don't fit this description.

Digital can now bring home world class landscape images without all the hassles, time and costs of film.

</blockquote>

Point 1: "World class images" are not the product of a particular capture technology. World class images are the product of vision, composition, exposure, light, and the magic of the moment. It doesn't matter what camera you use, it's not going to create "world class images." Only YOU can do that.

Point 2: Digital is not without its hassles. Dust on the sensor. Size and weight of the kit (including peripherals). Expense (camera, cards, computer, drives, software, monitors). File archiving compatibility - will anyone be able to read a TIFF file in 40 years? Memory card failure. Time and effort (post processing, archiving, color management). It's all a lot simpler with film.

**** 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.

</blockquote>

No, you claimed that you could exceed 12 MP. I merely asked you to specify which 12 MP. A couple of years ago the Nikon guys thought the D2X was the bomb. Thom Hogan called it "sublime." Now they call it rubbish. In a few years, your precious $8000 D3X will be considered rubbish. It's the way of the digital world, unfortunately.

I currently print 24x36 regularly with perfect customer success with all of my photos on our website. I offer as large as 40x60 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.

</blockquote>

35mm film blown up to 40x60 has grain the size of popcorn kernels. You can't defy physics. If you're printing 40x60 from film you should consider a 6x9 back or a 5x7 camera.

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).

</blockquote>

I would agree. D3 images look great at 20x30 and very good at 24x36.

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. I have read 40x60 is a piece of cake with those D3X files.

</blockquote>

40x60 is a pretty good stretch for a 24MP camera, but just like your film images, it will look fine as long as you stand back a bit. If you want to pixel peep a 40x60 print, you're going to need a MF digital back (or 5x7 film or larger).

Dave Luttmann · July 22, 2009

True Dan. 40x60 from 35mm is awful! I can see grain from 4x5 at that size so the talk of clean images from 35mm is laughable. At those sizes you need a MFDB or 4x5 film to have a clean, sharp, detailed landscape, like the Bryce shot above.

And yes, you can get close to the Velvia look from digital capture….not 100%, but enough that people wouldn’t know by looking at the color print. I’ve played this prank before by posting a number of shots online, some Velvia and some digital. The ability to tell the difference was exactly what one would expect from guessing.

In the end though, I’ve seen stunning large prints from 35mm, but they don’t compare to MF or sheet film. And a lot of the resolution one sees under a microscope simply does not show in print. That is why many find the D3X and Sony A900 to match MF film at 16x20.

These threads normally turn to trash….especially when people argue about 40x60 prints and yet when they do their own work for sale, if any, rarely go beyond 16x20.

I can understand people comparing MF and LF with high end digital capture….but in all truthfulness, 35mm was, and has never been a benchmark for quality capture…..just for convenience. If one is making 20x30 and larger prints, a 35mm film SLR should not be in their bag. Arguing otherwise is simply making excuses. Go get a Mamiya 7 or RB67, and a decent scanner like Mauro’s Nikon 9000, and don’t look back.

And please, no more name dropping of landscape photographers. For every photographer shooting with a DSLR, I can show one shooting with 4x5 that will spank the DSLR on large prints. Can’t change the laws of physics.

Of course, if you like grainy B&W like I do, then feel free to load HP5, pushed a stop, and blow it up large. Nice, beautiful, gritty look. In other words, people should use what works and quit their griping!

jas_pope · July 22, 2009

Great thread, I hear the digital argument as scanning takes aaaaages, but for an amateur like me there's something magical about pressing the shutter, waiting a few days to get the result back and seeing those iridescent colours through my (makeshift 50mm manual lens) loupe.

Here's a Velvia 50 contribution, taken in January 2006 on a very chilly Roman morning. I was in the city on a university photo society trip. Being students, we weren't really aware of lighting up times and my guesstimate left us shivering in the dark on the riverbank for an hour before this happened. The hot italian coffee and panini was a very welcome warmer after we'd shot a few frames.

I'm not an experienced scanner - using a Minolta Scan Elite 5400 and manufacturer software, I scanned this 16 bit without any adjustments. I've lost some shadow detail in the trees to the left, trying to recover it mutes the orangey pinky sky. If anyone has suggestions, I'd really appreciate it.

