Velvia 50 - A penny for your thoughts!

[tim gray]

<p>By the way, I'm not the same Tim Gray as the one right above me. I made the longer post at the top of the page.</p>

<p>Yup Matt, we are basically in agreement. The real deal is tough. Spectral sensitivities play a big role here, not just of the film and sensors, but of the monitors, scanners, our eyes, etc. It all interacts in complicated and non-linear ways. For example, the RGB spectrum the film is sensitive too is NOT the same as the spectral dye densities of the dyes in the film (which is why Kodak gives us both). And there's no law that says your scanner uses the same RGB filters as my scanner, or that your DSLR uses the same RGB filters as the next guys. When those scanner filters interact with the dyes, it's different for every scanner-film combination.</p>

<p>On the other hand, if you wanted to knock out some of magenta cast in Mauro's Ektar shot and boost the contrast in a 'Velvia-like' manner, that's pretty easy. The nuances are difficult. I'm sure there's no 'one-size fits all' filter. Hell, there's not even a one-size fits all filter when shooting Velvia. Depending on the light, you might need grad filters, warming filters, long exposures, etc, all of which change the final image. </p>

<p>I just shoot film, as I said in my first post. I don't find it that awkward or expensive. If you really want Velvia, just shoot Velvia.</p>

[aaron l]

<p>Going through my slides made me realize how much I miss my Velvia and Kodak 100VS. However, I don't miss the stunning expense and inability to easily digitize the slides. It's a trade.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Tim, with a direct comparison you can try to get it close. Without a direct comparison is pretty much impossible because a slight change in color temperature drastically affects Velvia's color reaction.<br>

So yes, the best way to aproximate Velvia is to shoot it and try to copy it... As funny as it sounds.</p>

[timothy_gray]

<p>Tim, I just requested a name change. I didn't think it was possible for two different Photo.net members to have the same forum name. Guess it's the price we have to pay for having the same name, eh? In any event, I'll be happy to refer to myself as THE OTHER GUY until we get this name thing cleared up! ;)</p>

 

[timothy_gray]

<p><strong>THE OTHER GUY</strong> replying again...<br /> How is film <em>more</em> work? You shoot it, develop it, you're done. Unless you scan it. And even if you scan it, it's pretty simple to calibrate a scanner to ensure you get all that Velvia goodness digitized. Heck, they even make Velvia targets specifically for this purpose. Beats twiddling sliders in Lightroom or your editor of choice.</p>

<p>It's only easier to screw up if...<br /> <strong>a)</strong> you don't know what you're doing, or <strong> </strong><br /> <strong>b)</strong> you miscalculate the exposure.</p>

<p>If you're going to shoot film, either make sure your in-camera meter is working correctly or buy a dedicated meter. The only screw ups I've experienced in 15 years have been user error, and that applies to any capture medium. You blow a shot, you blow it.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>You might be able to do it once or twice, but not on a consistent basis. </p>

[boinkphoto]

<blockquote>

<p>The only screw ups I've experienced in 15 years have been user error, and that applies to any capture medium. You blow a shot, you blow it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True, but if you shoot RAW (and even JPEGs to some degree) you have significant latitude to recover. With a Fuji S5 I've recovered up to 4 stops. Granted that was less than ideal, but still usable. However, pretty much any RAW file, except perhaps at the highest ISOs, can pull a completely usable 1 stop out or more.</p>

<p>With slides you probably have at most 1/2 stop latitude, maybe 3/4, (unless of course it's the whole roll and you're smart enough to push or pull process).</p>

<p>Everyone screws up and most of regularly despite best efforts, so truly digital has some advantages. Digital is much more like shooting negatives than shooting slides in that regards.</p>

[timothy_gray]

<p><strong>THE OTHER GUY</strong> again...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Everyone screws up and most of regularly despite best efforts, so truly digital has some advantages. Digital is much more like shooting negatives than shooting slides in that regards.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh yeah, I agree with your statement Matt 100%. Not saying digital doesn't have its advantages; it most certainly does. But, regardless whether you're shooting film or digital, you still gotta get the exposure in the ballpark, that's all I was saying.</p>

