I've played with the idea of using Portra 160 but I'm concerned about how easy it will be to scan. Also, I haven't used negative film since high school. Now that I scan using a dedicated medium format scanner, I will to individually run each negative through just to get a contact sheet. I imagine this would be easier using a flatbed.
Ben Chase about 80-90 percent of people that have purchased prints from me have asked whether or not the image was modified in Photoshop
Of course, just use Corel Paint Shop Pro and then you can always say you didn't use Photoshop ;-)
I'm kidding, of course, this is more serious.
I would strongly suggest making a distinction between manipulating the subject in a software program and regulating the colors. Getting rid of telephone wires, removing the Eiffle tower "hat", or removing a car from the background is manipulating the image, whereas color saturation, or contrast curve modifications are regulating the colors. If you consitantly refer to it that way then your clients might not be concerned about the color/contrast regulation.
Where it gets sticky is the dodge and burn equivalent; to some its OK under an enlarger but not OK when computer manipulated, but I don't see the difference in the final print. (Except you can make a lot of identical prints.)
Eric's "so-called 'micro contrast' " concern is also a matter of the scanner contrast resolution (number of bits per pixel) and some scanners limit the depth of contrast to a noticable level and therefore the choice of film is more limited by the scanner. The software should easily allow one to match curves so that the final print is indistinguishable over the middle contrast range between just about any two film types.
Use both!
Either of the films used in the wrong situation will leave much to be desired. Velvia used in low light and low contrast situations will give a much needed boost to the colour and contrast. Astia used in high contrast situations will give a little more latitude.
I also use exclusively Astia, although I admit that I do miss the Velvia colors on the lightbox. Eric's "micro-contrast" concern relates to film tonal separation. If a film, due to lower contrast, doesn't separate well two tones, it makes it harder to have them separated in the final print.
As for photoshop manipulation, some people go to great length to have a disclaimer of "no manipulation", while others emphasize that their prints are the result of one week of digital work. Both seem able to sell prints.
When people ask me if I manipulate my images, I ask them to list photographers who don't. We all know Ansel Adams was the master of deception as was Galen Rowell ( I figure it is safest to only mention the deceased).
Hugh,
That is the double standard as I see it. We see in one thread how people use selective masking, burning, dodging, stand development, etc to alter their images.....and this is embraced.
We see people perform the EXACT SAME functions in Photoshop, and they are labelled as deceptive.
I realize that many people understand the similarity, but unfortunately, there are many who don't.
Hugh,
It's funny that you ask this question - this last weekend I decided to shoot some Astia 100F instead of Velvia. I sorta gotten burned on my last few Velvia 100 (not F) shots, where the saturation and contrast was just way over the top. It got to a point where delicate detail was no longer visible. Maybe I don't shoot enough Velvia, but I find it difficult to predict sometimes.
I'm so far very pleased with Astia. Sure it looks a little flat, but so does the real world. Astia will give you nice saturated colors if the scene is already colorful and saturated. For some reason my last few Astia shots came out a little too warm (it might have to do with the fact that my film was 5 months expired), nothing I couldn't correct in Photoshop. In most landscape shots, I usually want a nicely saturated sky, and for that I use a polarizer. There's not much you can do about the greens, and I agree that they look a little muddy. The grain on this film is amazing however. Easy to scan and nearly grainless.
Here's an Astia 100F shot I took last week:
http://www.eyildirim.com/ruins1larger.jpg
Only post processing done to this picture was +10 saturation and some level adjustments in Photoshop. It's not all that bad I think...
"The reason I ask is because about 80-90 percent of people that have purchased prints from me have asked whether or not the image was modified in Photoshop. "
If these are women just ask them if they wear makeup and why.
It is difficult for me to imagine a more nonsensical statement than to say that Galen Rowell was a master of deception. He was quite the opposite. His photographic ethics would not allow removing telephone poles from the image, for example. I wonder who you must be thinking of, but it is not Galen Rowell.
I normally use Provia for color landscapes. I bought a pack of Astia and tried a few shots on a trip last year to Utah. I was disappointed with the results-- I found the film to lack contrast and not produce accurate color in sunny situations. I realize that my experience conflicts with most opinions regarding Astia on this forum. Nevertheless, this is what I found.
Mike Lewis
mikelewisimages.com
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks