All purpose slide film for people/landscapes India/Nepal?

[syd]

<p>G'day all,</p><p>I usually shoot Velvia 100F for my landscape work but will be traveling to India/Delhi and then trekking in Mustang Nepal for a month during October. I want to take maximum advantage of the opportunities to shoot people on this trip and feel that V100F might not be best option for skin. Having said that ... the skin tones of the Indians and Nepalese peoples are not like that of Westerners so I am wondering if I should bang away using the same film and treat everything in ACR after scanning, if it is needed? I would like to hear peoples thoughts on this.<br>

I am only taking one camera back so swapping between films for Landscape vs People/general is a pain ... so</p><p># - Would I be safe shooting everything with 100F and then just fix in ACR post? Or ...</p><p># - Should I use two different films for the different subject matter and live with the pain? Or ...</p><p># - Should I shoot a different slide film to cover both people and landscapes, apart from 100F - if yes then which would you recommend?</p><p>I realize that with the Digital darkroom, I can add any saturation for a less saturated film in post but ... that would also apply to shooting people and adjusting colour and saturation for skin tones. Any suggestions?</p><p>Best, Simon.</p><p> </p>

[steve_lane2]

<p>Hello Simon,<br>

I have just returned from a 22 day journey around the Greek Islands and used Kodak's Elite Chrome 100 asa slide film exclusively on the trip. The grain is pretty fine and colours are vibrant but not too intense. Skin tones are reproduced accurately as well. I used polarising filters when I wanted to beef the saturation up a bit.<br>

The results from the trip are awesome when projected! I have used this film a few times in the past, but think I will be switching to it 100% from now on.<br>

Cheers, Steve.</p>

[syd]

<p>Hey Steve,<br>

Sounds like a fab trip mate ... do you have any uploaded samples of your work with the Elite Chrome I could see?</p>

<p>Best, Si.</p>

 

[syd]

<p>Just had a search on images using Elite Chrome ... not my usual choice for a Landscape colour palette ... I've been using Velvia for far to long to change now. I didn't really like the Elite Chrome for the landscape images I saw, but it looked beautiful for the people shots I found ... using long lenses - example here ----> http://photos.photosig.com/photos/47/17/971747-95491039d572a868.jpg - this is pretty neutral with a lick of warmth.</p>

<p>It seems that the palette for Elite Chrome favours the yellows as there seems to be a warm cast in that direction ... Velvia tends to be cooler generally and tends more toward blues in my experience. I would think I can adjust for the same colour balance in my people shots in ACR so ... interesting.</p>

<p>Si.</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>Ektachrome E100G has no warm cast. According to the data sheet, Elite Chrome 100's color balance is a little more like the (discontinued) warmed-up E100GX. E100G is very neutral. One if it's target markets was probably fashion photography by electronic flash. So it's good with skin tones, like most Kodak films.<br>

Fuji Astia is another alternative, probably the lowest color saturation E-6 film.<br>

But India is so much about color that I'd think the moderate saturation "pop" of E100G would be very nice indeed.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Astia is probably your best choice. Is has the lowest contrast of any slide film. Neutral color saturation. Finest grain, with an RMS of 7. Largest dynamic range and greatest latitude of any slide film available.</p>

<p>While it is nice to have "pop" in the images....that can be added easily in the digital darkroom. High contrast and pumped up skin tones are difficult to take away....so I'd avoid film with greater saturation.</p>

[syd]

John,

 

My last experience with Kodak was years ago with E100S and I found it very contrasty and prone to blowing highlights in open sun ... I was using VS back then as well and I found it quite tough to get along with the Kodak range at that time. The grain structure of the Kodak films was not especially pleasing for me either ... particularly in 35mm when compared to the fine grain of Velvia 100F.

 

The reason I am leaning to sticking with Velvia is that I like the pop and as you say, India and Nepal are worlds for colour photography. Having said that ... any film can be treated with the ACR sliders and given an addotional boost to taste in post. Which brings me back to my initial thinking ... perhaps I should just stick with Velvia 100F and just make adjustments in post.

