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.
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.
well frank, you're hitting the nail on the head for me. my medium format photography tends to be on neg film when shooting color. and i've gotten some great results with it. the only reason i shoot chromes on 4x5 is because, well, that's what i've managed to score for cheap in the expired market. i think, if someone gave me both a box of provia and a box of portra, i'd probably shoot the portra first. just because it gives me some latitude and scans well.
so...velvia fans. why? besides the color and contrast thing. is it just because you know the film well and are comfortable with it? or is there some technical reason beyond the 'look' that makes it worthwhile?
The colour response of transparency films is one reason for using them. Another is that when you scan film, you have an easy to view image to which you can match the image file. Then there is a situation when a problem might come up in commercial printing, such as a client complaining about colour, and you have ready proof in the chrome that what you shot started out properly; of course now taking into account that most work is delivered as files.
Another reason for me is that the local pro lab that I prefer to use does not do C-41 processing of 4x5 films. So while I suppose I could shoot colour negative films, but doing that creates a new set of problems for me (developing, client meeting image reviews, editing, sorting, scanning).
Anyway, certainly no reason for people to use E-6 films, unless they have good personal reasons to make that choice. In 4x5, I predominantly shoot E100VS and Astia 100F, two films for which I have yet to see any similar colour negative films that even come close to the same rendering of a scene.
I love Velvia, and I wouldn't shoot anything else. It is the only film that records colors the way I see them, the only film that captures the subtle colors that I see in many scenes, and I love the sharpness. Mostly I shoot the 50 version, but also shoot the 100 - different films for different purposes. For example, I will shoot the 50 doing landscapes and the 100 doing city scenes.
I just shot my first roll of Provia 400X (at the Sydney Opera House, no less), but haven't had it processed yet. I'm looking forward to seeing if it works for low light stuff.
Hey lighten up Mr. Petronio, levity was the only thing offered. Velvia is not my favorite either but it has it's place. In my ideal world I would rather shoot 160s and have a scanner and lab that could do it justice.
Thanks to all of you, guess that I'll have to try it to see the color myself, to answer the question about you "defiantly haven't tried it if you have to ask" no I haven't. I have been using a box of artista 200 edu to learn. I just wanted to try out some color sheet film and wanted to see if there was difference enough between the 50 and the 100 to spend the extra money on ... I have tried a box of Velvia 100 (I'm not finished, with it yet) having fun learning on the artista. Find that I want to branch out from the B/W.
. Velvia was never good for skin.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks