Provia 100F and Velvia 50

[Gary Ritson]

Hello, just a quick question. How much dynamic range in stops / exposure values should I be aiming for with Provia 100F and Velvia 50?
Thanks
Gary


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Drew Wiley]

You need to be more concerned with the centerpoint of optimal color saturation for respective hues. But that comes with testing and experience, and no doubt much debate from those unfamiliar with the principle. So I'll dumb it down to the common denominator everyone understands, and that is with respect to midpoint exposure being based on a standard 18%, and how much you can get away with plus or minus from there. Dynamic range per se is a bit misleading, cause it tells one almost nothing about the actual color reproduction quality of the extremes. Certain individuals might chime in with some overtly optimistic opinions based on what a densitometer or high-end scanner can pick up, but which won't print worth a damn. That's particularly the case with the deepest pits of Velvia, which dig way down there, but are almost completely unusable.

So I'm going to give you a conservative estimate instead, and others can give their own opinion. Provia 100F has a little bit less range than older Provia products. Anything above 1-1/2 stops above middle gray is going to wash out rather quickly and be only partially usable. Same goes the opposite direction. But if you squeeze hard enough on the lemon, and do curve corrections in PS or masking for sake of optical printing, you might gain 2 stops both directions, so an overall dynamic range of 4 stops. Some will no doubt argue 5 stops, but then you'll be into distinct fade-off somewhere.

Velvia will penalize you about half a stop on the upper end, and perhaps a full stop at the bottom end. With very careful metering, you might get a 4 stop range, but with risk of hue crossover. What I really liked Velvia for was not full contrast range subjects, but low contrast scenes where I wanted more punch and hue saturation, like in foggy or rainy conditions. Or you could let the shadows dump into black and thus underexpose a little for sake of better highlight reproduction.

The best idea is to do bracket tests on 35mm film of various representative scenarios to see what you can get away with, before buying a bunch of sheet film. Ideally, you'd want both Velvia and Provia on hand; or just forget about all of that and buy Ektachrome 100 instead, which has higher odds of remaining around anyway.

[Kiwi7475]

Drew’s experience matches mine. +/-2 stops around 18% grey, beyond that the shadows dip into purples (or other hue crossings depending on the situation) and the highlights wash out. It is best when used within -1.5/+2.

Unless contrast is very low already, this requires judicious use of grad filters and under non extreme dynamic conditions, ie. better for sunrise/sunset or shadowed areas (forests, overcast days,….).

E100 is cooler but doesn’t shift hues as quickly, it can handle a bit more, maybe -2.5/+2.5 if you are willing to work it in PS. It is also 20% more expensive than provia 100F for what’s an already expensive product to start with.

[Mark Darragh]

I'll second Drew and Kiwi's comments regarding Velvia 50. I find that Provia does give you a touch more range (-2.5/+2.5), slightly more than the current Etkachrome 100 too.


Tim Parkin, who occasionally contributes here, posted this example of Velvia some years ago. Interesting information but scanning colour targets photographed in a controlled situation is different to most photographic situations, even if you do have access to a Heidelburg Primescan. It does illustrate Drew's comments on the response of different hues though.

https://live.staticflickr.com/1456/26276532831_2da8b1fee8_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/G2Y6Kv)Velvia Dynamic Range (https://flic.kr/p/G2Y6Kv) by Tim Parkin (https://www.flickr.com/photos/timparkin/), on Flickr

[Alan Klein]

I'll second Drew and Kiwi's comments regarding Velvia 50. I find that Provia does give you a touch more range (-2.5/+2.5), slightly more than the current Etkachrome 100 too.


Tim Parkin, who occasionally contributes here, posted this example of Velvia some years ago. Interesting information but scanning colour targets photographed in a controlled situation is different to most photographic situations, even if you do have access to a Heidelburg Primescan. It does illustrate Drew's comments on the response of different hues though.

https://live.staticflickr.com/1456/26276532831_2da8b1fee8_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/G2Y6Kv)Velvia Dynamic Range (https://flic.kr/p/G2Y6Kv) by Tim Parkin (https://www.flickr.com/photos/timparkin/), on Flickr

I agree. More range with Provia. But nothing pops like Velvia 50 if you can live with dark shadows like the trees on the right side.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/50570908936/in/album-72157715763486212/
Provia is nice but the reds are more orangey than Ektachrome which are cooler.
Provia:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/51329770992/in/album-72157715763486212/