Some wonderful talent here, been enjoying your portfolios - has inspired me to get mine sorted. Keep up the good (digital or film) work.

vincetylor · July 22, 2009

Quote: "Point 1: "World class images" are not the product of a particular capture technology. World class images are the product of vision, composition, exposure, light, and the magic of the moment. It doesn't matter what camera you use, it's not going to create "world class images." Only YOU can do that."

</blockquote>

**** Wrong! The lack of quality equipment can render a world class capture as totally useless. Try using a cell phone camera and see what you can do with it. Try taking a photo of Hawaiian turquoise waters without a polarizer. Try shooting a sunset without an ND. I can continue. World class images are a result of BOTH vision, composition, light etc and having the proper equipment to capture that moment with.

Quote: "Point 2: Digital is not without its hassles. Dust on the sensor. Size and weight of the kit (including peripherals). Expense (camera, cards, computer, drives, software, monitors). File archiving compatibility - will anyone be able to read a TIFF file in 40 years? Memory card failure. Time and effort (post processing, archiving, color management). It's all a lot simpler with film."

</blockquote>

**** You must be in denial. I've seen a bit of that on this thread.

Here just to refresh your memory:

Jul 20, 2009; 03:43 p.m. Vincent K. Tylor

All I've ever shot with professionally is Velvia 50 and my F5. It has supported my family and I for ten years now. 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. 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. That said, I am soon to switch over to digital and say goodbye to my precious Velivia 50. Why would I kick out of bed what has been so good and loyal to me for so long? The answers: 1- NO MORE SCANNING!!!!!! 2- Hundreds to thousands of images, non-stop, to a memory card verses having to change rolls every 36 photos. (I have lost great shots because I ran out when I ran out). 3- No film costs. (One Pacific Northwest 30 day trip cost me $2000 in film alone). Do some math, I've been doing this 10 years now. 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 10 years now. 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. 6- Ability to change ISO settings whenever I want to. 7- Ability to change size of image file settings whenever I want to. 8- Cameras like new D3X which shoot 24.5 megs which now competes with medium format. (AND LOOKS AMAZING!!) 9- No more squinting on lightbox editing. (Sometimes I swear I was going blind from too much of that). 10- No more airport hassles having to scan or hand inspect all my rolls of film. 11- No moor having to keep my film cold when traveling all over. 12- Did I mention NO MORE SCANNING!!!! That's worth a second time here. Scanning is a pain in the A$$. 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. Sometimes the scans suck and I get to rescan it. Weeeee. Oftentimes with Veliva there is a magenta cast when scanned. weeeeee With digital every single image is like a clean scan all ready to print. If digital was just slightly inferior I'd still switch because of all teh reasons above. But folks, all of my professional labs say (more like YELL IT) that today's digital is BETTER than film today. 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. And remember, I love my Veliva and it has been sooo good to me and has completely supported me and family in Hawaii. But when I finally get that D3X knowing all scanning is now over and all the other things on my little list, I'l be happy to say goodbye to my precious Velvia 50 for good. 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. I can't wait to get that bog boy for professional landscape work soon! And I love my Velvia 50...

**** I hope this refreshes your memory just a bit about all the HASSLES that you lose when using digital and giving up film.

Quote: "They're all very talented fellows, but there's nothing here that's on par with the film work of artists like Rowell, Dykinga, and Muench. Besides, when people use digital capture, you never know if the colors actually looked like that or whether they were added in Photoshop. When I have my film scanned I give strict instructions: MATCH THE CHROME. No ficticious colors!"

</blockquote>

**** Nonsense! The best photos taken nowadays are with digital outfits. Plain and simple.

Quote: (when asked if I should quote other digital photographers): "I think I speak for the majority when I say, "No, thank you." ;-)"

</blockquote>

**** I bet I know why...

Quote: "Now they call it rubbish. In a few years, your precious $8000 D3X will be considered rubbish. It's the way of the digital world, unfortunately."

</blockquote>

**** If they call the D3, D300, D3X and Canon's similar models, "RUBBISH", in just a couple years, due to even greater progress than what we see now; then what do you think film we be considered by then? Digital already competes and even equals what film can do now with less costs time and hassles.

Quote: "35mm film blown up to 40x60 has grain the size of popcorn kernels. You can't defy physics. If you're printing 40x60 from film you should consider a 6x9 back or a 5x7 camera."

