Getting deep, contained shadows with Slide Film

[k_m20]

<p>Hey guys,</p>

<p>I've been shooting slides for about 6 months now. I'm past the learning curve of getting the right exposure, which is not easy on slides. What I want to know is, after looking at some of my favorite photographers, how do they get such black and contained shadows while keeping the colored areas perfectly uncorrupted. </p>

<p>For examples of what I mean, think of some of the shots in Divided Soul by David Alan Harvey, the ones with lots of black. The one of the 2 hispanic people in front of a pink and green wall with the dark dark shadow of a wooden fence comes to mind.<br>

Also shots by Harry Gruyaert. The one of a fruit stand with a guy in an orange sweater (his face completely covered in shadow) with a large container of lemons nearby comes to mind.<br>

I think you guys all know the style I'm talking about, but I'm not uploading photos because I've been told that's against forum policy.</p>

<p>Is this look only possible with advance printing techniques like dye transfer process? Or can it be achieved in Photoshop? Is it as simple as adjusting black levels and contrast?<br>

I know most of the work is in the slide itself, but surely these guys are doing some processing.</p>

<p>I am shooting Velvia 100 and scanning with an EPSON V600 flatbed and using photoshop (the AutoColor and AutoTone functions) to remove the orangey color cast from the scanner. This gets it pretty close to what is on the slide. I still get dark shadows, and the slides have the checkered light characteristic of that style of photography, but I can't get it to look quite as good. The blacks occasionally have a faded purple to them, or the colors lose their detail if I mess around too much. Is my trouble mainly that the scanner lacks the sharpness to render the slides as detailed?<br>

Any thoughts on the matter are welcome.</p>

[BernardMiller]

<p>I'm sure someone with more expertise than I will chime in. But I think that the main problem with extracting shadow detail in your setup is your scanner. The Epsons (I have the V750) are good for what they are, but they're not really high-quality dedicated film scanners. Their limited dynamic range would prevent them from extracting detail especially in areas where the film is quite dense, such as the shadows in transparency film. And they're far from ideal for scanning 35mm film (I managed to track down a Nikon Coolscan V for that), as the real--not the listed--resolution really isn't enough to produce a very high res file from that format.</p>

<p>The two photographers you mentioned (I love their work, by the way, and have books by both--including Divided Soul--on my shelf) almost certainly had the resources to get their work drum-scanned for publication. This method, which is expensive and becoming harder to find available, at least locally nowadays, will extract the greatest detail and dynamic range from slide film.</p>

<p>The purple shadows may be a bit easier to fix--have you tried using a Selective Color adjustment layer to bring your blacks back to a more neutral tone? That and a Curves adjustment layer, working when needed in the individual channels, would probably be your best methods of for getting the colors and contrast you want. Using Auto-anything in Photoshop may correct some parameter, but introduce undesirable changes elsewhere. The two adjustment layer types I mentioned above give you the greatest control at targeting and finely adjusting specific areas you wish to address.</p>

<p>Dye transfer printing definitely had its own, very impressive, look. But with the flexibility and power of Photoshop, assuming you get a good file to start with (the scanner, especially, and your expertise with it will determine that), you should be able to get an image that can be printed to decently approximate on modern colour papers what was able to be obtained on dye transfer prints so laboriously decades ago.</p>

[garethspics]

<p>Velvia is a very contrasty film and a V750 is going to struggle to contain the dynamic range. Try Provia (or even Sensia/Astia if you can find it). Shoot a test target at the start or end of the roll (something with black, white and grey in it) and use that as a reference to set your white/black balance. Scanner software can help (or hinder) if you learn how to use it correctly.</p>

[k_m20]

<p>Thanks for the great responses, Bernard and Gareth.</p>

<p>Bernard: I've been thinking of investing in a better scanner. But the age of most of these Nikon film scanners worries me a bit. Is the Coolscan V worth getting, and what should I look for in buying one off eBay? Is it good for slides/are any scanners? Drum scanners seem to be in the thousands of dollars, which I can't afford.<br>

Also, a lot of the Photoshop stuff you said went right over my head, to be honest.</p>

[James G. Dainis]

Note: Photo.net policy is that you will not upload or display on the forums photos which are not your own. You can provide a link to a site that people can click on to go to the site to see the photo.

