Good Old Faithful Velvia

[roger_smith4]

<p>For the folks still scanning film themselves and having trouble, I'm working on a tutorial now about techniques to blend multiple scans together and how to get consistent scans of color negative film.</p>

<p>Re: slide film having popcorn-sized kernels- if you look closely at E6 slide film you won't see grain. You might see little bubbles (pepper grain) in the highlights of some Fuji films, but in my experience the dyes just get soft and mushy as you enlarge them. It's very different than how silver B&W film looks enlarged.</p>

[oistein]

<p>With regard to "grain", I'd like to add that pepper grain is very typical for Hasselblad/Imacon scanners setting the sharpening too high in Flexcolor. It should not be confused with film grain though. Improper scanning technique can introduce artifacts which look like film grain when it's not. </p>

[zoltan_arva_toth]

<p>Here is another one from me:</p><div></div>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>I shoot with a Canon 5D Mark II, but after looking at these Velvia 50 Shots I sincerely think my camera may be broken :-( . Not to say I can't take good photos with that camera, but these are Excellent photos definetely at a different level above digital.</p>

[mirek_elsner1]

<blockquote>

<p>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.<br>

I think some people hunt for whatever then can to dislike digital.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I think what I'm talking about is actually quite the opposite. Digital is relatively new medium and to get the best results, we have to learn about it. Why complains about grain (actually lack thereof) in digital and not LF? Well, I would say "observations", not "complaints". The digital has finite resolution and if you start blowing it up out of proportions, you will start seeing that the detail is missing. I am talking about print sizes where you have to upsample, like 24x36. This is where added grain can help. Printing 24x36 from LF will give you enough detail, so no reason to add some structure where it already exists.</p>

[randalldouglas]

<p>I'm not quite as anti-dig as some. But when I do shoot landscapes with film, it has to be velvia.</p>

[mirek_elsner1]

<blockquote>

<p>This thread started out great, but alas, the insecurity of humanity has bubbled to the surface and has now left an unpleasant residue.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This thread started out with a sentence that suggests that such results would not be possible with digital. If you have personal working experience with both Velvia and digital and see it differently, it is not about insecurity in humanity, it is just expressing your standpoint. If this is a <em>discussion</em> forum, I don't see anything unpleasant on having different viewpoint.</p>

[oistein]

<p>Mirek,</p>

<p>I've heard some fashion photographers saying that they add a bit of noise to their H3D-39 photos because they look a bit too porcelein/glossy.</p>

<p>Oistein</p>

<p> </p>

[mizore]

<p>Real estate beats anything else for details, but sometimes, what people want is something with relatively little texture that looks good over the sofa.<br>

My favorite photograph of mine was done of a friend and his dog, with studio lights and a old Calumet C-300 and a low end Caltar lens (I just spend more on one Carl Zeiss lens for Hasselblad than I spent on all my view camera rig). Had the film developed and printed at 16x20 by Philadelphia Photographic.<br>

What I liked was being able to see textures down to the twist of the thread in my friend's shirt and also to have a large enough print with a simple enough composition that it was viewable from across the dining room. The flower above was grainless, and veinless (at least on screen). If I'm doing macros, I like to see the reflections off the flower petal cell walls.<br>

Flower petals have veins:<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rebecca_ore/3592553328/sizes/o/<br>

But....<br>

I think I can get this either with digital or film depending, but it's just my preference, not the ultimate test of a macro shot. Likewise, what I liked about my 16x20 print isn't the only way to evaluate a photograph.</p>

<p> </p>

[steppenwolf]

<p>Wonderful Photo Zoltan. All these great photos leads me to hold on to Velvia a tad longer, even with all the compelling case against professional use of the medium (and that I whole heartedly agree).<br>

Maybe its just me but I like to take a large LP out of the cover and put it on and feel smell of an old book, the touch of the paper texture rather than reading it on kindle. Sure I can print out a digital file and have the physical realilzation of a photo but somehow it is not the same. As long as slide film is even close to a digital photo, it still has an unique appeal. And for landscapes Velvia is still good enough!</p><div></div>

[irenej_f]

<p>Zoltan, that was a photo with beautiful colours, you managed to make a simpel scene look really great</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<blockquote>

<p ><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 23, 2009; 03:09 a.m.<br>

Dave, were you able to print my 35mm scans at 24x36?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Hi Mauro,</p>

<p>Yes, I printed out the centre portion of a 24x36 on an 8.5x11 sheet. The first I printed with no sharpening. I could only make out a slight bit of grain. However, the image seemed a bit soft, so I applied some mild USM, and then the grain was apparent. I guess it stacks up to how the image is processed. I preferred the image with a bit of grain, but better sharpness.</p>

<p>As to 40x60, your scan appeared better than the sample posted by Vincent. The fractal interpolation reduces texture and detail and addes acutance. Of course, because your scans showed more detail, and therefore more grain, I'd say your was the better scan. It's a common trick to scan just below grain thresholds and rely on interpolation to fill in missing data and not have to worry about grain. I'm of the opinion that I'd rather see some grain, as long as there is more detail and texture to the image as opposed to a horribly artifacted fractals routine. I used a Lanczos routine which I find maintains details and texture better....and avoids the painterly smearing of fractal routines.</p>

<p>And Lex, I think we all understand how much the specs matter when comparing scanners. Should I post the specs for the Epson 4990. It'll spec with better resolution and DMax than the Eversmart.....but I think you know where the truth lies.</p>

[oistein]

<p>From my understanding, too much sharpening in Flexcolor (or any sharpening at all) introduces pepper grain (not to be confused with film grain) when scanning with Imacon/Hasselblad. Here is an example. Velvia btw. </p><div></div>

[oistein]

<p>here is a 700 px version of the photo</p>

[james_blachly]

<p>God this is becoming tiresome.<br>

How about some more pretty pictures?</p>

 

[Dave Luttmann]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=535208">James Blachly</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"></a>, Jul 23, 2009; 06:38 p.m.<br>

God this is becoming tiresome.<br />How about some more pretty pictures?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>James, how can we possibly appreciate pretty pictures unless we blow them up to 40"x60" and view them @100% on screen to check for interpolation artifacts and grain? ;-)</p>

[richvanwart]

<p>OMG! Vincent goes digital! Way to go, Vince! Your work will always be breathtaking, no matter the medium you're using. Just a quick addition, RE: resources in New England for slide processing services, that Euripides Smalls asked for: Slide Specialists in Lebanon, NH, slidespecialists.com, 603.448.1300 -- great quality work. Cheers!</p>

[vincetylor]

<p>I guess with all this discussion involvement I should at least post something in honor of my fav film.</p><div></div>

[vincetylor]

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

[vincetylor]

<p>Hawaii</p><div></div>

[vincetylor]

<p>Washington D.C.</p><div></div>

[vincetylor]

<p>Pacific Northwest</p><div></div>

[vincetylor]

<p>Last one</p><div></div>

[oistein]

<p>wow I particularly like the hawaii shot with the diver! <br>

Oistein</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>I was away for a couple days.</p>

<p>Dave, thank you for all the trouble in testing the prints. In some prints I also like grittiness and sharpness in others I prefer a more natural look with mild sharpening. </p>

<p>Vincent, thank you for the pics. They are all very nice. I'll be looking forward to see how your overall impressions, preferences and results change with the move to digital.</p>