<p>Oh, and those S5s are pretty sweet. The flesh tones you can get from them blows most anything else in the 35mm realm outta the water. Never seen a 4-stop recovery, but I've worked on botched wedding shots which required 3+...kinda amazing what you can do with Fuji files.</p>

 

[d_s40]

<p>Thanks for the overwhelming response everyone. There has been a lot of food for thought discussed in this thread and a lot of things to consider. The reoccuring suggestion is that a good way to gauge the colour and contrast response is to take a variety of photos in different scenes with the different mediums and then calibrate/edit from there.<br>

An idea I just had was to take a photo of n it8 target with velvia under various lighting conditions and at the very same time, take a photo of the same it8 target with a digital camera at a constant WB. Would it be possible, then, to use some kind of program to match the colour of a scan of the velvia and use this as a calibration file?<br>

This would be very crude, and adjustment will be needed to suit individual images, but it could be a start.<br>

As to whether I would like to emulate Velvia 50 - well, I must say, I withdraw my statement. But I must say, Velvia 50 has one of the most please colour pallettes to my eye and to try and lift some of my digital images with a colour tweak would be awesome.<br>

Regardless, I'll have you all know that I am waiting on an order of velvia 50, 100 and provia 400x to arrive. I have no intention of abandoning film - in fact, I'd love to shoot with it more. But in those instances where digital shines, I'd love to have a few more options in playing with colour.<br>

I'm also hoping this thread can continue. I certainly hope that the innovators amongst us develop and share open "platform" colour "interpretations" that will assist us in achieving a kind of satisfaction that years of development into the film world yielded.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>And no one got nasty during any of this I am proud of all of you. :-)</p>

[rob_piontek]

<p>Have you tried any of the pro film emulsion emulators? I have to think you're reinventing the wheel. There must be a bunch of threads on photo.net from people asking the same question. I would think if anyone could come close it would be somebody like DxO. Certainly they must have had some people working on it that know much more about the subject than most of us. At least the DxO filmpack should have different profiles for different cameras. </p>

[boinkphoto]

<blockquote>

<p>To be sure, the only blowing away digital does is highlights. If you can't get skin tones right with film then please review your workflow as there must be something wrong in it. Otherwise, you can let the public review your version of the "Afghan Girl" . . . or countless other references readily available.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ends this:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And no one got nasty during any of this I am proud of all of you. :-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh well...</p>

<p>BTW - I love Velvia (no, I <strong>really</strong> love Velvia) but it definitely doesn't do skin tones!</p>

<p>I have to unfortunately agree on the "Afghan Girl" thing though (assuming it is talking about the photo of the week). Toooooooooo manipulated, even if a good idea...</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Yep tooooooo sensitive to point out the obvious and I still think it has been a mild thread.</p>

[boinkphoto]

<p>It just sounded a little less than totally diplomatic toward Tim, but yes, I am too sensitive generally speaking...</p>

<p>No harm no foul.</p>

<p>And yes, it has been mild.</p>

[dangoldman]

<p>the same stupid threads were made with regard to kodachrome when it was canceled (and before). If you want the look, shoot the film. if you dont, dont. I just dont get the fascination with faking it.</p>

[richard_buday]

<p>Another fervent Velvia user here, but I've had decent success with Fred Miranda's Velvia Vision:<br>

http://www.fredmiranda.com/shopping/vmv</p>

<p>Still, there's nothing like the real thing.</p>

<p>Richard</p>

[d_s40]

<p>Hi Rob, yes, I have looked at countless plugins. I have not been that happy with any of them. Many of them are based around a rgb saturation boost and a tone curve. I'd like to investigate hues, luminosity and saturation.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>:) Now you folks are making me smile... thanks.</p>

[d_s40]

<p>Matt, please don't derail the thread. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Girl">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Girl</a></p>

[boinkphoto]

