Reversal vs negative

[LocalHero1953]

I am a recent starter in 5x4 large format - I have only run through a box of 25 B&W, and 20 colour (Portra 400). I'm looking further ahead to the sort of photography I will be using the format for - probably mostly urban and rural landscapes, with occasional portraits. I am likely to use a mix of B&W (processed at home) and colour (lab processed). I cannot see myself doing any traditional printing at home, and rarely via a lab; I will scan most films using a DSLR (in multishot mode to get high res).

I have just realised there is no obvious reason for keeping to colour negatives. Why not use reversal films?

Pros:
Easy to evaluate the result from the film
No need for software to invert the image, which leaves you with reversed sliders etc in Lightroom. (I have Negative Lab Pro, but it is not a silver bullet - it leaves quite a bit of work to be done on colours).

Cons:
Is reversal film more expensive to buy and process?
Is the range of available reversal film severely limiting?
Are there other difficulties in digital processing of the scanned image?

[Alan Klein]

I've settled on Velvia 50 for the pros and cons you mentioned although I'm trying Provia 100 (not shot yet) and Ektachrome (shot a few but not crazy about the colors), as I'm new to them. I had problems with getting the exposure and colors right scanning Ektar 100. No problem scanning with Velvia 50. And you know immediately before scanning whether you nailed the exposure. I like the colors better in Velvia 50 then Velvia 100., Velvia 50 is expensive though and has to be bought directly from Japan in 4x5. Velvia 100 is available in 4x5 though in the USA. Do not know what's happening where you live in the UK. Shadows can tend to go dark with Velvia 50 so that's why I'm trying Provia 100 which is suppose to give better range. Portra is too bland for landscapes but scans well. Good for flesh tones. I rarely print so if you do that could change everything.

Nothing's perfect. Experiment with different films until you're happy.

[Bruce Watson]

Cons:
Is reversal film more expensive to buy and process?
Is the range of available reversal film severely limiting?
Are there other difficulties in digital processing of the scanned image?

Add to the cons:

* Very small dynamic range compared to negatives.
* Very high Dmax which makes scanning difficult.
* trannies may be WYSIWYG, but WYS isn't as color accurate as negative films (that's what the orange mask is about).

I took the opposite approach; I haven't used tranny film in decades.

[afotandolaciudad]

I rarely use color negative but lots of chromes. Neither on 4x5. I use Fuji and kodak chromes on 35mm, 645, 66 and 67. I love them

Price is my principal "con".


---------

Scanning colour negatives with DSLR is a pain. Not scanning slides.

[Heroique]

Add to the cons:

* Very small dynamic range compared to negatives…

Yes, a key "Con" to keep in mind. But when I have a nice composition in much flatter light than I desire, transparencies or Polaroid Type 55 (for b/w) to the rescue. That’s mainly why I keep trannies in some of my film holders for color work, and wish my beloved Type 55 was still around.

[Drew Wiley]

Lots of nuances, and therefore the need to be much more specific than just generic distinctions. Certain hues respond much better to one fashion of film than another, even with the same general category. High contrast can sometimes equate to better distinction between similar hues, with better saturation, especially in flatter lighting where a typical color neg exposure might turn out comparatively bland. I've shot and printed a lot of both varieties, and hence my aversion to blanket answers. Then you have to think about what is available now, and not just in the past, with a much tighter selection of not only color films in general, but the especially limited selection in sheet version.
Then there's the expense issue. Either way, twenty or thirty dollars per shot if you shoot 8x10, and include the cost of processing. Chromes are wonderful for being easy to analyze right atop a decent light box; but they're seldom as easy to print, at least in optical mode, which is still in my opinion the superior manner.

[ic-racer]

Chromes are difficult to print. But some people are attracted to difficult situations. I was, but I stopped when Cibachrome stopped.

[LocalHero1953]

Thanks everyone, for all the advice.
To confirm, I wouldn't be printing, except as an inkjet print from the scanned positive.

[Ari]

Add to the cons:

* Very small dynamic range compared to negatives.
* Very high Dmax which makes scanning difficult.
* trannies may be WYSIWYG, but WYS isn't as color accurate as negative films (that's what the orange mask is about).

I took the opposite approach; I haven't used tranny film in decades.

Same. I haven't shot chromes in 17 years. Limited use, shorter lifespan and too contrasty, in general.

[Corran]

Ask yourself how many times you've been in superlative lighting conditions where chromes will be usable and appropriate?

I have a few boxes of Velvia languishing in my freezer. I think I see lighting conditions worthy of shooting it a few times a year, and usually when I am not able to photograph...

[SergeyT]

Color Negatives are RAW format in "digital" world
Color Positives are out of the camera JPEG format in "digital" world

It takes time to learn how to deal with Color Negatives in editing software but once there - it is hard to get back to exposing Color positives again(due to limitations of the medium)

[SergeyT]

To add to that, the 'beauty" of large format is that you can expose many kind of films one after another without the necessity to use additional equipment (cameras or backs) or "burn" through the roll to replace one film with another in your camera. Just have a few holders loaded with all the films you want to try in a particular setting and then see for yourself what and when "works" better for you .

[Christopher Barrett]

I shot 4x5 chromes for a living for 12 years. Thousands and thousands of sheets. I don't miss them. What's the latitude of Velvia? Four stops?

[Drew Wiley]

Chromes are generally regarded as more permanent than color negs, but there are various factors involved.

[Bernice Loui]

For those new to sheet film, difficult to deny the visual appeal from a sheet of 8x10 color transparency or negative. Reality of this, after burning several thousand sheets of this stuff, the visual appeal is not the same as the first exposure to big sheets of film. Once the image maker is over this, comes the business of print making and all the challenges of print making. Fact and reality is, the hard factual and truth for the need to make sheet film color transparency (positives) is difficult to justify. IMO, color negative film has significant advantages over color positive film in numerous ways in the here and now of color image making.

The difficulties and challenges of achieving excellent color rendition and proper density on color transparency (positive) film is a LOT more difficult than most would know or have experienced.

Could be different for color transparency 35mm where it can be mounted per frame then projected to produce very enjoyable images. Up from that would be 120 roll with a Hasselblad projector.