[syd]

<p>Dave,</p>

<p>Not a bad suggestion actually ... I need to think about a film choice more as a platform that can deliver the best raw information for me to work with in post ... your suggestion is an excellent one and addresses all my concerns here. Part of me wants to give in to the temptation of wanting a film that already had some settings locked in ... like Velvia ... but I think this is a mistake because as you so eloquently pointed out, Astia will allow a far more complex balance of parameters for me to work with in ACR - after the fact!</p>

<p>I recall being underwhelmed in the past by Astia, the lack of punch etc was not to my liking ... but this was before the days of Photoshop ... I think in this day and age, Astia might well be the very thing I need!</p>

<p> </p>

[john_shriver]

<p>I never met a slide film that wasn't contrasty. Reversal processing is inherently high-contrast. That why one exposes for the highlights.<br>

I've had no problems with blown highlights with E100G. But, my camera has a different light meter than yours.<br>

I don't know how different the grain in E100G is from the older E100S.</p>

[syd]

<p>John,</p>

<p>This type of contrast was very unforgiving with scanning - not your run of the mill general limited dynamic range of tranny. I am talking specifically about the way the Kodak film was dealing with contrasty open daylight compared to that of Velvia ... perhaps it was me finding that the film did not scan very nicely with my set up ... I didn't have any such troubles with Velvia 100F.</p>

[craigd]

<p>I find Velvia 100 (not 100F) to be acceptable for skin tones. It's still very saturated, but it doesn't turn Caucasian skin orange the way Velvia 50 does. I haven't tried Velvia 100F so I can't compare to that. Astia would really be a better choice for skin tones, but it isn't as nice for landscapes. Provia might be a decent compromise between Astia and Velvia 100.</p>

[lahuasteca]

<p>After reading everyone's post several times, and reading the post above re. India, I have decided to go with two films: Velvia 100 (not sure about the difference between 100 and 100f) and Astia 100f for higher contrast situations. Right now I'm practicing with Astia 100f in the extreme sunlight conditions currently in South Texas to learn metering.</p>

<p>Whoops! Sorry, I meant to post this below on my thread re. PA/WV fall colors.</p>

[syd]

<p>This person has done a wonderful shoot out between Velvia, Astia, Provia, Digital and other neg films ... this was enough to tell me to just stick with V100F.</p>

<p>http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/velvia_astia_provia_pro160_digital</p>

[JosvanEekelen]

Probably the last opportunity to use Kodachrome 64 :-). I used it quite a lot, eventually replaced it with Fuji Provia 100F because of the long delivery times for K64. This was before converting to digital.

With harsh shadows using fill in flash is probably more important that the film choice. Enjoy your trip, Mustang is a wonderful place, whatever film you use.

[steve_lane2]

<p><quote>do you have any uploaded samples of your work with the Elite Chrome I could see?<br>

Best, Si.</quote></p>

<p>Hello Simon, I am afraid I only project my slides, therefore do not have any scanned images...sorry!</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>A few belated points. </p>

<p>IMO the issue of Velvia not being particularly kind to skin tones tends to disappear with dark skins. I think a hightly saturated approach can work very well in these conditions, though be careful not to overxpose the faces, not least because you'll then overexpose much of the bright clothing too.</p>

<p>That said I'm no fan of Velvia 100F and much prefer both the other Velvias and Provia 100F. All Fujis slide films have colour issues, so its a case of picking a set of problems you dislike least as an individual. But for me, the tendency towards magenta in blue skies, an apparent inability to hold a true cyan and a tendence to turn yellows into orange and orange and olives into muddy brown colours just get to me with Velvia 100F. <br>

I've seen Tim Parkin's article and its very useful that he's done it. However I don't agree with all his analysis of the characteristics of fuji slide films, and IMO he misses some big points. Which doesn't deny the possibility of looking at the pictures and forming a view of what approach to colour you like in specific circumstances. Mind you if you're shooting rolls of 36 with one camera body the whole thing gets a bit moot regardless unless you like throwing film away and paying for the processing of partly used rolls. The vast majority of my slide usage has been with multiple backs and the ability to switch between at least two and often three films in seconds. Otherwise when you get to the end of a roll its hard to decide what to load because what suits for now may not be what you need in an hour's time. Its entirely possible for a one-body 35mm photographer to agonise too much on the question of "which film for these circumstances" unless those circumstances persist.</p>

<p>Scanning everything and achieving the colour you want on the scan? Well yes but do you get everything scanned and if so how big/useful are those scans?? Is it worthwhile adjusting hundreds of frames per trip if the scans aren't big enough to do much with? I can understand the logic of taking slides, picking out the very best work and getting great scans from those to make prints. I'm struggling a bit on why anyone would shoot slide film (difficult, expensive, processing cost) if their desired output was 36 medium or low res scans, or proof sized prints, and making no use at all of the original tranny? Wouldn't a dslr get to the same place more easily and certainly more cheaply? </p>

[syd]