[Drew Wiley]

Gosh. When it comes to prints, and the specific film behind them, just the lighting balance can favor or diminish which colors looks dominant. I just switched the track lighting bulbs on my display wall to 5000K in order to match my lab standard. Before, I used warmer bulbs, preferably 4000K, but some 3500K too. Now all of a sudden, the blues and cyan hues are more alive, but the reds are backed off a bit, and reddish earthtones a little more reserved. That's no surprise. All I'm implying is that lighting itself can be an even more dominant factor than the choice between Velvia or Provia verus Ektachome. .... But with respect to the framed black and white prints, wow, 5000K really improves those, especially the cold-toned ones; and all the subtle toner qualities are a lot more evident too.

[SergeyT]

My rules for using color positive film are:
Anything at or below 1/60 @ F8 is fine.
Anything 1/80 @ F8 is border line (better to skip it)
Anything above 1/125 @ F8 - I don't do it.

[Drew Wiley]

What on earth are you talking about, Sergey? F/8 might be just fine for a generic snapshot mentality with small gear; but I don't think I've ever taken an actual view camera exposure at f/8 in my entire life - rarely at f/16, mostly at f/22 or f/32 for 4x5, and even smaller, generally f/45, with 8X10. And very few people are as nitpicky as I am about precise enlargements. Are you just referring to reliability of large format lens leaf shutters? With chrome films per se, using various formats, I done entirely successful exposures anywhere from 1/2000th clear down to half an hour long. But with view lenses per se, exposures as long as even 1/60th are rare - more often 1/15th down to several seconds. It's just the nature of depth of field issues, available light etc. I don't use strobe.

[SergeyT]

I always measure at that setting and then translate into the actual gear (camera\lens) settings
My math teacher kept saying that if students don't do match their brain become moldy...

[r.e.]

I always measure at that setting and then translate into the actual gear (camera\lens) settings

Don't sweat it. I think that that was clear from your post.

[Bernice Loui]

_?_ explain why with great detail _?_


Bernice



My rules for using color positive film are:
Anything at or below 1/60 @ F8 is fine.
Anything 1/80 @ F8 is border line (better to skip it)
Anything above 1/125 @ F8 - I don't do it.

[Drew Wiley]

OK. Thanks, Sergey. That's what I surmised. I do have a moldy brain, math-wise, so simply use the little dial on my Pentax spotmeter, which does it automatically.

[Bernice Loui]

What if lighting ratios (non "natural single light source aka sun) are involved?
Errors can easily creep in with each translation. Fewer steps, fewer possibility of errors.


Bernice



I always measure at that setting and then translate into the actual gear (camera\lens) settings
My math teacher kept saying that if students don't do match their brain become moldy...

[Kiwi7475]

My rules for using color positive film are:
Anything at or below 1/60 @ F8 is fine.
Anything 1/80 @ F8 is border line (better to skip it)
Anything above 1/125 @ F8 - I don't do it.

I’m also lost. Why is the answer expressed as a particular EV (that’s essentially what the time/aperture product gives you, when the other parameters, like iso, are constant) rather than dynamic range?

Unless you are implying a particular expected dynamic range based on EV, but I can hardly see how that’s generically valid. For example I can recreate very easily the equivalent of 1/125 @ F8 for a portrait in my studio. In fact I will usually shoot above that.

/confused

[Bernice Loui]

Adder, exposure tolerance for color transparency film about plus or minus 1/3 f-stop.

Accuracy exposure is absolutely essential for color transparency film.


Bernice

[SergeyT]

I am exposing my film in natural light only.
ISO 100 mostly. Meter settings in the previous post are for the ISO 100 (sorry, I had to mention that).
I find that outside of that range the images look either too harsh or too contrasty. Pretty much anything within that range records on positive film just right.
With such approach I do not have to think or worry about DR of my scene or DR of my film.

[Bernice Loui]

Except Natural "sun light" varies LOTs depending on the time of day, color temperature shift causing color shifts in the color transparency film which is a fixed-given for color transparency film. Add to this, lighting ratios difficult to control adding another factor-variable to image colors rendered on any color transparency film.

For some none of this is of any importance, others not tolerable in any way. Much about knowing precisely what will change the designed color rendition, density-saturation of any given color transparency film... then making choices that meet a specific image goal.