As for color image longevity and stability, Kodachrome works, works GOOD.. as does the last generation of Fujichrome E6 films like Astia, they were some of the best made.


Bernice

[Alan Klein]

Thanks everyone, for all the advice.
To confirm, I wouldn't be printing, except as an inkjet print from the scanned positive.

Velvia 50 chromes are somewhat more difficult with the shadows, but color negatives have the problem of getting the colors right in post processing. That's a convoluted process with color negative film, I've found, and finally gave up. Also, when scanning, you can pull out more in the shadows in chromes than people think. Which is why I continue to shoot chromes. You can make your own conclusions by shooting and using different films yourself but you can see scans of Velvia here. The first three are 4x5 and the rest medium format from 6x7s.
https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort=date-taken-desc&safe_search=1&tags=velvia&user_id=55760757%40N05&view_all=1

[LocalHero1953]

Velvia 50 chromes are somewhat more difficult with the shadows, but color negatives have the problem of getting the colors right in post processing. That's a convoluted process with color negative film, I've found, and finally gave up. Also, when scanning, you can pull out more in the shadows in chromes than people think. Which is why I continue to shoot chromes. You can make your own conclusions by shooting and using different films yourself but you can see scans of Velvia here. The first three are 4x5 and the rest medium format from 6x7s.
https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort=date-taken-desc&safe_search=1&tags=velvia&user_id=55760757%40N05&view_all=1

Thank you. As soon as I have new bellows for my Gandolfi I shall get some trial boxes: perhaps Velvia 100, Provia 100F and Ektachrome. I'll leave Velvia 50 till I am sure it's worth the effort/cost of buying from Japan. As others have commented, it is easy to shoot and process small numbers of each. I agree with you about colour adjustment of colour negatives; as a long time digital photographer I have no problem adjusting colour in Lightroom or Photoshop, but the inverted sliders from a negative conversion add a layer of confusion. I've taken to exporting the basic inversion from Negative Lab Pro to TIFF and working on that.

[Bernice Loui]

The market demand for Velvia is very telling about color rendition and priorities.

What began as Fujichrome 50, evolved to become Velvia. It has false color rendition along with overly saturated contrast which pokes the viewers eyes in specifically appealing ways for some. It is fantasy and fiction, but extremely appealing for some which is why Velvia remains in high demand to this day.

Compared to Fuji Astia which IMO, IS one of the best color transparency films made for color accuracy, moderate contrast and realistic and truthful rendition of a given scene, this Fuji offering died a slow death decades ago.

Given this market fact and reality, "adjusting color" via software is essentially subjective given variables with monitor color/contrast rendition, color printer limitations, print materials and more. Each and every aspect of the film post production to print will have some adder or subtractor to the finished print.

Question persist and remains in mind, why produce color sheet film, then scan into a digital file, software alter then color print this digital file when a large digital image sensor camera appears to be the better way.. Given software capabilities, print color/contrast rendition and all related should be capable of emulating Velvia or what is desirable in the finished print.

Compare this to a time when the color transparency HAD to be produced correct in camera, no post process fixing in any way. That was a different world of color image making in many ways.


Bernice





perhaps Velvia 100, Provia 100F and Ektachrome. I'll leave Velvia 50 till I am sure it's worth the effort/cost of buying from Japan.

I agree with you about colour adjustment of colour negatives; as a long time digital photographer I have no problem adjusting colour in Lightroom or Photoshop, but the inverted sliders from a negative conversion add a layer of confusion. I've taken to exporting the basic inversion from Negative Lab Pro to TIFF and working on that.

[LocalHero1953]

The market demand for Velvia is very telling about color rendition and priorities.

What began as Fujichrome 50, evolved to become Velvia. It has false color rendition along with overly saturated contrast which pokes the viewers eyes in specifically appealing ways for some. It is fantasy and fiction, but extremely appealing for some which is why Velvia remains in high demand to this day.

Compared to Fuji Astia which IMO, IS one of the best color transparency films made for color accuracy, moderate contrast and realistic and truthful rendition of a given scene, this Fuji offering died a slow death decades ago.

Given this market fact and reality, "adjusting color" via software is essentially subjective given variables with monitor color/contrast rendition, color printer limitations, print materials and more. Each and every aspect of the film post production to print will have some adder or subtractor to the finished print.

Question persist and remains in mind, why produce color sheet film, then scan into a digital file, software alter then color print this digital file when a large digital image sensor camera appears to be the better way.. Given software capabilities, print color/contrast rendition and all related should be capable of emulating Velvia or what is desirable in the finished print.

Compare this to a time when the color transparency HAD to be produced correct in camera, no post process fixing in any way. That was a different world of color image making in many ways.


Bernice

My reasons for taking large format film photographs and taking them in colour are only partly aiming for faithful reproduction of colour.
I have recently started large format photography because I want the detail that LF effortlessly offers, and movements that LF cameras can easily do.
I want film because I see a difference in how it handles light compared to digital sensors - that is most obvious to me in highlights in negatives (an argument against reversal).
I want colour because I have always shot digital in colour, though I often convert to monochrome if the composition works better that way. I have nothing against B&W, and I expect to shoot B&W film to help me learn how LF photography 'works', at lower cost.
I also enjoy using simple mechanical cameras that in themselves are fine examples of workmanship, and I enjoy the challenge of taking good photos just one at a time, without the chance for immediate feedback.
Colour is important for me as an element of composition, and if I'm taking pure landscapes, or portraits (which I have not yet done in LF) then I want some colour accuracy. But I would be quite happy to enhance/adjust colour in, say, a sunset, and the colour of blue sky and green vegetation change throughout the day - I'm not fussed about perfect reproduction there.
These are just my views, obviously - I also enjoy the work of all those people who have different approaches.

[Alan Klein]

The market demand for Velvia is very telling about color rendition and priorities.

What began as Fujichrome 50, evolved to become Velvia. It has false color rendition along with overly saturated contrast which pokes the viewers eyes in specifically appealing ways for some. It is fantasy and fiction, but extremely appealing for some which is why Velvia remains in high demand to this day.

Compared to Fuji Astia which IMO, IS one of the best color transparency films made for color accuracy, moderate contrast and realistic and truthful rendition of a given scene, this Fuji offering died a slow death decades ago.

