Mystical Reef (Best viewed Large)

Great shot Vincent....Gotta love what Velvia can do!

Though I've gone to the dark side with digital Canon

I do sometimes miss that amazing velvia film.

 

Warm Regards,

 

Frank

I appreciate all of your comments on this. Yes, film is still the direction I plan to go, Frank. Although I must admit, my son has recently started out shooting landscapes with the Nikon D2X, His workflow beats the pants off of mine. I change rolls of film (often in mid-shoot, while sweating and other inconvenient times) every 36 images or so. He changes memory cards in a split second every 200 images, and empties those on a portable hard drive, usually in an air-conditioned car (with music) or hotel room. My costs for film and developing will always be there, and can be significant when doing a travel-trip. His are basically none. He edits on the computer as large as he wishes to go, I squint with a 4x loop on a lightbox. I have to select my best images and then scan them. He needs no scanning. Should I continue?

 

However, leaving a $5000 camera on a tripod on the coast or lugging it down to a waterfall, or even leaving in the car for that matter is not something that offers comfort. Plus I prefer shooting with two outfits at a time. I also still prefer the look and feel to what Velvia offers to that of the digital. I have compared extensively. Now that I recently purchased a new high-end scanner, I will probably stick with film for quite a while longer. Though digital looms for the many reasons mentioned above.

This is a fantastic capture and wonderful colours. Amazing. You ARE a master and thats it. Thank you for your ratings, Regards.

And I thought I stuck with film forever....Vince, seriously I think it's time to move digital. $5000 camera? Yes, but if you're like me you spent that same amount in film and developing in the last year or two. Few are harder on cameras than myself and (knocking loudly on wood) nothing awful has happened yet, in the year since I've moved digital. Why would you be leaving it in the car anyhow? I use a camera with only slightly higher resolution than the D2X and the enlargement potential BLOWS AWAY 35mm film. The prints compare favorably to MF. film, IMO, after extensive testing with correct processing/sharpening methods. Plus, the creative control over processing, without the pain-in-the-ass scanning time is a huge bonus.

 

About this image? My suggestion is loose the sunset filter. Colors are simply off the charts and I would venture to say out of gamut for most printers. In particular, the red streak at top just looks silly, cast onto the clouds as well. It's an eye catcher for sure, but no where in the vicinity of being natural in appearance. That said, if you like it - cool. Just offering up my opinions. Now that you've scanned the image, I'd like to see the foreground, especially the middle water textures dodged a bit. Seems just a bit too dark and murky for my liking. I think it would 'pop' more a little brighter. Also, the shadow detail leaves something to be desired, in particular the black rocks nearer the horizon (easy to pull that detail out of a digital RAW file). Composition all around is hard to fault. All that knitpicking and I'd still give this a solid 6/6.

 

 

Beautiful, Vincent! Great "rule of thirds". Nice slow shutter speed. Perfect placement of the rocks. Superb sky. Amazing!

 

Also, thank you for visiting my work. I'm extremely happy to have photographers like you visiting my portfolio. Shall you find a second, please let me know of your thoughts by rating (and maybe critiqueing) my latest two submissions:this one and this other one.

 

Looking forward to hearing from you,

--Bogdan

All comments are appreciated; both critical and commendational.

 

 

Marc, I appreciate the thoughts. As regards switching to digital: Like I already stated above, digital does appear to me to be the direction we will all end up one day. However, I do not see that day happening, for me, right now. For one thing I do prefer the look and feel of what I capture with Velvia over what I see with today's digital. The differences are not majorly significant, but it is still quite noticeable, and what I actually prefer. I also do a fair amount of longer exposure work, so using a 50 speed film still has some advantages to Nikon's minimum 100 asa. There are no 1.5 lens magnification factors (not an issue with bigger Canon models, but I do have only Nikon gear, so would be an issue with me). I do feel more comfortable using my tank-like F5 which one can buy like-new on E-bay for well under $1,000 if needed. That F5 with the 17-35 Nikkor, paired with the F-100 and either the 28-70 or 80-200 (all 2.8 glass) gives me tremendous range when working any area, anywhere at a very reasonable price and without unnecessary worries about the gear itself. I believe the camera you now use is not even environmentally sealed, which could end up biting you in the rear... ; )

 

 