Bernice



I am exposing my film in natural light only.
ISO 100 mostly. Meter settings in the previous post are for the ISO 100 (sorry, I had to mention that).
I find that outside of that range the images look either too harsh or too contrasty. Pretty much anything within that range records on positive film just right.
With such approach I do not have to think or worry about DR of my scene or DR of my film.

[Alan Klein]

Adder, exposure tolerance for color transparency film about plus or minus 1/3 f-stop.

Accuracy exposure is absolutely essential for color transparency film.


Bernice

Many pros used to shoot chromes at 1/3 less of a stop to increase color saturation. Makes them "POP".

What I found interesting with negative color film like even Portra, is that when I bracket it, the colors actually shift. So while different exposures might work as far as getting lighting correct, the colors are different.

[Drew Wiley]

That would mainly be crossover with color neg films, and is very difficult to correct at time. It's always better to filter for correct color balance at the time of the shot, and use rated actual box speed per 18% middle gray reading. Some of the old advice about overexposing color neg films and underexposing chromes doesn't work well with today's professional films. More of an old wives tale at this point in time.

Another interesting thing is that Kodak and Fuji seem to differ on their precise definition of "photographic daylight". It's long been rumored that for Fuji chrome films, including Provia and Velvia, it's 5200K, and more own experience and careful testing seems to confirm that. But with Kodak it's always official been and proved to be 5500K.

[Bernice Loui]

There was a time Kodak made more than one version of "Ektachrome"

~Kodak E100

~Kodak E100S

~Kodak Lumiere

~and so on.. This was much about color saturation and inherent color balance designed into the film.
As previously discussed during this specific discussion under/over expose even by 1/3 f-stop can and will alter color balance. E6 processing can alter color balance. There is also the same over expose/under develop, underexpose/over develop thing for color transparency films.

Under expose does not always produce "higher contrast. Nor is "higher contrast" a "pro" thing or commercially desirable thing, higher contrast is just higher contrast. As the film contrast curve becomes steeper due to the "higher contrast" consider what is lost in this steeper film density curve?

Keep in mind, this higher contrast look became a "thing" back in those days and why view camera lens manufactures went about designing and producing "higher contrast" lenses via coatings and other lens design elements..

Consider why Fuji Velvia remains one of the most popular color transparency films while Fuji Astia died in the market decades ago.

All serves as a reminder about this previous LFF discussion:
[https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?164243-Why-View-Camera-amp-Sheet-Film-Today-in-our-here-and-now

Become relevant at about post# 24.



Bernice





Many pros used to shoot chromes at 1/3 less of a stop to increase color saturation. Makes them "POP".

What I found interesting with negative color film like even Portra, is that when I bracket it, the colors actually shift. So while different exposures might work as far as getting lighting correct, the colors are different.

[SergeyT]

Except Natural "sun light" varies LOTs depending on the time of day, color temperature shift causing color shifts in the color transparency film which is a fixed-given for color transparency film. Add to this, lighting ratios difficult to control adding another factor-variable to image colors rendered on any color transparency film.

For some none of this is of any importance, others not tolerable in any way. Much about knowing precisely what will change the designed color rendition, density-saturation of any given color transparency film... then making choices that meet a specific image goal.

Bernice

Makes me wonder how we arrived to such specifics from a question about film DR ?

Speaking of colors...
Sure, there are many factors that impact color rendition, but when it comes to outdoor photography, especially the nature photography, many of so-called color accuracy( fidelity) issues become mostly irrelevant. I do not think that such thing as color fidelity is a strong point in film photography. Fidelity to what, film manufacturer's intent, paper manufacturer's intent, one's beliefs or "artistic vision"?

[Drew Wiley]

I distinctly recall 1/2 stop underexposure advice for Kodachrome from certain very successful pros - namely, those who gained their reputations and made their living in slide show competitions! Talk about a past era! And their advice really worked for that. But once you tried to turn some of those same slides into color prints, or decent halftone reproductions - well, that was a different story entirely - basically, a boot in your rear from the printing department.

It was also popular to pull chrome films back then, at least Ektachromes and early Fujichromes, for sake of just the opposite, easier printing. And if one could tolerate a bit of highlight crossover risk, it did work. But with tighter manufacturing tolerances later on, both lines of film got a lot more demanding on spot on processing. Yes, a bit of pushing still works, if someone thinks they really need to fool around with that; but as most of you have probably already noticed, pulling chromes doesn't work so well anymore.

