Another vote for Portra 160 or Fuji Pro 160; current neg films scan very well.
Another vote for Portra 160 or Fuji Pro 160; current neg films scan very well.
I favor Provia 100 pushed two stops. The film is much lower contrast than Velvia and handles highlights much better.
There is a drawback, however, if you submit your images for publication, since going head to head on a light table with a more saturated film like Velvia, the Provia will seem flat.
But, there is no need for a proof print.
I admit, that I have been able to take advantage of free push service at the lab I use here in the states (Calypso), but there are other reasons I prefer Provia over the Velvia. In pushing the Provia two stops, I gain an effective ISO of 400 which is handy to have when working with smaller apertures and slower lenses, yet there is no noticeable degradation of the film.
Now that Photoshop has the "align layers" feature, it is a bit easier to do multiple scans for images with higher dynamic range, one for highlights and one for shadows, and then combine the two. Takes a bit of time, but works.
I tend to prefer Kodak E100VS, since the saturation gives lots of colour to work with in post. However, my other film of choice is Fuji Astia 100F, which is nearly as easy to scan. I don't have specific experience with the Epson 750, so you might need to experiment a bit to find a film that scans easily on that; the suggestion of colour negative film might be easy for you to work with on a low end scanner.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat Photography
So Michael, what film would you use if the end result is to be a nice (in my case not fine art!) print. I ask this question seriously, as a beginner.
For 4x5, it is easier to justify using Velvia because one is only using a sheet at a time. In low contrast, non-windy situations, it excels. If the wind kicks up and the dynamic range is more challenging, one can immediately switch to another film (in my case Provia 100). So, I carry both Provia 100 and Velvia 4x5 Quikloads in my kit.
While not impossible to do, the same strategy doesn't work as well with a medium format camera with a non-swappable film magazine. In that case, the roll of film needs to be exhausted before moving from one film type to the other, which is neither cost effective nor convenient.
I'd recommend what I use: Fuji Astia and Fuji Pro 160S (rated at 100). Both are wider latitude than Velvia (Pro 160S by far), and both scan easily. 160S gets used when the contrast is too wide for Astia. Both can be made to look more Velvia-like during post-processing.
Take a look at the attachment here. While this isn't the most ideal viewing (having been miniaturized to 72ppi and converted to sRGB), it will give you an idea of how these films behave relative to each other. The Velvia and Astia were scanned and only color corrected to match the chrome. The 160 has been color corrected to most closely match the Astia. The Acros scan has had no adjustment.
Velvia is a good-looking film under the right circumstances, but it mostly definitely isn't a multi-purpose film.
Michael E. Gordon
http://www.michael-gordon.com
I generally find myself switching between Velvia 50 and Velvia 100 in those situations.
Depending upon what you are doing, of course. I shoot Velvia, either 50 (mostly) or 100, almost the time. In fact, in LF, I haven't shot any but Velvia in a couple of years; the film just works for me. However, in 35mm or MF, I will often switch to the new Provia 400X.
My favorite film for years was NPS 160. I find the extra latitude very beneficial, especially when scanning. I've now gone to Kodak's neg material in LF. Any perceived deficiency in colour can be juiced up in PS without blocking up shadows etc.
*************************
Eric Rose
www.ericrose.com
I don't play the piano, I don't have a beard and I listen to AC/DC in the darkroom. I have no hope as a photographer.
Bookmarks