Given this market fact and reality, "adjusting color" via software is essentially subjective given variables with monitor color/contrast rendition, color printer limitations, print materials and more. Each and every aspect of the film post production to print will have some adder or subtractor to the finished print.

Question persist and remains in mind, why produce color sheet film, then scan into a digital file, software alter then color print this digital file when a large digital image sensor camera appears to be the better way.. Given software capabilities, print color/contrast rendition and all related should be capable of emulating Velvia or what is desirable in the finished print.

Compare this to a time when the color transparency HAD to be produced correct in camera, no post process fixing in any way. That was a different world of color image making in many ways.


Bernice
If I switched to digital, then I wouldn't have you to discuss film photography with. :)

[Bernice Loui]

Admission of binary guilt, most often used camera is the iPhone camera..

:rolleyes:
Bernice



If I switched to digital, then I wouldn't have you to discuss film photography with. :)

[Drew Wiley]

Velvia is bland compared to what is routinely being done these days via digital saturation. Velvia could be sugary. Most recent landscape work is more like buckets of jam and jelly and honey dumped atop a bowl of sugar cubes. Doesn't take long for your taste buds to go numb. No restraint, no balance.

[Bernice Loui]

Much about jabbing the eyes with color coated sticks of visual weaponry.

This what "landscape" images have become today to be "differnt" under the guise of expressive creativity?


Bernice



Velvia is bland compared to what is routinely being done these days via digital saturation. Velvia could be sugary. Most recent landscape work is more like buckets of jam and jelly and honey dumped atop a bowl of sugar cubes. Doesn't take long for your taste buds to go numb. No restraint, no balance.

[Alan Klein]

Velvia is bland compared to what is routinely being done these days via digital saturation. Velvia could be sugary. Most recent landscape work is more like buckets of jam and jelly and honey dumped atop a bowl of sugar cubes. Doesn't take long for your taste buds to go numb. No restraint, no balance.

I love Velvia, especially Velvia 50. Sorry I'm bland. :)

[Alan Klein]

Much about jabbing the eyes with color coated sticks of visual weaponry.

This what "landscape" images have become today to be "differnt" under the guise of expressive creativity?


Bernice

Sorry I'm hurting your eyes with my Velvia 50. Would you like my handkerchief to dab them? :)

[Drew Wiley]

These are all just tools, Alan. Velvia can be used tastefully just like Photoshop controls can be. As I've explained before, I found Velvia wonderful for certain kinds of hues, especially in low contrast lighting. No, for me personally it was certainly not the most versatile choice of transparency film, but valuable to have available in my overall tool kit. But some people just go hog wild trying to see who has the loudest megaphone when it comes to color. The psychology and physiology of color saturation has a lot more to do with relationships of hues to one another, and how they are modulated by intervening neutrals, than by sheer blockbuster axe-wielding brute force. That's why I almost literally threw up the first time I saw some Peter Lik prints - it was just like gagging on ridiculously over-spiced, over-sweetened, or over-salted food. Not even one drop of color sophistication.

[LocalHero1953]

My keenness to embrace reversal film has receded slightly in the last few days as I have worked out a basic recipe and workflow to invert colour negatives as a preset in Lightroom, based on Alex Burke's recommendations (https://www.alexburkephoto.com/blog/2019/10/16/manual-inversion-of-color-negative-film). With one click this gets me to a starting point that I can quickly tweak to my own satisfaction. It still leaves me with sliders going the wrong way, but it is quick and doesn't depend on adjustments within the Negative Lab Pro plugin. I shall still try reversal films, but in parallel with negatives, not as an immediate replacement.

[Alan Klein]

These are all just tools, Alan. Velvia can be used tastefully just like Photoshop controls can be. As I've explained before, I found Velvia wonderful for certain kinds of hues, especially in low contrast lighting. No, for me personally it was certainly not the most versatile choice of transparency film, but valuable to have available in my overall tool kit. But some people just go hog wild trying to see who has the loudest megaphone when it comes to color. The psychology and physiology of color saturation has a lot more to do with relationships of hues to one another, and how they are modulated by intervening neutrals, than by sheer blockbuster axe-wielding brute force. That's why I almost literally threw up the first time I saw some Peter Lik prints - it was just like gagging on ridiculously over-spiced, over-sweetened, or over-salted food. Not even one drop of color sophistication.

Provia is suppose to be better than Velvia to tone down the colors. I'm trying it now. Also has more stops. I started using Velvia after it came out. Outdoor Photographer and other magazines used it a lot on their covers, surely for it's "pop".

[Alan Klein]

My keenness to embrace reversal film has receded slightly in the last few days as I have worked out a basic recipe and workflow to invert colour negatives as a preset in Lightroom, based on Alex Burke's recommendations (https://www.alexburkephoto.com/blog/2019/10/16/manual-inversion-of-color-negative-film). With one click this gets me to a starting point that I can quickly tweak to my own satisfaction. It still leaves me with sliders going the wrong way, but it is quick and doesn't depend on adjustments within the Negative Lab Pro plugin. I shall still try reversal films, but in parallel with negatives, not as an immediate replacement.

Why are you not as happy with reversal film now due to Burke's methods?

[LocalHero1953]

Why are you not as happy with reversal film now due to Burke's methods?

I still like the idea of evaluating a colour film directly - I find it difficult as an orange negative, though I find less problem with B&W.
As for trying reversal, it will be just part of my large format exploration along side trails (which may turn out to be my main road eventually).

[Bernice Loui]

That would be a no on being able to "directly evaluating color film" visually by eye alone. Photographic film materials do no work this way at all. Be it color positive or negative film, LOTs of real time experience from making prints and in-camera film creation is a must to learn this highly demanding skill. To believe what is visual on that color transparency will be on the finished print is self deception due to the harsh realities of the print making process and limitations of any print making process.

~Know the very real limitations and advantages of color positive (transparency) films.

~Know the very real limitations and advantages of color negative films.

Highly recommend spending some study time with film curves of positive & negative film materials, how their color layers function, why they behave in the ways they do. As previously mentioned, there are plus-minus to both. Knowing these advantages / dis-advantages will go a long ways to applying these photographic film materials towards meeting your print goals.