The greatest reason for sticking with film a while longer however, is that I just purchased a new Eversmart Supreme II; a world class scanner. I have over 200 rolls of film from a 30 day Pacific Northwest trip over two years ago, 190 rolls from the blue Ridge mountains (two trips), well over 100 from Maryland's Eastern shore another 100 from Washington DC with thousands more from Hawaii alone. I am buried in film and basically believe sticking with film for now makes the most sense. Basically with this scanner, I can enlarge up to 40x60 while still maintaining incredible detail, smooth tonal transitions and color fidelity without the images falling apart. In fact we just sold a 40x60 giclee for $1500 last week. I would not suggest your taking a 9x14 digital raw file and going that large. Digital will only be getting better and bigger... and... less expensive if one maintains a little more patience. As I already stated, the workflow with digital definitely has its advantages.... but not yet.

 

 

As a working professional photographer, supporting two families, I have no problems using filters to enhance a scene when one can do that. The key is in using them correctly, which many do not do. This is also a business for me. I do shoot most all locations with and without filters to give me an enormous selection of looks for different applications as needed. When you spend the time and monies to get to a particular location (which for me, living on an island, always involves airfare, car rentals and hotels) sometimes you simply have to "get the shot". Using a filter allows one to do just that... get the shot along with the business that comes from getting the shot. Nonetheless I also shoot all locations without any filters and often use these images in my print lines, for stock or just for pleasure.

 

 

And finally; as for the darker rocks, well this is exactly how the original looks under a 15x loop. The rocks in Hawaii are from lava, they ARE very dark shades of gray and black. The lighting here was at the very end, which is the actual look I wanted, hence the "mystical" theme or as my buddy L.M. said, "Lord of the Rings" effect. There is plenty of detail in major portions of the rock formations throughout the scene to make this work in my opinion, just as it is. But I do appreciate you honest opinions anyway. I am always looking to improve. Your comments do help. Thanks again for taking the time. It is always appreciated! Aloha.

I have uploaded a larger version.

Vince, I can respect your opinions even if I don't fully agree on all points. You know they make some pretty decent ultra-wides for the D2X and other crop-factor cameras right? I have a lot of experience scanning 35mm Velvia on world class scanners (I own a Nikon 9000 ED and have made scans made from Imacon Flextight systems) and the 5D still blows away those scans for detail on enlargement. I've made 30x40's that look amazing and feel I could go larger still.

 

Although I prefer to actually "get the shot" as it comes to me in a more natural way (and I spend way too much time doing so) I certainly can't argue your point from a business perspective and I can't fault another persons artistic preferences either. I have no doubt someone will fork over a pretty penny or two for this print regardless.

 

Yes, the unsealed 5D may well come back to bite me in the ass. I want a 1Ds2 but A: it's well over 7 grand and B: it's much heavier and not as compatable with my long backpacking trips and climbing.

The ultra wides are good, but none of them are great, yet. I don't think they even make a 2.8 lens at this time. My Nikon 17-35 2.8 is one of the best in the world for landscapes. It would be reduced to almost 28mm and rendered practically useless.

 

The Nikon 9000 and even the top of the line Imacon don't even cover a third of what the Eversmart sells for. However, if I had to start over, right now from scratch, i would almost certainly go with the Canon 16 meg, $8,000, no magnification factor, beast as well...

 

and then just sort of keep my fingers crossed, hold my breath, pray etc.....

 

: )

I fully agree about the selection of ultra-wides available Vince. Good but not as great as your 2.8. I believe most find them acceptable, even several pros I know use them. The 2.8 is generally regarded as the best ultra-wide zoom made. Wish Canon had something that nice! And yes, 28mm is useless. I've seen 35mm scanned on a Tango Drum scanner at West Coast that can't beat my Nikon or Imacon scans. One reason why I never sent them 35mm to scan myself. Maybe I will someday.

You are correct in that many professionals find them acceptable... but partly because they have no choice since many, like us, really want those super wide capabilities. I can tell you my son sold his Nikon 17-35 to get the Tokina 12-24 for his D2X. While the added view is still very important, the step down in quality is definitely discernable. Occasionally he asks to use my 17-35 because it just shines... and occasionally, I let him.

