Lowering contrast in reversal film.

[igor_urisman]

<p>The short question is this: can reversal film be pulled as effectively as black and white negative film with the goal of reducing contrast.<br>

Explanation. I am shooting medium format Velvia 50 as a substitute for digital camera. When scanned on a high res scanner the resulting file seems far higher quality than the best 35mm digital. (I suspect that a digital back for my Mamiya RZ67 would do wonders, but that's out of my price range.) The only problem is that I am having a heck of a time lighting my subjects evenly even in a studio. Reversal film is known to have very narrow dynamic range compared with negative films, hence perceived contrast.<br>

I more often shoot B&W where I routinely pull the film to reduce the contrast. Has anyone had any luck doing the same to the E6 film?<br>

Thanks in advance,<br>

-Igor Urisman. Berkeley, CA.</p>

[jonathan_montague]

<p>not sure about velvia. Provia400x will push very nicely, i imagine you could pull it as well. 400 or 100 Provia would be more forgiving under studio lighting conditions. Velvia is known for being very contrasty so youd be better off with another film. You will prob need to bracket your exposures as well.</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>You can pull process E6 films but not far without Dmax suffering. Try a 1/3-2/3 stop pull and see how you like it. Of course it costs more to pull process.</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>Velvia 50 has insanely high contrast, up there with Kodachrome II. Consider Astia, just as sharp and low grain, but without the super high contrast and exaggerated (even warped) colors. But all slide films are inherently high contrast, reversal processing does that.<br>

Or, since you are scanning and don't really <em>need</em> slides, try a roll of Kodak Ektar 100. Slides aren't inherently "better" than color negative films anymore, it's just that the history of mechanical reproduction of color photographs wound up settling on a path based on slides.</p>

[Monophoto]

<p>There's not a lot that you can do in the chemical stage.</p>

<p>However, you may be able to reduce contrast by flashing the film - ie, adding a light exposure of white light either before or after the actual exposure. This was a technique that was commonly used when ordinary film was used to make copy transparencies.</p>

[david_littleboy__tokyo__ja]

<p>I found I preferred Provia 100F to Astia, the Velvias, or any of the negative flms that were available then. (I haven't done much film shooting since the 5D2 arrived.) It's a matter of taste; Provia has more pop than Astia, but wasn't as painfully contrasty as the Velvias. The negative films' grain was grittier than Provia, and I didn't like that. I can see that Provia's somewhat indistinct/blotchy grain could irritate; you just have to see what you like. I also liked Velvia 100F better than classic Velvia 50, but was in a minority on that. But these (and Ektar 100, presumably) are all great films, and you should try them all.</p>

<p>Oops, my memory is wrong: Velvia 50, Velvia 100F, and Provia 100F can only be pulled 1/2 a stop. Ditto for Astia 100F.</p>

<p> </p>

[User_502260]

<p>I think I used Astia 200 recently and was very happy with the low contrast for portraits.</p>

[smooth_carrots]

<p>I can't really understand why you want to shoot E6, especially if you are concerned about the contrast. After shooting exclusively with a 5D2 for the last couple of years I bought a Bronica SQ-A recently and ran a few rolls of Fuji 160S through it. The low contrast and huge dynamic range were a huge shock. I had forgotten how beautiful film was. I'm now shooting far more film than digital.</p>

<p>I would strongly advise shooting C41. Use Ektar for great colours and superb quality, use Portra or Fuji 160S for beautifully smooth, low contrast work. The negs scan far better than slides too.</p>

[igor_urisman]

<p>Thank you, all for the responses. I don't do much color or digital work (the details why are unimportant here) so I picked Provia 50 because 1. Someone recommended it as the best route to file; 2. The slowest (and presumably finest-grained) film around; 3. Historically, before digital cameras came along I remember people only shot slide when they went to print via a digital scan. At least at the time the theory was that slides scan better and that the neg to positive conversion in software is no advisable. Anyway, sounds like I have a couple of films to try, instead of the Provia. </p>

[randrew1]

<p>Pulling E-6 film (shorter first developer time) will increase the Dmax. It will also increase the Dmin. This is the objectionable part. If you pull very far, you will have very cyan colored whites. </p>

<p>Many years ago, one of our astronauts was exposing a 64 speed Ektachrome motion picture film and set the camera at ASA 10. They realized the mistake and asked Kodak what could be done. The film was intended for the ME-4 process (similar to E-4) which had a prehardener. One of my colleagues, Bill D., ran several trials and found that the best pull process came from extending the prehardener time a lot and then increasing the first developer time a little. I don't know how forehardened E-6 films respond to a prehardener. I'm not sure if you could obtain a prehardener since it contains formaldehyde which is now regulated. </p>

<p>Other ways to lower the contrast:<br>

Photoshop curves tool<br>

shoot an exposure series and use the HDR function in Photoshop<br>

For large format, prepare a negative silver mask (not feasible with 35mm). Copy the original plus mask with dupe film. </p>

[smooth_carrots]

<blockquote>

<p>At least at the time the theory was that slides scan better and that the neg to positive conversion in software is no advisable.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I really do think that has changed over the last few years. I strongly believe the latest C41 films scan far better than E6 these days. The exposure latitude is huge and contrast is rarely a problem.</p>

[jammy_kirsten]

<p> The only problem is that I am having a heck of a time lighting my subjects evenly even in a studio.</p>

[profhlynnjones]

<p>Even Fuji will tell you it is the wrong film for portraiture except for certain special effects. It certainly doesn't like push or pull processing. It is the sharpest film around and some of the magazines which specialize in digital often use either of the Velvia films for mag covers and large interior illustrations. Technically, negative films (color or b/w) have a GBar of about .50 while reversal films have a GBar of about 1.35 (2.7 times greater) and velvia is higher than that. Interestingly digital describes this at about 1.00, but in RAW you can make it different.<br>

Lynn</p>