Personally, in this day and age, there is little if any good reasons to use color positive (transparency) film for a overly long list of very real limitations.


Bernice




I still like the idea of evaluating a colour film directly - I find it difficult as an orange negative, though I find less problem with B&W.
As for trying reversal, it will be just part of my large format exploration along side trails (which may turn out to be my main road eventually).

[LocalHero1953]

Thank you for all the advice, which I shall take on board.
As a recent new member of this forum I find it really irritating that I cannot (unless I've missed something?) show my appreciation of individual posts by a 'Like' or 'Thanks' button. I am reading a number of old (and current) threads where it would be useful to do this as well.

[maltfalc]

My keenness to embrace reversal film has receded slightly in the last few days as I have worked out a basic recipe and workflow to invert colour negatives as a preset in Lightroom, based on Alex Burke's recommendations (https://www.alexburkephoto.com/blog/2019/10/16/manual-inversion-of-color-negative-film). With one click this gets me to a starting point that I can quickly tweak to my own satisfaction. It still leaves me with sliders going the wrong way, but it is quick and doesn't depend on adjustments within the Negative Lab Pro plugin. I shall still try reversal films, but in parallel with negatives, not as an immediate replacement.

after inverting the tone curve, export as a tiff and that'll give you a copy with a normal looking tone curve and sliders that work the way they should.

[LocalHero1953]

after inverting the tone curve, export as a tiff and that'll give you a copy with a normal looking tone curve and sliders that work the way they should.

I've been doing that once I have finalised the colour. I'm an obsessive colour tweaker though, so I'd rather work non-destructively on a dng if I can. I'm just trying to work out which are limitations I have to live with and which I can find a workaround for.

[martiansea]

I've been doing that once I have finalised the colour. I'm an obsessive colour tweaker though, so I'd rather work non-destructively on a dng if I can. I'm just trying to work out which are limitations I have to live with and which I can find a workaround for.

If you open the main image as a Smart Object in Photoshop, you can always go back and nondestructively tweak the Camera Raw development settings. All the other stuff; curves, inversion, color adjusting, etc... all live as nondestructive layers on top of the Smart Object. And if necessary, you can always merge the layers into a rasterized image that again sits on top of the original nondestructive Smart Object. I teach all my students to work this way in the university photo classes I've lectured.

[LocalHero1953]

If you open the main image as a Smart Object in Photoshop, you can always go back and nondestructively tweak the Camera Raw development settings. All the other stuff; curves, inversion, color adjusting, etc... all live as nondestructive layers on top of the Smart Object. And if necessary, you can always merge the layers into a rasterized image that again sits on top of the original nondestructive Smart Object. I teach all my students to work this way in the university photo classes I've lectured.

I'm beginning to realise that I would be better off editing mainly in Photoshop rather than Lightroom, for these reasons. LR is more useful for the many similar digital images I generate, but PS is better for one-offs.

[martiansea]

I'm beginning to realise that I would be better off editing mainly in Photoshop rather than Lightroom, for these reasons. LR is more useful for the many similar digital images I generate, but PS is better for one-offs.

This has been my experience. LR (or in my case, DXO PhotoLab) is good for quickly processing a large batch of images from a single shoot, but PS (or Affinity) is much better suited to "deep" editing of single images. I've always found LR's editing tools lacking and awkward compared to the PS equivalents.

[PatrickMarq]

Provia is suppose to be better than Velvia to tone down the colors. I'm trying it now. Also has more stops. I started using Velvia after it came out. Outdoor Photographer and other magazines used it a lot on their covers, surely for it's "pop".
I have tried Velvia on120 but I don’t like the colors, but the new Kodak E100 this I love. It’s quite expensive voor a box of 10 sheets 4x5 about 65€.
Now I have to development them myself as there is no lab where I live, it will be quite an adventure with the Stearman sp-445.

[Bernice Loui]

Color films be they positive or negative have a design / optimized color temperature where they render their designed in color balance.

Historically, to achieve the color balance/rendition designed into the film, precise-accurate-consistent light sources were used to achieve lighting color temperature needed by the film to be used. This coupled with CC filter tweaking and color densitometer testing of the film negative/positive can produce consistent, accurate color rendition as designed into the film. This is often no longer the common way color film is used today. Seems most color films both negative/positive are exposed using outdoor or variable "time of the day" color temperature sunlight.

~Note color temperature variations with time of day~
https://www.thelightingpractice.com/what-is-circadian-lighting/

This will alter the color balance of the film positive/negative added to the density of the film based on exposure time of the film.

Answer to this by some, fix it in Photoshop or similar software...

But, other factors dig in. Color rendition of the monitor, how software adjust color, ambient lighting in the work area and more...
Then comes making and viewing the print which is also affected by the light being used to view the color print. Color spectrum of the color print is also dependent on the basic colors used to make the print as they have a mixed color signature all their own. Print substrate and surface texture can also have an effect on color perception.

And.. the mind/brain compensates (there are emotional effects from color too) for color perception adding more variables to how any color print is perceived.


All this and more comes to mind anytime color prints are discussed. Question remains, how does any image maker "judge" color, what is the point of reference?
Bernice

[Alan Klein]

Color films be they positive or negative have a design / optimized color temperature where they render their designed in color balance.

Historically, to achieve the color balance/rendition designed into the film, precise-accurate-consistent light sources were used to achieve lighting color temperature needed by the film to be used. This coupled with CC filter tweaking and color densitometer testing of the film negative/positive can produce consistent, accurate color rendition as designed into the film. This is often no longer the common way color film is used today. Seems most color films both negative/positive are exposed using outdoor or variable "time of the day" color temperature sunlight.

~Note color temperature variations with time of day~
https://www.thelightingpractice.com/what-is-circadian-lighting/

This will alter the color balance of the film positive/negative added to the density of the film based on exposure time of the film.

Answer to this by some, fix it in Photoshop or similar software...

But, other factors dig in. Color rendition of the monitor, how software adjust color, ambient lighting in the work area and more...
Then comes making and viewing the print which is also affected by the light being used to view the color print. Color spectrum of the color print is also dependent on the basic colors used to make the print as they have a mixed color signature all their own. Print substrate and surface texture can also have an effect on color perception.

And.. the mind/brain compensates (there are emotional effects from color too) for color perception adding more variables to how any color print is perceived.


All this and more comes to mind anytime color prints are discussed. Question remains, how does any image maker "judge" color, what is the point of reference?
Bernice

When I scan Velvia 50 or other chrome film, I adjust the colors in post to my taste. I don't try to match what's on the film although I'm sure I get close to the original colors. I never look at my screen after editing and compare to the original slide. My theory is that the color palette of any film was developed by a Japanese engineer who liked the colors he gave us. In the case of Velvia, it's so old that the artist-engineer is probably dead. So who cares what he liked? The film only a start point.

[Drew Wiley]

I'm sure the development of specific color films involved far more than that, Alan. Certain compromises are always involved due to the inherent limitations of dye choice, coating methods, dye cloud structure - it's been evolving all along, all in the meantime having certain respective markets in mind.

[SergeyT]

I am with Alan.
Film or sensor are just an intermediate medium in the process of producing of an image (not many project slides nowadays).
The ultimate decision of how the image should look is up to the photog (or editor, or printer) and not to film manufacturer.
Color and color accuracy is an extremely subjective thing. Even with pure digital there are flaws. And at the end of the day, with many types of photography achieving color accuracy from photographed subject to final image is not really important (not talking about repro as even mega-$$$ digital with its ICC management is no silver bullet). Less so how the final image was made.

[Alan Klein]

duplicate

[Alan Klein]

Here are two Velvia 50 shots taken minutes apart of the same subject with two different lenses. Which one has the correct Velvia colors?

216446216445
#1 https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/5270637805/in/album-72157625476289859/
#2 https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/5270429762/in/album-72157625476289859/

[Bernice Loui]

No possible way to accurately-properly assess color rendition of these images via the web due to a remarkably long list of variables, from monitor settings, digitizing-scan of the film, viewing conditions and ...

Previously discussed on post# 20.
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?155445-Easy-Testing-Used-LF-Lenses/page2&highlight=elinchrome

Compare that film/system testing methodology to visual via digital file on a monitor.


Bernice




Here are two Velvia 50 shots taken minutes apart of the same subject with two different lenses. Which one has the correct Velvia colors?

216445216446
#1 https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/5270429762/in/album-72157625476289859/
#2 https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/5270637805/in/album-72157625476289859/

[Alan Klein]

No possible way to accurately-properly assess color rendition of these images via the web due to a remarkably long list of variables, from monitor settings, digitizing-scan of the film, viewing conditions and ...

Previously discussed on post# 20.
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?155445-Easy-Testing-Used-LF-Lenses/page2&highlight=elinchrome

Compare that film/system testing methodology to visual via digital file on a monitor.


Bernice

That's my point. Color rendition to match the original or other similar pictures are not important. The photographer should adjust based on their aesthetic interpretations, not what some manufacturer designed into the film. That design is only a start point.

[Bernice Loui]

Importance of color rendition becomes a value judgement and perception of any given individual. There are absolute points of reference and metrics of measure to assure absolute color fidelity. This was the accepted color photography industry standards and standards creative artist working in photography stuck to and held to. "We" understood these rules, and understood them well. Knowing and understanding these "rules" allowed massive bending of these "rules" with equally massive control over bending these "rules".

What has changed is the user base for color transparency (positive) film.

That link to post# 20 on testing film via a certified McBeath color chart, Precise-accurate studio strobe lighting, same film lot, Speciality E6 processing lab, color densitometer testing for density of R_G_B, then apply the needed CC filters to move the color rendition to neutral was common and standard practice for any color photographer that was serious about accurate and proper color rendition back in those days. Color viewing was done using broad spectrum 5000K lighting (Not white LEDs) There were few if any exceptions.

Today, the majority of color transparency film users are making images outdoors under extremely varied lighting, very questionable E6 processing, control of exposure is not going to be within 1/10 f-stop, processed film scanned into a digital file, then subjectively evaluated under essentially un-controlled conditions.... video monitors and all... Essentially a free-for-all color judgement process touted as "artistic license"..

These are the same factors that continues to make Fuji Velvla a high demand color transparency film to this day..
It is also why Fuji's most accurate and IMO best ever made color transparency film Astia died over a decade ago.

Folks tend to fantasy -vs- harsh reality.


Bernice






That's my point. Color rendition to match the original or other similar pictures are not important.

[Corran]

Color temperature doesn't matter unless you are doing work that requires it to.

The natural world doesn't need accurate color temperature - the film gives you exactly what color was there based on the light reflected and its proportion, with some characteristics of the film included. Whether a "white" looks "white" (reflecting all colors in equal proportion) doesn't matter whatsoever when you are trying to capture the color of the light actually reflected from your subject. Seems obvious but I have seen people ask about using a blue filter during sunset to get the "white balance" right. Missing the point there...

Since the vast majority of LF photography today is in this category of non-critical personal work rather than commercial/scientific work, all this about color temperature, accuracy, CC filters, etc. is rather pointless. Somewhat more important is the processing, age of film, etc. if you want repeatability and a result as expected given experience. Otherwise it's all good and usable regardless with some caveats, especially once scanned and edited later, as all E-6 must be since printing it traditionally is dead for all but a few people worldwide.

Some Velvia, before it was called "50", very old and developed at home in a 3-bath kit:

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-HD-HVYlntx0/WspSFQvhWNI/AAAAAAAAMfg/_bWm-6C_xD4YKDqtmFW7A9T6RSv9ucPHACLcBGAs/s900/gibbs-9052s.jpg

[Bernice Loui]

Yep, Velvia false color..

Matter of preference, not necessarily "artistic preference"... for some it is, for others it is not.


Bernice


Color temperature doesn't matter unless you are doing work that requires it to.

The natural world doesn't need accurate color temperature - the film gives you exactly what color was there based on the light reflected and its proportion, with some characteristics of the film included. Whether a "white" looks "white" (reflecting all colors in equal proportion) doesn't matter whatsoever when you are trying to capture the color of the light actually reflected from your subject. Seems obvious but I have seen people ask about using a blue filter during sunset to get the "white balance" right. Missing the point there...