 

If your Nikon Coolscan 9000 is superior to a Tango drum scan Marc, then somebody does not know how to use that Tango drum scanner. Also keep in mind that when scanning 35mm, the max that Nikon can go is 4000 DPI, and 5000 DPI for the Imacon, for landscapes. That does not translate into a very large print. The Supreme II goes 5600 DPI uniterpolated and up to 14000 interpolated. Those are very large prints. I'm telling you, you get what you pay for. That scanner IS the reason I plan to stick with film for some time to come. National Geographic owns two of the older Supreme I. I may even possibly get into medium format before I go with digital since I could then scan images thata actually will enlarge greater than I will ever need. However, 35mm has worked tremendously for me because of (once again) superior lenses, and a better *system* for creating winning images in my opinion than medium format. Plus we sell FAR more smaller sized prints as well as stock requests for smaller sizes than we get for large ones. Though last month I sold the rights to an image that will be used on the side of a bus. Todays technology simply allows that to be done even with 35mm. I have seen over and over the photographer with large format setting up and taking a few images while I work an area thoroughly taking several rolls from all angles, almost insuring there will be a few true winners. 35mm just works for me, for now.

 

You are more than welcomed to send me a couple of your scans along with the originals, and we can see what this Supreme II can do with those originals. Better yet, shoot the same scene with both Velvia 50 and your Canon digital. I also wonder, how does the Imacon compare with your Nikon? I did consider that as well, but the Supreme is a flatbed and can scan 40 at one time. And with tens of thousands of slides, you can see why I chose to pay up... and am still paying up!

 

: (

You at least have me intrigued about your scanning system Vince. I think I will have West Coast perform some drum scans for myself to truly evaluate the quality and make comparisons. I have seen scans from 35mm from the Tango that do not appear much better (if at all) than scans from my current systems. The resolution is HUGE but the useability of that resolution is in question. The 5D produces absolutely tack-sharp images at 4350x2800 viewed at 100% with proper processing. I just can't quite seem to get that from 35mm scanning.

Having visited the galleries of some distiguished 35mm shooters such as Rowell, Wolfe and Mangelsen a have a pretty good idea of the enlargement potential from 35mm using the worlds finest equipment. I still feel I can go bigger and better with 13mp digital as do many pros who have already made the switch. Also, it's not too hard in some situations to create a stitched digital file that can compete even with LF. film for detail. I've seen 200mp digital composites that are simply amazing down to the finest detail and with todays software like Autopano Pro, it's not too hard to merge the files. Obviously, not all scenes are suited for this type of image creation though.

Other than the gorgeous image, I must say - thanks a lot for the amazing discussion. Lots to absorb there.

 

A quick question to both Vincent and Marc: in light of the film vs. digital discussion, I ask - what about the ability to process digital RAW files using RAW software? Film scans will need to go through standard sofware, which in my opinion aren't as powerful as the RAW processing ones.

 

Carry on ...

Here is what you should find, when comparing your digital files captured with your Canon EOS 5D, 12.8 megapixel camera, verses your images captured on film with Velvia 35mm transparencies that are scanned on A- a good desktop scanner, and B- with a professional scanner (Tango, Eversmart, Lanovia etc):

 

 

The digital "workflow" definitely is a superior system in my opinion, and probably in the opinion of most everybody nowadays. Like I stated above already, changing memory cards every 200-800 images -depending on size of card- (instead of every 36 images with film) plus no expenses for film OR developing OR scanning plus instant results is why most people have made the switch. Trust me, I understand.

 

 

The differences when printing small (3x5 up to 11x14) will be almost negligible with either of the three systems, though shadow and white detail will be better with the high end scanner over the desktop, but barely noticeable. Most digital outfits will not compete with film there either, but the latest generation digitals do now compete even in those white/dark problem areas as well as with long exposures.

 

 

Where things begin to change dramatically is when it comes to size of the prints or digital files. If all I really wanted to print was 11x14 and under, then there is no reason to send out for professional scanning. I also have the Minolta Dimage 5400 scanner and it does a very good job overall. Though admittedly I never used it for professional purposes and now a friend is using it and I seem to be in no hurry to get it back. Anyway, when a photographer decides to enlarge his work, then is where the playing field changes, and for me it changes dramatically. Take a 35mm slide and produce a 24x36 print, and you will see what's really what in a great big way. The desktops are then left in the dust because none can even get close to that size. My Dimage 5400 (at 5400 DPI, highest resolution of all desktops) could produce something like a 16x24 sized file, but even at that size, the lack in quality begins to show up. Images are softer, lacking pop, losing color, shadow and white water detail etc when compared with the professional scanners. Again, not really an issue at 11x14 and under. With the high-end scanners you can take a 24x36 and if you took the shot correctly (used a tripod when possible, quality glass, try to stay near f8, low grain film like Velvia etc. etc.) then you will consistently produce beautiful 24x36 Lightjet or Chromira prints, giclee with the Epson, wall tiles or whatever else one has in mind. I have also had more success than expected when enlarging even further, by going as large as 40x60 with surprisingly successful results, consistently. Though admittedly have not tried those very often and am sure not all images would work as well as needed.