[c_watson1]

<p>I'm guessing you might be discounting the role that post-exposure processing plays in delivering a stunning final image. You probably should try some color negative film like Kodak Portra along with some serious research on Photoshop and Lightroom. Are you shooting 35mm or roll film?<br>

Scanning is close to black art with many people squeezing quite good files from so-so flatbeds via numerous tweaks. Though some will differ, I'm not sure Nikon scanners are such a great idea now, especially since Nikon no longer supports them with parts and service.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>I use a V600. I like Velvia 50 over Velvia 100 because the contrast is greater and the colors more saturated. Here are samples but they are with 120 medium format not 35mm.<br>

Velvia 100 https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/tags/velvia100/</p>

<p>Velvia 50 https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/tags/velvia/</p>

<p>I work with Levels after scanning flat. This give me good color restoration. It also provides the contrast and blackness I like especially at the shadow end. Moving the black slider just a tiny bit gives me those kinds of shadows - you may find more is better for you, even with Velvia 100. Good luck</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>Since I had fortunately kept my old Kodachrome 'seconds', I discovered when I scanned and processed them that there was shadow detail that simply didn't show up to the eye in the original slide. Often discovered why I had taken the picture in the first place.</p>

<p>There is no substitute for a real film scanner, but unfortunately that is <em>literally</em> true, as well -- there are very few of them new on the market these days.<br>

I am trying to see how something like the new Braun scanner machines work, but they are a substantial investment for not knowing. Perhaps I'll take the leap of faith or will find someone who will let me try it and return it if it is not up to its claims.</p>

[k_m20]

<p>Thanks guys. I'm going to try playing with the levels more and find what works. Looking into the Nikon products, too.</p>

<p>Alan, I get what you mean. That works beautifully for more pristine landscapes. But I was thinking of a more dramatic effect. Like in these: <br>

http://erickimphotography.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/David-Alan-Harvey.png<br>

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FOrHu6Rod7Y/UyDekax_kcI/AAAAAAAABi4/PwZDn1Qn3Ww/s1600/tumblr_mj3xvy4ne81qhao9bo1_1280.jpg<br>

http://phototechsf.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/david-alan-harvey.jpg<br>

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7qapqvtNk1qabu3po1_500.jpg<br>

http://www.magnumad.com/data/photos/775_1web-GRH-portfolio-pg25.jpg</p>

 

[donbright]

<p>Good to see the pictures. My first impression is black point set in those pictures. It is notorious for many, and including myself, to ignore getting a black point and white point before moving on in post, its a patience thing. I get my black and white point in curves, then continue in curves, so try tweaking your black point to suit the affect you want, and like it should work.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Km: Velvia 50 only has about 5 stops. So you get more dramatic effects when the original scene has dark shadow and bright sunny areas. The fruit stand, black fence, and wall with hands in the air pictures (3) have that effect. So when you expose for the highlights and then process curves to accentuate the dark shadows, you get the effects shown in these pictures. The two other pictures just appear under exposed to me and muddy.</p>

[k_m20]

<p>Thanks for the great responses, guys.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Harvey makes a lot of well considered choices to guide or even manipulate the viewer, ranging from exposure choices to reproduction. I follow him on Facebook and he's not shy about editing phone cam snapshots to suit his personal vision. He's among the rarest of photographers - an older, experienced photographer who is more interested in the results, the photographs, than in the materials or processing used to achieve that end. I've never seen a Facebook post from him belaboring the virtues of this film or that camera or the other editing software. To emulate his look, learn to see the world as he sees it. It's not the film, processing, camera, lens, phone or app. He can produce photographs that reflect his style using almost any materials: his Nikon SLRs, Fuji X100, phone cam, various mirrorless cameras.</p>

<p>He'd probably rather you focused not merely on his single photos, but the entire context and sequencing. He's very meticulous about sequencing and arranging photo projects and books to convey a complex message. It's very much like some of the classic rock music albums of the 1960s-'90s, particularly the high concept albums and rock operas. Take a look at the <a href="http://vimeo.com/42015234">demonstration video</a> for his recent (<a href="http://www.davidalanharvey.com/index.php#mi=2&pt=1&pi=10000&s=0&p=7&a=0&at=0">based on a true story</a>) book project. The demo video makes absolutely clear how important context, arrangement and sequence are to his vision.</p>

<p>And to get that specific heavily saturated, contrasty look: shoot Velvia and underexpose it by 1/3 to 1/2 stop in contrasty lighting; use a polarizer or choose only tropical and semi-tropical settings, or shoot only on days where the sky really looks that blue; send the slides to a pro lab with a scanning specialist who understands the look you want.</p>

[k_m20]

<p>Thanks a lot Lex, that was helpful.</p>

[Brad Cloven]

<p>Shooting Velvia means embracing and loving the lack of dynamic range. Velvia matches my personal aesthetic: I love inky blacks and blown highlights, which in my opinion set off the properly exposed and rich colors you intended. It's a style thing.</p>

<p>As others mentioned, when I want more dynamic range (and sadly less dense colors) I go to Provia.</p>