Since the vast majority of LF photography today is in this category of non-critical personal work rather than commercial/scientific work, all this about color temperature, accuracy, CC filters, etc. is rather pointless. Somewhat more important is the processing, age of film, etc. if you want repeatability and a result as expected given experience. Otherwise it's all good and usable regardless with some caveats, especially once scanned and edited later, as all E-6 must be since printing it traditionally is dead for all but a few people worldwide.

Some Velvia, before it was called "50", very old and developed at home in a 3-bath kit:

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-HD-HVYlntx0/WspSFQvhWNI/AAAAAAAAMfg/_bWm-6C_xD4YKDqtmFW7A9T6RSv9ucPHACLcBGAs/s900/gibbs-9052s.jpg

[Corran]

Yep, Velvia false color..

Nope, just "Velvia" color. That's all that needs to be said, and we all get it that you don't like it (which is totally fine).

As I said, the film imparts its characteristics. That's neither a positive or negative, pun intended. Some people choose oil, watercolor, acrylic, etc., either pastels or more saturated colors depending on their intent, needs, etcetera - and yes this is always an artistic choice, if one chooses for it to be so.

[Bernice Loui]

Expressively for ARGUMENT...only.

Put that real life leaf next to the Velvia color transparency.. There is NO possible way that leaf looks the way it does as rendered by Velvia, aka Velvia ~False~ color rendition and why Velvia remains a color fantasy color transparency film making is SO popular to this day.

Yes <-> no ?


Bernice


Nope, just "Velvia" color. That's all that needs to be said, and we all get it that you don't like it (which is totally fine).

As I said, the film imparts its characteristics. That's neither a positive or negative, pun intended. Some people choose oil, watercolor, acrylic, etc., either pastels or more saturated colors depending on their intent, needs, etcetera - and yes this is always an artistic choice, if one chooses for it to be so.

[Corran]

Why should that matter to me, you, the viewer, or anyone? With the understanding that very few, if anyone is doing LF film commercial reproduction work and this is not a factor in the discussion.

I note that b&w imaging is also inherently "different" from reality as we perceive it (assuming no color blindness or other issue). How is this any different from using Velvia?

[Bernice Loui]

Back to individual values, yet there remains absolutes and truth-reality.

Artistic expression does not always mean bending truth-reality-the way nature really is, yes <-> no ?
Making stuff that is market appealing and saleable often involved bending facts-truth-reality into what one wants to believe, no <-> yes ?

Fact is none of this image making and all means much of anything to most, all of it is only relevant to those interested and wanting to be involved with it all in some way.

For the sake of further inflaming this ...

False color, different take. 360mm Imagon, no disc, Kodak Ektatchrome, crappy-quickie scan intented.
216474

Picking a fight for the sake of pressing passions & opinions & ego...no thanks.
Bernice





Why should that matter to me, you, the viewer, or anyone? With the understanding that very few, if anyone is doing LF film commercial reproduction work and this is not a factor in the discussion.

I note that b&w imaging is also inherently "different" from reality as we perceive it (assuming no color blindness or other issue). How is this any different from using Velvia?

[Drew Wiley]

The color response dye peaks and curves in any given film are engineered to operate in a specific way in balanced relation to one another at a specific color temperature. With Kodak, photographic daylight is 5500K, with Fuji it seems more like 5200K. Yes, unless one has a critical assignment where hues and the gray scale need to be rendered at correctly as possible, they are at perfect liberty to bend to the rules to their own taste. Often a chrome will provide an appealing look in this manner, even though it is somewhat inaccurate.

More often these days, I run into types who try to get away with the same tricks using Ektar color neg film; it comes out looking like hell, and then they call Kodak stupid, even after they've spent a week beating the image to death in Photoshop. A simple correction filter at the time of the shot could have saved them all the fuss. And very few of those people ever learn to correctly work with an objective standard like the MacBeth Color Checker Chart to begin with. They think they're smarter than decades of proficient practitioners of the past just because they have some new push-button toys; but the proof is in the pudding, and theirs often tastes outright raunchy.

So Bernice is completely correct with respect to what it takes to get chrome shots as color-accurate and predictable as possible. Personal esthetic decisions and preferences are a valid topic in their own right, but not the same question. When it comes to uncompromised hue accuracy and gray scale balance, few tasks are more demanding than making high-quality duplicates. Fuji's CDU series of duplicating sheets films was basically just tungsten-balanced Astia; and then when Astia 100F finally came out, it proved for me to be the best dupe film ever, with the additional important improvement of being on dimensionally stable polyester base instead of triacetate, which shrinks.

I was glad that Fuji once offered a trio of chrome film species between Astia, Provia, and Velvia. But there is no single silver bullet. I loved the way old Ektachrome 64 could reproduce the complex dirty hues of greiges, sage greens, and so forth; but it didn't yield brilliant clean spring green unless one jumped through the hoops of dye transfer printing, which allowed the red contamination to be selectively removed from the green. Then Fuji 50 came out and changed all that - clean primary greens, but the subtlety of complex greens was lost. I could of course apply analogous statements to all kinds of other hue categories. One picks the right tools for the job, and nowadays the available selection of chrome films is less than what is once was.

[Corran]

No fight-picking here, just pushing back a bit on your statements. Of course artistic expression does not inherently imply "bending" reality, but NO photograph, regardless of medium or tools used, is a completely perfect "truth." Simply choosing a composition and including/excluding what is in the picture distorts our ability to perceive the whole of what was there in real life, not to mention leaves out all of our other senses outside of visual (and may limit even those, when removing color).

Market appeal has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

At the end of the day using Velvia over Astia is no different than using an R25 filter on b&w film over shooting naked, or using movements to correct keystoning vs. shooting at an angle to get the perspective distortion. This is ALL a distortion of "reality" and is a matter of individual choice at the time of exposure. About the only possible way this is somehow "wrong" is if one chooses to use a certain tool or technique only because that was/is the "accepted" or "popular" thing, rather than thinking for themselves and making the choice based on how they want the image to look.

PS: I say all this as someone who is leaving E6 behind for the most part, save for what I already happen to have in the fridge/freezer.

[Bernice Loui]

Well Drew,

How does this hard learned, very real experience becomes accepted fact-truth-reality for those who never had to struggle with this innate personalty baked into photographic materials?

Again, point being. Fully understand the photographic materials to be used. Apply them properly, once this is done artistic bending to any degree is more than possible .. with vast control to meet that artistic vision..

This could be partly due to a generational difference where those that grew up with digital imaging and software image bending habits then try to force them upon photo-chemical process materials that do not behave like digital image files. The generation that spent their efforts and struggles working within the limits of these photographic materials learned the very difficult way what it took to get proper results, then worked with them as these photographic materials demanded.

The realization the two worlds of Photo-chemical photographic materials are not the same as a digital image file needs to be appreciate and well understood instead of being a hammer with everything looks like a nail.




Bernice



The color response dye peaks and curves in any given film are engineered to operate in a specific way in balanced relation to one another at a specific color temperature. With Kodak, photographic daylight is 5500K, with Fuji it seems more like 5200K. Yes, unless one has a critical assignment where hues and the gray need to be rendered at correctly as possible, they are at perfect liberty to bend to rules to their own taste. Often a chrome will provide an appealing look in this manner. More often these days, I run into types who try to get away with the same thing using Ektar color neg film, it comes out looking like hell, and then they call Kodak stupid, even after they've spent a week beating the image to death in Photoshop. A simple correction filter at the time of the shot could have saved them all the fuss. And very few of those people ever learned to correctly work with an objective standard like the MacBeth Color Checker Chart to begin with.

So Bernice is completely correct with respect to what it takes to get chrome shots as color-accurate and predictable as possible. Personal esthetic decisions and preferences are a valid topic in their own right. When it comes to uncompromised hue accuracy and gray scale balance, few tasks are more demanding than making high-quality duplicates. Fuji's CDU series of duplicating sheets films was basically just tungsten-balanced Astia, and then when Astia 100F finally came out, it proved for me to be the best dupe film ever, with the additional important improvement of being on dimensionally stable polyester base instead of triacetate.

[Drew Wiley]

Every really good digital printer I've known was a highly skilled color darkroom printer first. Limitation is really liberation. Anyone who thinks they can do just anything because they have the technology to do so, rarely does anything well. And mastering any given technique takes time and commitment. I went from Cibachrome, which only a fool thought he could tame - I danced with it instead, and let it lead - and parallel with that, made commercially worthy chromogenic prints from the various color neg films of the era. But once the handwriting on the wall concerning the demise of Ciba was apparent, and I had to commit to color neg films chromogenic printing for my much more demanding personal work as well, it proved to be quite a transition, made in unison with certain important improvements in the materials themselves. But the effort was worth it. Now it's more of a supply issue per se, with shortages due to the pandemic. So back to black and white printing for awhile.

[Corran]

More commentary:

Just because someone like me hasn't needed (nor wants) to shoot E6 in a commercial setting doesn't mean I haven't dealt with color temperature accuracy, color charts, and all of that kind of thing for (digital) commercial work. Neither does it preclude someone like me from understanding the irrelevance of this type of methodology when shooting E6 film for other, less color-accuracy-demanding work, and finally it does not disqualify my opinions or observations about E6 materials as used for landscape images or similar.

Many here also need to realize that shooting and printing E6, in 2021, necessarily involves digital imaging/editing at some stage, namely scanning and printing via any medium. This fact seems to be continually ignored. And one need look no further than Instagram or other online photography sharing venues to see many, many instances of E6 film being used for serious landscape and other "art" images.

Drew: per above, then I guess soon there will be no good printers at all? Give it a break.

My final statement because this has grown tiresome. Back several years ago when I had a large two-person show, the vast majority of images shown were taken on E6 film, scanned on a high-end flatbed, then edited digitally and printed via inkjet onto textured Epson paper. These were choices I made based on how I wanted the image to look, and E6 films have a unique look that at that time and for that work I valued. That's what matters, and if one is looking for that kind of look, they should shoot E6 and whatever films give them that.

[Bernice Loui]

Pushing back more...

ALL photographic image are bent impressions at best. There is no such thing as "straight photography" or similar moniker as humanoids have two eyes fostering visual depth perception no two dimensional flat image could ever hope to render. That alone enforces the fact, photographs and flat paintings (yes, even raised oil paintings) are essentially 2D falsehoods of reality-truth-facts.

~Now how does any individual render expressive images within these hard realities of the medium's limitations... This has been previously discussed on LFF to lots.

Again, and once more. photo-chemical materials have very specific limitations baked into them by the folks that designed and produce them. Acceptance of this is non-optional, acceptance is mandatory.

To claim there is no absolutes and fixed givens for what and how any photographic material innately behaves, illustrates a lack of understanding of these photographic materials.


Enough said,
Bernice





No fight-picking here, just pushing back a bit on your statements. Of course artistic expression does not inherently imply "bending" reality, but NO photograph, regardless of medium or tools used, is a completely perfect "truth." Simply choosing a composition and including/excluding what is in the picture distorts our ability to perceive the whole of what was there in real life, not to mention leaves out all of our other senses outside of visual (and may limit even those, when removing color).

Market appeal has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

At the end of the day using Velvia over Astia is no different than using an R25 filter on b&w film over shooting naked, or using movements to correct keystoning vs. shooting at an angle to get the perspective distortion. This is ALL a distortion of "reality" and is a matter of individual choice at the time of exposure. About the only possible way this is somehow "wrong" is if one chooses to use a certain tool or technique only because that was/is the "accepted" or "popular" thing, rather than thinking for themselves and making the choice based on how they want the image to look.

PS: I say all this as someone who is leaving E6 behind for the most part, save for what I already happen to have in the fridge/freezer.

[Corran]

Bernice, your first paragraph is practically a quote of what I said in the quoted post, and your last statements have nothing to do with anything I've said.

Perhaps it's time to drop the professorial tone and talking-down to others, especially if you are putting words in others mouths.

[Drew Wiley]

Take it easy, Corran. I took you off "ignore" for a reason. You often have valuable insights of your own, so I don't want to circumvent them. But there are still various ways to print chromes which involve no digital intermediary steps whatsoever. The original shot can be interpreted or re-interpreted in many ways. But these all-darkroom routes inherently involve a lot of step-to-step hue and gray scale accuracy calibrations in-between. In terms of maintaining the look of the actual original in reproduced fashion, I've found out how to make very precise internegatives from current color neg sheet films plus precise masking steps. I only do a limited number of these per year because it is involved and costly; but I have the correct equipment and background, and the end result is visibly better detailed and more hue precise than inkjet printing.