</blockquote>

**** You really don't know, do you? Here's a scanned 35mm slide at 24x36, enlarged to 40x60 through Photoshop of all things. (Using Fractals is far superior). I have been doing this for many years now with success.

What kernel sized grain??

vincetylor · July 22, 2009

Quote: "True Dan. 40x60 from 35mm is awful! I can see grain from 4x5 at that size so the talk of clean images from 35mm is laughable."

</blockquote>

**** What world are you living in? If you shoot it correctly, with good glass, tripod, scanned with no desktop junk scanner, you can get regular 40x60's, from 35mm, that is more than acceptable as just posted above. And we have sold several.

And that crop was interpolated with photoshop and not fractals which takes more time. Fractals is even better.

So where's the grain folks?

oistein · July 22, 2009

no noise reduction on that one, Vincent? Is that crop 40x60" @ 300dpi??

vincetylor · July 22, 2009

Quote: "no noise reduction on that one, Vincent? Is that crop 40x60" @ 300dpi??"

**** Absolutely none. Yes at 300 DPI. Interpolated in photoshop. Fractals is even better.

Here is another one from Maui. Zero noise reduction. Scanned at 24x36, 300 DPI TIFF. Interpolated to 40x60 through Photoshop.

Where's all that grain the size of popcorn kernels??

</blockquote>

dan_south · July 22, 2009

I can see the grain quite clearly. Beautiful photo, though! I'm sure it looks amazing at 16x24.

vincetylor · July 22, 2009

Anyway, I am headed out for a few hours. But this is getting tiresome.

The point is that some of you folks have no idea what you're talking about. In fact I just received an order ten minutes ago for a 24x36 of this print from our website:

<a href="http://www.hawaiianphotos.net/detail.aspx?ID=301">http://www.hawaiianphotos.net/detail.aspx?ID=301</a>

Subject: Hawaiian LandMark Images Merchant Order Notification

Date: July 22, 2009 12:35:53 PM HST

To: michele@hawaiianphotos.net

Cc: vince@hawaiianphotos.net

These products will be shipped to the above address: 1. Product ID: K-41B Product Name: Kauai's Tunnels Beach Attributes (if any): Photographs and Giclees - 24x36 Photo Only Price: $198.00 Quantity: 1

**** This is nothing new. We sell large prints from 35mm all the time. Including 40x60 several times.

robert lee · July 22, 2009

... using a Minolta Scan Elite 5400 and manufacturer software ... I've lost some shadow detail in the trees to the left, trying to recover it mutes the orangey pinky sky. If anyone has suggestions, I'd really appreciate it.

</blockquote>

Hold the slide up to a strong light source. If you can see detail in the shadows, then there's image information to recover. The fundamental idea is to scan twice then merge.

Do the first scan using normal settings. Do the second scan for the shadow areas - crank up the analog gain on the scanner (I use a Nikon 5000.) The CCD will bloom and show plenty of nasty artifacts on all but the densest part of the slide. That's okay because only the shadows are of interest on this second pass.

Merging the two frames scan be as simple as layering and masking in Photoshop. However, one subtlety is the potential physical mis-registration between the two scans. If this is a problem with your scanner, use the "align_image_stack.exe" stand-alone utility that ships with Hugin (just Google it.) It does a great job and saves on time consuming manual adjustment.

Additionally, use enblend/enfuse (Google that too) to automatically contrast blend the two exposures. The results can actually be better than manually painting in Photoshop layers, and is certainly much faster to do.

Lastly, use a contrast mask to bring out further shadow details. This is actually a well known wet darkroom technique, but made much simpler to implement now in the digital domain. And yes, just Google it.

Dave Luttmann · July 22, 2009

Vincent, my Astia and Pro160S 4x5 sheets are scanned by West Coast Imaging and their Tango. I have no problem seeing grain from 4x5 at a print size 60" wide. What you're seeing is smeared film files. Fractals works very well on film files as it concentrates on edges at the expense of texture....and it sees film grain as texture and smears it.

So please, spare me the "What world I live in" comments. If you don't understand that basic information on how fractals works with film grain, then I suggest you check out our world....called reality.