[Drew Wiley]

Sergey - color? I'm obsessed with it. I encounter all kinds of subtle complex hues in nature I've been trying to reproduce with film and paper for decades. Why can any reasonably skilled watercolor painter mix up those hues in a mere minute, but no photographic medium ever invented can come close? Now everyone just wants saturation. Well, saturate what? Just Kindergarten colors? The fact is, color photography is crippled, and we have to live within its limitations, and learn to see like a certain film and printing medium sees. That sure as heck doesn't keep me from trying. And anyone who babbles on that they can fix anything in PS and then print it in inkjet probably can't differentiate subtle hues to begin with. But we all need a challenge.

And I don't particularly appreciate your remark that in "outdoor" or "nature" photography color fidelity issues are "irrelevant". Are you advocating that everything done outdoors is supposed to fall under the umbrella of some "colorful" postcard stereotype? I doubt you meant that. Nothing we do with film can be rightly termed "realistic". But it sure would be nice to have a lot more leverage over nuance, like black and white photography makes feasible. Anyone can create noise with color film.

[Bernice Loui]

DR = Density Range ?

If yes, color transparency density range is directly tied to a color transparency film's color rendition/color shift dependent on exposure aka Density Range.

This has already been noted previously during this discussion. Or why these specifics appeared again in this discussion about Density Range, essentially Density Range_ color rendition/color shift are all tied together.

Color rendition not relevant to "nature photography", if this assertion or claim is true why? Under the guise of "artistic expression" or what folks want to
see -vs- the colors nature really IS _?_

~Or another example of why Fuji Velvia remains is demand and why Fuji Astia died years ago. If this claim holds correct and true, it goes back to why fantasy and want to believe is of far greater value than truth and reality.

As previously discussed on post# 33.
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?164243-Why-View-Camera-amp-Sheet-Film-Today-in-our-here-and-now/page4

Get serious about achieving proper/accurate color in outdoor "nature" scenes? Use a Minolta/Konica/Kenko color meter IIIF and a set of GOOD cc filters, used them properly with outdoor lighting conditions with color transparency film that has been gray card tester per post# 33.

When the colors were recorded horrid on film back then it was up to the print makers to "fix it" which makes their life a living hell. There folks who worked HARD to record proper color using cc filtration to equalize the differences in light color temperature and absolute on exposure with absolutely consistent and high quality E6 processing. This usually resulted in a color transparency the printer folks liked to work with.. instead of struggling with.

Today, folks have image software as their means of fix these "color issues".. question is, what are their points of reference for color?
Know color light therapy has become an effective therapeutic device... color.


For those who have any interest of what color printing folks had to or forced to deal with back in the day, watch these Tim Hall videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mss_EnQsq0o&t=2223s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5x7TDsHRV8&t=3758s


Bernice



Makes me wonder how we arrived to such specifics from a question about film DR ?

Speaking of colors...
Sure, there are many factors that impact color rendition, but when it comes to outdoor photography, especially the nature photography, many of so-called color accuracy( fidelity) issues become mostly irrelevant. I do not think that such thing as color fidelity is a strong point in film photography. Fidelity to what, film manufacturer's intent, paper manufacturer's intent, one's beliefs or "artistic vision"?

[SergeyT]

Drew,
I do not think you read me ever advocating for "fix everything in post" or "saturation is king".
BTW,
* I know at least 4 ways to deal with "saturation" or vibrancy without touching the saturation feature of PS.
* Saturation feature allows to increase saturation beyond 100% (as far as one wishes to go actually) and decrease by only a 100%

I am against over-complicating things. If one starts to account for all the factors and variables in outdoor conditions the likelihood of exposing film gets down close to 0.