<p><em><strong>Les Sarile</strong></em> - yes, of course I know NG "Afghan Girl". It's a fantastic photo. However due to a coincidence of the photo.net "Photo of the Week" (see also home page):</p>

<p><a href="../photo/11756915">http://www.photo.net/photo/11756915</a></p>

<p>(which is in my mind seems a direct play on "Afghan Girl") and given the fact we're talking about manipulation to achieve Velvia, I thought you were harking back to the above photo and maybe making a jab about over-manipulation of digital images, including skin tones. Obviously I misinterpreted - sorry.</p>

<p>Of course the real "Afghan Girl" was undoubtedly not shot on Velvia (which love it as I may, often is deadly to skin tones), nor can I really say that if I was thinking "skin tones" that photo would be first to come to mind, but regardless I think your point about film advantages here remains. That said, in the digital realm the S5 is exceptional (in my opinion) on skin tones, where other digital cameras are not, so I support Tim's basic assertion.</p>

<p>Oh, I guess Afghan Girl was Kodachrome:</p>

<p><a href="http://photography.nationalgeographic.com/wallpaper/photography/photos/milestones-photography/afghan-girl-portrait/">http://photography.nationalgeographic.com/wallpaper/photography/photos/milestones-photography/afghan-girl-portrait/</a></p>

<p><em><strong>DS </strong></em>- Not sure why I was deemed sufficiently off to earn a specific "derail" comment. Confused or not, I was trying to respond to a prior comment. But whatever, I definitely got it wrong.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>I see no derail here And That looked like a shot of a damn Black felt/acrylic painting.... nothing like the original... I am on your side here as I never even look at the shot of the week as well they are never what i think a real shot should be being an open air photographer.</p>

[boinkphoto]

<p>Still think it's a little harsh, but I get your point...</p>

<p>Now we are starting to get derailed so I will move on!</p>

[d_s40]

<p>I actually missed Dan's comment above regarding "if you like it, just shoot it". That's fine, and I certainly will. But that's not how innovation works. I don't have the technical mind to do these things, but maybe somebody that does will look back at this thread and the contributions and it will prompt the process of finding new techniques to play with colour in the future.<br>

Just accepting something when there is the possibility of innovation and learning is a very silly move. Film is already becoming harder to come by and there is a monopoloy of places that develop slide film (well, in Australia anyway). If I find a way to apply something I learn about colour from a film stock to a digital image, how does this make this a stupid thread? If this has been dicsussed before it's because people were looking for the "golden bullet" I mentioned earlier. I am not. I am looking to learn through experience and communication with other users.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Yep End of subject... Oh wait I can't lock this out.. LOL</p>

[marshall]

<p>Appropos of nothing, there was a free Velvia action developed by Paul Bleicher some years back that did a reasonable job approximating a roughly velvia-like look. It operated based on the idea that DS has started with: instead of just a curve and saturation adjustment, it used Selective Color to work the colors independently. In concept, pretty sound.<br>

That said, there are a few problems with creating a generic version of a Velvia emulator. First, it has to be based on a specific starting point. In the case of Paul's action, it was based on the color response of the original digital Rebel, with pretty neutral capture settings. Second, that specific starting point varies with the light in the scene (I guess technically this is the Spectral Power Distribution or some such). I think Mauro noted above that Velvia's response shifts significantly with the color temperature of the light hitting it. (Shoot Velvia in the shade and you don't just get darker, you get bluer. Shoot your digital camera in the shade and, well, the camera will often auto-"correct" back towards neutral.)<br>

Anyway, if you wanted to build an emulator (and I have no experience with the emulators that cost money), you could do worse than start with comparing as people have said, and adjusting each color range directly through Selective Color or specific hue/sat adjustments.</p>

<p>A lot of the debate here comes down to "is it worth it" to do this instead of just shooting Velvia. Personally, I think if someone wants to spend some time on it, that it's worth doing for that person, and that's good enough for me as long as s/he recognizes the limits of the exercise...</p>