Your tone here has become combative and tiring. Considering I've printed as part of my living for many years, I've seen, scanned, and printed files from 35mm through 8x10 trannies. I know what results look like very well thanks. If you mistake fractal smearing of texture for a lack of grain, then I'm sorry my friend, it's you who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Oh, by the way, if you choose to scan below the film grain threshold, and interpolate to avoid grain, then by all means you'll have no grain. You'll also have what I normally see from 35mm.....mediocre quality and excuses for why larger formats weren't used.

Best regards,

euripides_smalls · July 22, 2009

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD AND COUNTRY, IN ADDITION TO JUSTIFYING WHY YOU PREFER

FILM, DIGITAL, GLASS PLATE NEGATIVES, ETC.

HOW ABOUT POSTING THE NAMES, LOCATIONS, WEBSITES, ETC. OF THE RELATIVE HANDFUL OF COMPANIES THAT STILL PROCESS E-6?

I'm 30-something, and 10 years ago I took a photography class, taught by a professional, in an 150 year-old, semi-abandoned textile mill. We shot slides, had them processed at the now defunct, Motophoto chain and critiqued each other's work on a slide projector. I have 2 DSLR's and a digital P&S now, in addition to film gear however, I HATE messing with a computer. That class, shooting transparencies was the most fun I've ever had with photography.

I'm in the northeastern U.S., anyone know of quality E-6 processors in this area of the country?

vincetylor · July 22, 2009

Quote: "Vincent, my Astia and Pro160S 4x5 sheets are scanned by West Coast Imaging and their Tango. I have no problem seeing grain from 4x5 at a print size 60" wide. What you're seeing is smeared film files. Fractals works very well on film files as it concentrates on edges at the expense of texture....and it sees film grain as texture and smears it."

</blockquote>

**** How many times did I mention I did not use Fractals here?? Probably five or six at the least. Please read. And I never said there is no grain; what I asked was, "where is the popcorn kernel sized grain?", in reply to your and Dan's comments above. In case you can't remember let me post them for you here:

Quote from Dan: "35mm film blown up to 40x60 has grain the size of popcorn kernels." Quote from Dave: "True Dan. 40x60 from 35mm is awful!"

</blockquote>

And I'll get back to those in a minute. What you saw posted were crops from 40x60 interpolated files by Photoshop. Fractals is even cleaner and smoother. But my G5 does not like fractals for some odd reason and starts to rev up when I use it for anything substantial. So using it here just aint worth it. If you have significant grain issues from 4x5 sheet film scanned by a Tango then perhaps you should try Velvia. What I posted is not a grain problem. What I sell at 40x60 looks very good. No, not as good as what a larger piece of film would produce, but definitely more than good enough. And at 24x36 size ALL of my prints are of excellent quality. So when you write:

"True Dan. 40x60 from 35mm is awful!"

</blockquote>

It just shows me that you really do not know what you are talking about to come across as some kind of an authority, IMO.

Quote: "So please, spare me the "What world I live in" comments. If you don't understand that basic information on how fractals works with film grain, then I suggest you check out our world....called reality."

</blockquote>

**** Fractals was not used here... again. That said, how do you think professionals print 24x36's from any digitally produced file? Answer: Through interpolation of some form. If I can create very sellable 40x60's by using Fractals on 24x36 original TIFFS, and our labs like how they print and our customers love what they receive, then who are you to tell anybody to check out the real world and that large prints from 35mm are awful? Your words not mine here. It is the one that denies the proof that is sitting on their laps that perhaps needs a little dose of reality check.

Quote: "Your tone here has become combative and tiring. Considering I've printed as part of my living for many years, I've seen, scanned, and printed files from 35mm through 8x10 trannies. I know what results look like very well thanks. If you mistake fractal smearing of texture for a lack of grain, then I'm sorry my friend, it's you who doesn't know what he's talking about."

</blockquote>

**** YOU are the one saying 35mm does not work for large printing. I am simply replying. I'm not only telling you you are wrong here but showing you as well explaining why. Earlier up on this thread you stated this:

Quote: "But at large size prints above 16x24, 35mm color looks like grainy mush compared to high resolution digial or MF or large format film capture. For prints at 24x30, I would never use 35mm film. MF would be the bottom limit for me on landscape prints that need detail. In fact, I'd prefer LF for the lack of grain and more accurate color pallette. But lets be realistic here. I've yet to see 35mm at 20x30 that looked anything but grainy....and that from the best photographers on the planet. 24mp digital will simply look better.....yes different as well, but that's up to personal taste."