<p>After that, scanning matters. My Coolscan V is pretty good for 35mm. Commercial scans vary dramatically, but North Coast Photographic does a very nice job when they scan my 120mm stuff. I would fear scanning 35mm slides on a flatbed scanner. I think they are not optimized for the situation.</p>

<p>The shots I post next are what Velvia can do for you, very carefully exposing the mid-tones that you intend, and blowing out highlights, and leaving inky blacks. I love it. The first is 120mm scanned by NCP, and the second is 35mm scanned by Nikon Coolscan V:</p>

<p> </p>

[Brad Cloven]

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/8598140-md.jpg" alt="" width="679" height="404" /><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/11451431-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="578" /><br>

Whoops! Mount Shasta is 35mm, Baskets are 120mm.</p>

 

[lex_jenkins]

<p>The limited dynamic range of Kodachrome and hyper saturated films like Velvia prompted the development of products to offset that limitation. Many photographers wanted more control over highlights and shadows, not featureless inky blacks.</p>

<p>Graduated neutral density and graduated color density filters became very popular during the 1980s-'90s. Some photographers still prefer graduated density filters with digital, although true HDR techniques would accomplish the same thing without the telltale demarcation lines visible in some photos taken with graduated density filters. That transition line was usually visible in landscapes with irregular horizons, or objects like trees projecting from the area of lesser density to greater density.</p>

<p>But there are no rules and it's a matter of personal taste. I preferred to slightly overexpose Kodachrome to get a more pastel look. I never cared for the look of Velvia - it makes skin look like meat - although I do like the melodramatic look of T-Max 100. No accounting for taste I suppose.</p>

 

[AlanKlein]

<p>What do you mean by melodramatic look of Tmax 100?</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"What do you mean by melodramatic look of Tmax 100?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Photos like these.</p>

<hr />

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/1605880-lg.jpg" alt="Bass Hall, in light and shadow" width="500" height="499" border="0" /><br /><em><a href="/photo/1605880">Bass Hall, in light and shadow, 2003</a></em>.<br />Rolleiflex 2.8C, orange filter, TMX @ EI 100 in Microphen<br />Straight work print on Ilford MGIV glossy RC.<br /><br /></p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/1596474-lg.jpg" alt="Triad" width="646" height="600" border="0" /><br /> <a href="/photo/1596474"><em>Triad, 2003</em></a>.<br /> Rolleiflex 2.8C, orange filter, TMX @ EI 100 in Microphen<br />Straight work print on Ilford MGIV glossy RC.<br /><br /></p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/1551555-lg.jpg" alt="Goat skull deck chair 1" width="600" height="597" border="0" /><br /><a href="/photo/1551555"><em>Goat skull deck chair, early 2000s</em></a>.<br />Rolleiflex 2.8C, TMX @ EI 100 in Microphen, no filter.<br />Straight work print on Ilford glossy RC.</p>

<hr />

<p>These were all scenarios I'd photographed many times, using other films. Straight work prints from TMX consistently produced, for lack of a better word, a tonality that I couldn't get as consistently with other films without resorting to manipulations during printing - dodging/burning combined with selective application of magenta/yellow filters. At most I'd use an orange filter on clear days to darken the blue sky. It was a great look for some photos, although I didn't care for photos of people taken with TMX. </p>

<p>When Kodak film is long gone I'll miss T-Max 100 more than any other Kodak film. I can emulate Tri-X well enough with HP5+, and by the early 2000s Kodak had already changed Tri-X so much it really wasn't the Tri-X I'd grown up with anyway - finer grain, more sensitizing dyes, more like T-Max 400 than the old Tri-X.</p>

<p>Anyway, it's odd that I like the melodramatic tonality of T-Max, but never cared for the same quality in Velvia. Can't explain it.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Incidentally, here's a recent digicam photo of that same part of the Bass Performance Hall, taken with a Fuji X-A1 in Velvia emulation mode, JPEG straight from camera other than auto-resizing by photo.net. Real Velvia would have been a bit contrastier than this, with darker shadows. The X-A1 can be tweaked for darker/lighter shadows and highlights, but this is the default look. The main reason there's more visible shadow detail is because the building across the street from the Bass has changed in the past decade. The new building has more reflective surfaces that illuminate this aspect of the Bass in late afternoon.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17762539-md.jpg" alt="DSCF1241.JPG" width="680" height="453" border="0" /></p>

[Paul Lewis1664881697]

<p>The examples provided by the OP appear to be slightly underexposed. Use a more contrasty slide film, expose for your highlight and have two or more stops of difference between your highlight and shadows, and you should be able to get a similar effect without Photoshop manipulation.</p>