Why Velvia 50 was and is so well liked?

[Robert Fisher]

I think Philip Greenspun (remember him ?) said the difference between art and snapshot is the use of Velvia. I still like the Velvia colors for landscape, but with the control over color afforded by digital printing, it is not necessary to use Velvia to get those kind of colors. Ideally, one would use Velvia for flat light and other film for strong contrast. However, as an universal film, Velvia is no longer my choice.

QT, as a pro shooter, what is your default 4x5 film?

Thanks!

[JPlomley]

What is the point of shooting chromes at all, anymore? I mean I enjoy seeing them on a lightbox and sometimes I'll look at some old ones of mine to see how they're aging out of morose curiousity... but really there is no practical purpose to use E6 other than to make slides for old school art museums.

Ever seen a properly exposed Velvia 50 chrome projected on a Leica Pradovit RT-m projector with a Leica 90mm/2.5 SuperColor Plan Pro Lens in a multi-projector show? Or how about a Mamiya RZ Pro-Cabin 6x7 projector? My wife and I still give wildlife and landscape presentations on these projectors and always have people at the end questioning their switch to digital. Nothing beats a projected chrome. For 4x5 I still shoot chromes because nothing gives me as much pleasure as throwing that puppy on a light box, taking it all in, and then examining the detail, depth, and color with a Schneider 3x 6x7 loupe.

[Bill_1856]

Ever seen a properly exposed Velvia 50 chrome projected on a Leica Pradovit RT-m projector with a Leica 90mm/2.5 SuperColor Plan Pro Lens in a multi-projector show?

Looks like Ringling Brothers circus posters compared with Kodachrome II or 25.

[QT Luong]

QT, as a pro shooter, what is your default 4x5 film?

Thanks!

None :-) I use old Astia in 5x7.

[jetcode]

I've never been a fan of Velvia either. It might have been a more useful tool before scanning and the digital workflow, when color control with transparency film was more limited. I find it is much easier to shoot either Fuji Astia or Kodak E100G. The colors are much more natural. If I find I need extra saturation, then I do that in Photoshop.

As others have mentioned, Velvia has very un-natural skin tones. It is really for landscapes.

At best Velvia can be used to increase color saturation and provide a pleasant image. At it's worst it is gaudy and unrealistic, images look artificial and contrived. And I agree that if a natural color image needs more contrast or saturation PS is the tool to do that and with far more control.

[roteague]

At best Velvia can be used to increase color saturation and provide a pleasant image. At it's worst it is gaudy and unrealistic, images look artificial and contrived. And I agree that if a natural color image needs more contrast or saturation PS is the tool to do that and with far more control.

I quite like the color palette of Velvia. You can't get it using PS.

[jetcode]

I quite like the color palette of Velvia. You can't get it using PS.

Given enough time you can pretty much simulate any color film on the market in PS. It takes skill, a layer each for Red, Green, Blue and a color analysis tool to do so but I thoroughly believe it is possible. You have complete control over color balance, saturation, hue, etc. To be honest Velvia is really good for some types of photography but not all types of photography. I am begnning to experiment with 100G and have used Ektachrome in the past but not for landscapes. At this point straight forward landscapes are no longer my first passion unless there is something really interesting in terms of graphic content; trees, mountains, streams, oceans become a blur after awhile. If the photograph is really well executed I could care less what film it was captured on. To me Velvia is a tool for a specific job.

I'm glad it's your favorite. I've seen your photographs and they are beautiful.

[David_Senesac]

Even if you are just refering to nature and landscape photographers, I think your perception that many prefer the film is dated. Just a few years ago before the digital camera revolution most photographers could not post process at all so Velvia and other high contrast, high saturation films elevated the color aesthetic of many images. Due to my realistic landscape style, I never wanted to use the film In the early 90s a good friend of mine would put that any other types of film in his35mm camera while I was still using KR64 in mine. We'd watch a mediocre sunset and both snap a shot. Mine came back looking boring but his would often come back looking like it had been a wonderful sunset with nice reds and pinks that were only light pastels during the experience. Thus over time we had fun seeing how it rendered a lot of different subjects. Depending on the subject, the result may be not too far off of reality to quite garish. As an early user of Photoshop in the mid 90s, I knew there would be a day when others would abandon such films for more color neutral films like those today of Provia, Astia, and EPN-100 since it is better to start adjusting an image that captured a scene reasonably accurately. ...David

[joolsb]

Given enough time you can pretty much simulate any color film on the market in PS. It takes skill, a layer each for Red, Green, Blue and a color analysis tool to do so but I thoroughly believe it is possible. You have complete control over color balance, saturation, hue, etc.

Seems like a lot of trouble to go to. Why not just shoot Velvia and be done with it?

Conclusion: shoot the film which has the colour balance that best suits whatever it is you are shooting and don't waste your time trying to fake it later.

[JPlomley]

Just back from a 10 day trip to Acadia NP. Shot RVP 50, RVP 100, and E100VS. I recorded many of the same scenes on all three emulsions. Chromes were initially interrogated with a Schneider 3x (6x7cm) loupe and then a Schneider 6x Aspherical loupe to determine resolution. All lenses were Rodenstock (55 APO Grandagon, 75/4.5 Grandagon-N, 90/4.5 Grandagon N, 135 APO Sironar-S, 210 APO Sironar-S, 300 APO Sironar-S) except for one Nikkor (120 Macro). Here are my conclusions:

Resolution: RVP 50 > E100VS > RVP100
Grain: E100VS > RVP 100 > RVP 50 (i.e. E100VS had the most noticeable grain)
Magenta: RVP 100 > E100VS >> RVP 50
Warmth: RVP 50 >> E100VS > RVP 100
Reds: RVP 100 >> E100VS >> RVP 50
Shadow Detail: RVP 50 > E100VS > RVP 100
Greens: RVP 100 > RVP 50 >> E100VS

Perhaps most surprising for me was the "warmth" of the new Velvia. When using the old Velvia I would routinely use an 81B filter. This no longer seems necessary. For reds, the new Velvia 50 is not even close in vibrancy and saturation to E100VS/RVP 100. I did one experiment where I shot with and without the Singh Ray Color Enhancer Polarizer on Velvia 50. Even with this magic bullet, the reds still lacked the punch delivered by the other two emulsions without the enhancer. As an aside, avoid this filter with RVP 100...it is overkill. So for fall foliage with plenty of red, the RVP 50 stays in the bag.

For shadow detail, RVP 100 just blocks up horribly in anything but overcast conditions. The other two emulsions do a much better job here.

Resolution/Sharpness tested on high frequency detail, hands down RVP 50. I did not even need to put the 6x loupe on the chromes to see this difference.

Magenta cast, most evident in scenes containing whites such as birch bark, RVP 100 is the worst offender.

For Greens, no surprise here, Fuji rules the roost. The E100VS greens look a bit muddy and flat in comparison. But there is something bothersome with the new RVP 50. In some images with yellows (leaves, reinder lichens etc), there seems to be a greenish cast. I found this a bit disturbing since I had never noticed this in the previous version of Velvia.

So does any of this matter given the color correcting capabilities in Photoshop? Probably not. But the resolution difference could make a difference depending how large one wishes to print. In this case, RVP 50 has a definite advantage despite all its other limitations (reciprocity etc).