</blockquote>

**** So now we go from your comment that 40x60 is just plain awful, to 20x30 is nothing but grainy and even 16x24 looks like mush. Your words not mine once again. Perhaps you should read your own quotes next time before posting. You have no idea what you are talking about here on this specific subject. I scan at 24x36 (larger than 16x24 and 20x30) and sell Lightjet Prints with stunning results. So now what?

Quote: "These threads normally turn to trash….especially when people argue about 40x60 prints and yet when they do their own work for sale, if any, rarely go beyond 16x20."

</blockquote>

**** Well, I sell MANY prints above 16x20. I showed you one just today that came in for a 24X36. This just goes to show me that you quite possibly still stuck back in the 90's somewhere. Not much else to say about it. You are wrong on this one!

Quote: "In the end though, I’ve seen stunning large prints from 35mm"

</blockquote>

**** So which is it now? Mushy, grainy, laughable and awful... or stunning? Sounds like you need to think things through just a little more.

Quote: "You'll also have what I normally see from 35mm.....mediocre quality and excuses for why larger formats weren't used."

</blockquote>

**** Complete and useless nonsense. I use 35mm because they give me the absolute best process for creating winning photographs. I certainly could use medium or large format. So why would I choose 35mm format over larger formats? I wrote this a couple of years ago on another forum when discussing this very subject: "Because of the 35mm format, I have faster and wider lenses available than if shooting in medium and or large format. I can also get more photos to a roll. Because of this I am actually able to take more photos, from a greater variety of angles, at varying apertures, shutter speeds and focal lengths. And then, when getting to the lightbox, for me, such a format and process has resulted in more winning images overall to choose from, to then master and scan for printing, stock use etc. I have well over 300 images in our print line and on websites that we currently offer as 24x36 Lightjet prints. Do you know how many are unacceptable due to grain, softness, flatness or anything else? ZERO. The only issue I have to keep in mind is to make sure I am careful about sharpening the files for prints of that size, or grain CAN become more of an issue.

IF a photographer uses consumer-grade lenses, does not use a tripod, stop down, is not careful with exposure etc etc, then yes the larger prints will certainly expose and magnify those issues. If the photographer takes pride in shooting it right the first time, then enlarging those originals to 24x36 or more will not be a problem in regards to print quality under any circumstances. At least not from my own experiences. And I have had plenty.Sure, a very large print from a 4x5 tranny will look smoother than one from a 35 mm slide. The differences however will not be THAT noticable to the naked eye in smaller sized prints. This fact is often overlooked and exaggerated. And let me also add this: While the photographer that uses large format will take perhaps a few different shots trying to capture a scene with his equipment, another photographer using 35mm with a variety of zooms, focal lengths, angles, shutter speeds, as well as bracketing for exposure, will undoubtedly produce the superior image overall. And perhaps many superior images in fact. It is much easier to produce *winners* with 35mm format than large format and even meduim for that matter. I would rather have a better variety of winning images, than one that will blow up to a larger size better.

A size that very few people will ever purchase by the way or one that you will rarely need. Living on an island basically means that most of my shooting trips however involve airfare, rental cars, hotels etc. Basically it's a business trip. When I do get to a location I am focused on working these locations as carefully and thoroughly as I possibly can. This way, when I do get to the lightbox I will have the best opportunity to find a few real winners. I usually arrive to a location with my F-5 along with the Nikon 17-35 around my neck, and the F-100 with the 28-70 over my shoulder, and a tripod on the other hand (similar to what you see on my current self-portrait). This combination has allowed me to work a scene as thoroughly as I know how. The number of times an image from a very unusual angle, or different focal point worked over the ones I expected to work when shooting is more numerous than I ever would have guessed. I also make point of always bracketing by .1/3 in each direction wherever I am shooting. (With Velvia, I have found that decision has saved many a trip once they were developed regardless of how good my equipment or how careful I might be). The point is that 35mm has allowed my this opportunity to shoot an abundance of images, from many differing vantage points, at many different shutter speeds and aperture settings. Sometimes seven or more rolls from one location. When I do get to that lightbox, I am almost always grateful that I took that time to change it up and work it thoroughly. Last Fall, I was in the Blue Ridge mountain area where I found a beautiful rose in full bloom. A soft rain also happened to be falling which really gave me an outstanding opportunity. I shot perhaps four rolls of this one rose, with three different lenses (28-70, the 105 macro and the 80-200). I also shot it from f/3.5 to f/22 and everything in between while bracketing as well. When I started to edit that series back at home, I was disappointed by several of these images, yet my socks were knocked off by yet others. The point is, that for me, the 35mm system allows me to do this very thing (creating winning images) that has over and over again proved so very valuable. In the end (with the exception of perhaps digital down the road) I cannot see a better system for creating the best possible images we as photographers are possibly able to find. Thanks for the interchange, is always helpful and at times even can be fun.

**** Back to current. I have no problems with film lovers shooting film for the rest of their lives. (I've loved my Velvia 50 as well). I have no problems if people think that digital is a bad idea. And I have no problems if people think 35mm is grainy mush. But when you make statements such as those I've seen on this thread, publicly, praising film as the only real way, claiming 35mm format is for convenience only, or that all prints over 16x20 are laughably awful grainy mush, and grain sized of popcorn kernels; then just be prepared do defend those silly accusations and claims. Because once in a while people that disagree and know better tend to show up.

vincetylor · July 22, 2009

Dan writes: "I can see the grain quite clearly. Beautiful photo, though! I'm sure it looks amazing at 16x24."

</blockquote>

**** Man, this is good. Your friend Dave just tried explaining how it's not visible grain but like smeared invisible grain.

And others are asking if I used any noise reduction program. But Dan says he sees grain problems.

This is too funny. Who needs movies when we got this stuff going on here.

Hey Dan, you are the guy that wrote the now famous, "35mm film blown up to 40x60 has grain the size of popcorn kernels." .

But Dan, where are all those kernels?? : )

You see folks we got people that are just totally set in their ways and will defend broken old ideas until they can't do it any longer. Such people can be likened to sticks in the mud. No presentation of evidence will likely mean anything of consequence to them. Fair enough then.

And then you have folks who are open to what the real world comes up with, what the true facts show, even if it means an old way of doing things has just been improved upon and can be discarded; and, are willing to be refined, adjusted and to be humbled when the truth is put in front of them to be seen and grasped in full enough detail.

I try to listen to whatever the evidence shows. I try to remain open minded under all circumstances. I am a Velvia lover too. I owe my livelihood to that fab film. I've defended film for many years.

But I can also see that times have changed and the digital revolution is now allowing greater freedom to create better images with less hassles and costs beyond the short term than ever before.

And nobody on this thread has shown me any reason to think differently.

And we have covered a lot of territory. Just look at all these posts above.

I have a ton of work to get back to now (yep, including a ton of scanning still to do) and will check back occasionally, but unless something significant comes up will just bow out now and thank you all for a lively exchange of opinion.

No hard feelings intended. Happy shooting ... film and digital alike.

My best to you all,

Vince

</blockquote>

euripides_smalls · July 22, 2009

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD AND COUNTRY, IN ADDITION TO JUSTIFYING WHY YOU PREFER

FILM, DIGITAL, GLASS PLATE NEGATIVES, ETC.

HOW ABOUT POSTING THE NAMES, LOCATIONS, WEBSITES, ETC. OF THE RELATIVE HANDFUL OF COMPANIES THAT STILL PROCESS E-6?

I'm 30-something, and 10 years ago I took a photography class, taught by a professional, in an 150 year-old, semi-abandoned textile mill. We shot slides, had them processed at the now defunct, Motophoto chain and critiqued each other's work on a slide projector. I have 2 DSLR's and a digital P&S now, in addition to film gear however, I HATE messing with a computer. That class, shooting transparencies was the most fun I've ever had with photography.

I'm in the northeastern U.S., anyone know of quality E-6 processors in this area of the country?

timothy_gray · July 23, 2009

There's a couple in Boston...

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.colortek.org/">ColorTek</a> </li>

<li><a href="http://southendphotolab.com/film.html">South End Photo Lab</a> </li>

</ul>

one in Vermont...

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.vermontcolor.com/">Vermont Color</a> </li>

</ul>

one in New Hampshire...

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.concordcamera.com/">Concord Camera</a> </li>

</ul>

and one in Portland Maine...