I'm also one of those fiddling intermittently with dye transfer printing, which is still feasible; but it seems like every time the needed block of time arrives to get into depth with it, some new lingering family emergency arrives. That's just what happens as one's parents and other extended family members themselves get older and need a lot of attention. Then there are also a number of other alternative color printing pathways if one wants to get involved with the UV side or printing color. Otherwise, for new color work, I've switched completely over to color neg film itself, and making RA4 prints from these is quite simple, with supplemental masking being an optional tool. But bagging a fully cooperative color neg in the first place does require paying attention to color temperature, especially if Ektar is involved, at least if one expects the clean kind of look previously offered only by chrome film.

[Corran]

I was referencing Cibachrome. That's part of the reason I am shooting C41 instead as I've started dabbling with RA4 but haven't done all that much, and mostly just experimental printing without any film to start with. I don't consider myself a color printer anyway, at least not primarily.

However a good E6 shot in conditions that make it shine is still a lot of fun, even if I'm not typically printing them. I do have an old-school projector like I grew up using in schools, and have projected 8x10 and 4x5 chromes with it just for fun.

[Bernice Loui]

Yet, absolutely relevant and connected.

~Why _?_


Bernice




"your last statements have nothing to do with anything I've said."

[Alan Klein]

There's no reason Velvia 50 can't have pastels and less impressionable saturation since you're controlling the final after the scan. While this film "pops", you can tone down the results or amplify it, both to taste. My practice is don't overdo it. When you think you reached the right level, probably too high, turn it down just a notch. Actually the film was just as pastelly as the picture shows. Velvia just does nicely with colors for my taste.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/11854936794/in/album-72157626597775701/

[PatrickMarq]

Color temperature doesn't matter unless you are doing work that requires it to.

The natural world doesn't need accurate color temperature - the film gives you exactly what color was there based on the light reflected and its proportion, with some characteristics of the film included. Whether a "white" looks "white" (reflecting all colors in equal proportion) doesn't matter whatsoever when you are trying to capture the color of the light actually reflected from your subject. Seems obvious but I have seen people ask about using a blue filter during sunset to get the "white balance" right. Missing the point there...


As color intrepetation is always a something that triggers a lot of emotions. The same goes with removing object(s) from a scene.
But for me the choice of staying with film is based on the characteristics of the film.
According of the season, subject or how I see it. I choose reverse film, color negative or B&W and there you have also different options :-)
And I don't touch the colors a lot afterwards, and yes there will be 'false colors' but this is the main reason of film otherwise you can buy a large format digital camera and play around with the RAW file until you have 'real' colors. But still this will be your interpretation of the scene.

[Alan Klein]

As color intrepetation is always a something that triggers a lot of emotions. The same goes with removing object(s) from a scene.
But for me the choice of staying with film is based on the characteristics of the film.
According of the season, subject or how I see it. I choose reverse film, color negative or B&W and there you have also different options :-)
And I don't touch the colors a lot afterwards, and yes there will be 'false colors' but this is the main reason of film otherwise you can buy a large format digital camera and play around with the RAW file until you have 'real' colors. But still this will be your interpretation of the scene.

I agree. Trying to saturate a portrait film like Portra made to complement flesh tones properly, will just distort the colors. Likewise, using Velvia or even Ektar when shooting people is hard to change the saturation to reflect proper flesh tones. You have a certain amount of flexibility, but that's it.

You can't get blood from a turnip.

[Drew Wiley]

Right tools for the right job. But I actually used chrome film and Cibachrome for even portrait work, and was paid a premium for that option specifically, even though it was easier just to shoot Vericolor or whatever and C-print it. So in that case, mastering your chosen tools is really itself partially synonymous with the "right tool", which potentially differs person to person. But I never have liked turnips.

[Bernice Loui]

Color transparency film to print for portraits IS more difficult due to the difficulty to achieve proper color balance combined with the higher contrast nature of this combo.

Historically, Kodak VPS was the Go-To color negative to C-print film, had good "skin tone" color rendition with moderate contrast. Kodak VPS was forgiving and user Ooops tolerant enough to good results more often than not.

Then came Fuji NPS and NPH, which in various ways bettered Kodak VPS causing Kodak to formulate a replacement for VPS.

Lost track of how many rolls of 120 film burned in-out of three Hasselblad cameras back then. Had to get the A12 backs serviced more than a few times due to wear.


Bernice

[Drew Wiley]

For several decades, expensive high-end portraits were printed via dye transfer, which customarily started with chromes, not negs. There was a negative option, but the transparency route offered more control. And at that time, dye transfer prints were considered more permanent than chromogenic C-prints. A number of portrait studios specialized in that; and of course, during the same era, the color quality of the movie industry reached its apogee with the related Technicolor process.

I've seen some remarkable 5X7 format Kodachrome shots of Hollywood celebrities of the era used for sake of dye transfer printing, as well as sets of in-camera separations on B&W film via a Curtis 5X7
RGB tricolor camera. They came from Hurrell's studio, although he in more commonly known for his black and white portraits of celebrities.

[FrankFromMontreal]

For me in Canada, the pros for E-6 film is that it is half the price of color negatives. (velvia 100 is what I use)

I'm no expert by any means, but I can safely say that color positive film usually has less dynamic range than color negative.

This means you have to be more careful about your exposure, and if you miss your metering, there is less room to correct in post processing.

[Drew Wiley]

That will probably change. Pricing jockey's back and forth, but eventually reaches equilibrium once supply and demand themselves do; and unfortunately, it's trending higher. Here, LF chrome film is more somewhat more expensive overall if you factor in processing, wherein E6 often carries a surcharge above C41. And it's harder to locate 8X10 processing either way, versus 4x5. The wild card, 5X7 processing, or 11X14, is even harder to locate. The same kind of dip n' dunk machines might be used for all these respective formats; but not everyone has all the various film carrier sizes on hand. But here in California, all the options are available cumulatively, one lab or another.