<p>David,</p>

<p>Addressing your last paragraph specifically - essentially I don't enjoy the look of digital - it lacks character and seems all too homogeneous for my money. This is why I still shoot film in 35mm, 6x7 and 4x5 ... the transparency is my archival original. I make use of it is the same way millions made use of it when Digital cameras did not exist - it is no more difficult now than it ever was before. I love film ... I love the look of film and the process of working with film; call me a Luddite.</p>

<p>Adjusting scanned film in post is no different than making adjustments to RAW files from a DSLR ... I just prefer film. I am making both high and low res scans of my 35mm work both for web publishing and also for gallery prints. It often amazes me how quickly people forget that vast quantities of the greatest images made in the 20th Century were all achieved with 35mm film cameras ... National Geographic made 35mm the standard for exceptional quality. I scan my film using a Coolscan V @ 4000dpi - the scanner has the exact same Dmax rating as Velvia ... so both film and scanner are optimally paired. If I want better than that or bigger then I get it done at the lab.</p>

<p>Nothing has changed ...</p>

<p> </p>

[david_henderson]

<p>Simon, if you're happy with what you're doing thats great, really. Things change though and with the improvement in postprocessing programmes and the advent of features like film grain popping up in Lightroom, you might find a time when its quicker and easier to get a shot that looks just like Velvia on screen from a digital original than it is to use Velvia and scan. </p>

<p>Best of luck in India</p>

[lahuasteca]

<p>"I'm struggling a bit on why anyone would shoot slide film (difficult, expensive, processing <a href="../film-and-processing-forum/00X61h?start=10" target="_blank">cost...."</a></p>

<p>I'm not going to touch on resolution, IQ, etc. because I don't know enough about it to compare the two. I use digital - Nikon D80 and Olympus E420. A few weeks ago I picked up my ancient Nikon FE2 out of mothballs and started to use it. The viewfinder and composition to be specific - the two digital cameras I own could not compare to the viewfinder of the manual focus FE2. Composition became and whole new thing - I found myself slowing and actually framing what I was shooting. With the two dSLR's I own, framing and composition is more a guess. Yes, I know, move to an FX Nikon for the viewfinder, well, maybe, when enough spare cash has accumulated.</p>

[ivan_j._eberle1]

<p>If you shoot in anything but flat light (for instance at sunrise and sunset) most of the Fujichromes except Astia 100F tend to make people look sickly. Astia makes up for any perceived lack of over-amped saturation with accuracy and great skin tones.</p>

[rossb]

<p>I would second Elite Chrome 100 or 200 ASA if you want the speed. Natural colors and excellent skin tones. Great general purpose film.</p>

[jeff_livacich]

<p>I second ross b.</p>

[photo5]

<p>Kodak E100G and E100GX were the replacements for the older E100S and E100SW. Particularly, the new emulsions had much better highlight control, and they scan very well indeed. I still have a dozen or so rolls of E100GX in my freezer that I shoot now and then. When I run out, I hope there will still be some good E6 films left to shoot. I still love slide shows. For India, I'd want to shoot a film that can reproduce the vibrant colors you'll see there. Elite Chrome 100 would be my first choice.</p>

[sanjay_chaudary]

<p>Hi,<br>

Here are a few tips which I felt might help :<br>

security checks at airports in India is tighter than before, not as tight as US.<br>

tripods need to be checked in. batteries may not be allowed with camera. I have been lucky, but might be better to carry spare batteries in checked luggage and also suggest insuring your gear.<br>

E-6 Processing is available, and can take upto a week and you will need to mail slides . scanning is done with coolscan V. If you really need it to be done in India, I can give the contact details. I wouldnt suggest giving to anyone who does E-6 processing. I just got sensia roll done few months.<br>

Need to go out and shoot velvia 100,100f, 50 rolls. what subjects do you plan to shoot in India? delhi also has some nice places which are generally not mentioned. Take a local person, whom you know well, to be on safe side.</p>

 

[sanjay_chaudary]

<p>Hi,<br>

Here are a few tips which I felt might help :<br>

security checks at airports in India is tighter than before, not as tight as US.<br>

tripods need to be checked in. batteries may not be allowed with camera. I have been lucky, but might be better to carry spare batteries in checked luggage and also suggest insuring your gear.<br>

E-6 Processing is available, and can take upto a week and you will need to mail slides . scanning is done with coolscan V. If you really need it to be done in India, I can give the contact details. I wouldnt suggest giving to anyone who does E-6 processing. I just got sensia roll done few months.<br>

Need to go out and shoot velvia 100,100f, 50 rolls. what subjects do you plan to shoot in India? delhi also has some nice places which are generally not mentioned. Take a local person, whom you know well, to be on safe side.</p>