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.photomarketmaine.com/">Photo Market</a> </li>

</ul>

jas_pope · July 23, 2009

Robert Lee, thanks very much!

dan_south · July 23, 2009

For E-6 processing I like Manhattan Color Lab in New York.

http://www.colorlab.com/

I was also going to suggest The New Lab in San Francisco, but apparently they've closed down. It's a sad day.

dan_south · July 23, 2009

The point is that some of you folks have no idea what you're talking about.

</blockquote>

And we've reached the moment where logical discourse ceases to be possible.

mauro_franic · July 23, 2009

Dave, were you able to print my 35mm scans at 24x36?

lex_harris · July 23, 2009

Eversmart Supreme II

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

</blockquote>

So which part of the Eversmart specification "spanks the best Imacons out there"? I would be interested to see side by side comparison if you have it.<div></div>

steve m smith · July 23, 2009

You see folks we got people that are just totally set in their ways and will defend broken old ideas until they can't do it any longer. Such people can be likened to sticks in the mud. No presentation of evidence will likely mean anything of consequence to them. Fair enough then.

And then you have folks who are open to what the real world comes up with, what the true facts show, even if it means an old way of doing things has just been improved upon and can be discarded; and, are willing to be refined, adjusted and to be humbled when the truth is put in front of them to be seen and grasped in full enough detail.

I try to listen to whatever the evidence shows. I try to remain open minded under all circumstances. I am a Velvia lover too. I owe my livelihood to that fab film. I've defended film for many years.

But I can also see that times have changed and the digital revolution is now allowing greater freedom to create better images with less hassles and costs beyond the short term than ever before.

And nobody on this thread has shown me any reason to think differently.

</blockquote>

There is no reason why you should think differently.... and no reason why we should think the same as you.

timothy_gray · July 23, 2009

</blockquote>

Lex, thank you for posting this specs comparison - wow! I thought the Hasselblad might boast higher Dmax and possibly higher resolution, but honestly, I didn't think the two scanners would be this close.

I wonder who manufactures the lenses for the Kodak scanners? Anybody know?

cian_perez · July 23, 2009

This thread started out great, but alas, the insecurity of humanity has bubbled to the surface and has now left an unpleasant residue. Why are we so quick to point out our differences instead of enjoying something we all have in common?

I LOVE film. Still got a freezer load of it. My only remiss is having a processor available still years from now when I still want to shoot it.

Digital certainly has its place, and its here to stay. I shot digital for a while, but went back to film. I didn't abandon digital. I just now shoot digital when people are involved, since it's more snapshotty and there are lots of throwaways.

However, my gravitation back to film was not more so for any distinct exemplary results produced by the medium (although they are clearly stunning), but it was just that I started photography with film and I like the workflow. Things are slower with film (obviously), but even at the time of exposure, it forces me to slow down. There is an inherent "cost" of the exposure. You can only carry so many rolls. But that has never bothered me. In fact, the challenge of making every shot count, makes it more interesting . . . for "me." It not only makes me think a bit before releasing, but the mentality and process is much less frantic . . . for "me". And its a hobby for me after all, so I pursue it in the way "I" wish to enjoy it, not in the way others say are "better." As a hobby, enjoyment is what it's all about, no? (I guess I've always been more about the ride than the destination.)

With that said, it's also very easy to see why digital makes sense in a commercial environment. Faster workflow. Less material costs. Etc. Additionally, I can easily see how some who picked up photography in the digital age can't understand why folks would even consider film. It's funny.

Again, I shoot both - film and digital - with not a minor investment in each. If forced to only have one, okay, I'll go digital. It's more convenient in the current world we live one. I know that. But if given a choice, I'll shoot film. It's my pasttime, it's what I enjoy, and hobbies were never meant to be "convenient." I get giddy when the processed slides appear in my mailbox. It's like Christmas! And seeing the slides on a light table is almost like witnessing a miracle. . . almost. Anyway, I am now looking into buying a larger light table and possibly a projector . . . before they stop making them.

VELVIA IS BEAUTIFUL. Great shots on this page. Could they have been achieved with digital? Maybe. But that wasn't the intent of the thread.

So, instead of knocking each other on the differences of our methods, we should enjoy the options we have. Having options is a beautiful thing. NOONE HERE IS BETTER and, we are ABSOLUTELY ALL CORRECT . . . for our own reasons.

But FILM, more specifically, SLIDE FILM moves me . Period.

Peace.

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