 

 

Your digital camera raw file is about a 9.5x13.5 at 300 DPI. That means to create any print above a 9x13 the one doing so will have to interpolate. Digital raw files generally speaking are very clean and smooth. The exceptions there (more-so in the past or lesser quality outfits) are with longer exposures, white areas and shadows once again, where digital noise has been a major problem. When viewed as smaller or non-interpolated files or prints, it might not look quite as clean with all the digital noise, but generally speaking still often quite acceptable. When enlarged however, and subsequently interpolated to get large, the noise shows up in a very unpleasant way. Basically rendering larger images as often unacceptable. Assuming then, that white areas, long exposure and shadow areas among the newer generation digital outfits are finally competing with film and no longer a real problem, you do still have the issue of interpolation. You are still making a 24x36, or 40x50 FROM a 9x14 file. That is still a significant amount of "filling in the gap". Though admittedly, because your raw files are so clean to begin with, getting up there is not near as difficult as it was just recently. Here is where I believe taking a pice of 35mm vfilm and high resolution scanning has its advantages over using a digital outfit... even one of the newer and larger megapixel cameras. You can enlarge consistently, without interpolation and even go larger than with these digital outfits. But basically it takes a top of the line scanner to do this. IF one has a ton of film, as I would guess you do, you can expect as good a result even when printing smaller as your digital will offer (though not better) and should expect even better results when going super-large. Though again, much depends upon how the shot was taken.

 

 

The reason why digital would most likely be the direction of choice nowadays for somebody starting out, (my 19 year old son started out last year, and I made sure he went down the digital road) is because you rarely need super large images anyway. And even if you do, as you Marc have found out, you can get away with large prints even with interpolating quite successfully. plus as stated a dozen times the workflow factors are huge. The No-more-scanning is why I will eventually get into that format, so I believe. When I do finally get into digital, my guess is that I will be able to get a 20 megapixel camera for well under $5,000 and super wides will compete with what I have now. Just a lil-more patience....

 

 

I need to get back to work now. Thanks for the interchange. Been fun. Aloha.

You make many compelling points for doing exactly what you do Vince, and I must say I've never met anyone who makes such large prints quite as consistantly from 35mm. I think in the end large print capability comes down to exactly what you've stated about the ability to interpolate and the strenths/weaknesses of film and digital mediums there. I must say that I am incredibly impressed with how clean Canon RAW files are, even when interpolated. I printed a 30x40 of an ocean scene (Trasformation) that required several minutes of exposure, had lots of dark tones and still very little noise issues.

 

I'm waiting for that 20mp, sub-$5000 camera too. And I doubt Nikon will be the first to offer it ;-)

 

I wish you the best Vince. Keep selling those prints!

Looking at this,it seemed I am in another world.

 

Thanks again for sharing...

A usual another excellent shot. I like the composition and the effect of water and the clouds. It gives a 3D look. I like it a lot. Bravo.

Beautiful scene! I just shot my first roll of Velvia 50, and look for to seeing the results:)

Stunning composition, excellent depth and rich velvia color.

Excelente encuadre, magnifica luz, color y bellisima composicion, magnifica regla de los tercios. un cordial saludo Vicent.

Fantastic! A winner all the way 7/7

 

You ARE the master! Another incredible photo Vincent.

Breathtakingly superb execution. My hands tremble at the thought of a 24x36 print of this photo...

Best regards from Kenya,

Mark :]

It is almost impossible to choose a photo from a collection like this, Vincent! So I just closed my eyes and took this one, being absolutely sure that no matter which one I get, it will be just great!

 

Here it is the colors and the depth that hit me off my chair! Though there is a very distinct horizon between the sea and the sky, the whole image is domonated by a single color transition from the gray-blueish hues of the sea to the violett-redish hues of the sky.

 

I often have seen such compositions (and thus the 6 for originality) but rarely in such a quality!

 

Keep it up!