Bernice ,

My point about color accuracy with film (especially slide film) that at best, the attempts (color filters to match the color temp of light, exposure at +/- 1/3 of a stop, etc) leave the photographer with a slide (film) that meets the indented criterias of the manufacturer (may include Product Managers, Engineers and in best case an Artist or two as consultants). Such exposed and developed piece of film, no matter how closely it meets these technical criterias, is nothing more than an interpretation of the actual scene ; and the interpretation rules are set at the time of production by the manufacturer. In other words, photographer gets what someone else "baked" into the film properties. Are these baked-in colors an accurate representation of the colors and relationship between them in the photographed scene? I hope that we can agree on the answer. Otherwise everyone will be shooting one type of color film of a given sensitivity.
Now, since we are dealing with someone's interpretation of colors (and that someone - the manufacturer, is not present at the time of exposure) , what is wrong with having more than one interpretation by deviating from the "ideal" camera settings or filtration at the time of exposure? Do such deviations necessarily (and always) devalue the resulting photographs , compared to the ones made from "perfectly" exposed\filtrated film?

[Drew Wiley]

No color film ever invented handles all hues accurately; and none ever will. But thankfully, there's still enough of a selection to choose the one most compatible with our own chosen subject matter and method of reproduction. Each has it's own distinct "signature", and it's important we understand the difference between what the film sees and our eyes do.

[Bernice Loui]

Sergey,

Ever done work with color transparency film as previously discussed in highly controlled studio strobe lighting situations then apply much the same to outdoor situations?

Color accuracy and precision and contrast rendition and saturation and hue can be FAR better than believed. And no, it is not any where as "subjective" as one might believe. Proof are in the color transparencies sitting here in storage boxes... which MUST be viewed with 5000 Kelvin light sources and room that does not impose it's color into the viewing area. Color rendition in film can be a LOT less subjective than most believe or know. That generation of folks directly involved with color film had a greater appreciation for color film than most would believe or know.. unless you've spent time with them doing this kind of color work.



Bernice




Drew,
I do not think you read me ever advocating for "fix everything in post" or "saturation is king".
BTW,
* I know at least 4 ways to deal with "saturation" or vibrancy without touching the saturation feature of PS.
* Saturation feature allows to increase saturation beyond 100% (as far as one wishes to go actually) and decrease by only a 100%

I am against over-complicating things. If one starts to account for all the factors and variables in outdoor conditions the likelihood of exposing film gets down close to 0.

Bernice ,

My point about color accuracy with film (especially slide film) that at best, the attempts (color filters to match the color temp of light, exposure at +/- 1/3 of a stop, etc) leave the photographer with a slide (film) that meets the indented criterias of the manufacturer (may include Product Managers, Engineers and in best case an Artist or two as consultants). Such exposed and developed piece of film, no matter how closely it meets these technical criterias, is nothing more than an interpretation of the actual scene ; and the interpretation rules are set at the time of production by the manufacturer. In other words, photographer gets what someone else "baked" into the film properties. Are these baked-in colors an accurate representation of the colors and relationship between them in the photographed scene? I hope that we can agree on the answer. Otherwise everyone will be shooting one type of color film of a given sensitivity.

Now, since we are dealing with someone's interpretation of colors (and that someone - the manufacturer, is not present at the time of exposure) , what is wrong with having more than one interpretation by deviating from the "ideal" camera settings or filtration at the time of exposure? Do such deviations necessarily (and always) devalue the resulting photographs , compared to the ones made from "perfectly" exposed\filtrated film?

[Bernice Loui]

Then comes the entire topic of color blindness or Ishihara color plate test.
https://colormax.org/color-blind-test/

Know men tend to have a higher rate of color blindness than women.
"1 out of 255 women and 1 out of 12 men have some form of color vision deficiency."
If interested in why, can share some current science based knowledge on this topic.

Color hue test:
https://www.alanranger.com/blogs/take-the-on-line-colour-test


Just two of many color perception factors that vary among individuals, difficulty with this reality of the human condition, an individual's perception of color is often projected upon others.. which might not perceive the same colors in the same way as another individual. Yet, there are absolute color points of reference that have been worked out over many decades of work on this specific topic by many individuals in this area of Art, Academia, and more.

~How does this figure into the discussion of color accuracy and precision and contrast rendition and saturation and hue _?_


Topic of color is a LOT more complex than most wanna know or believe.
Bernice

[Kiwi7475]

Designing, building, and testing a plane is a LOT more complicated than most wanna know too, but most of us just need to go from point A to point B.

Similarly, the need for exact accuracy and control is something most folks don’t need to get into , or honestly, care for most practical uses, such as portrait or landscape photography.

As usual, discussions here just end up making the most unnecessary turns away from what the OP was asking for.

[Bernice Loui]

If you're taking a aeroplane ride, lots that one does not need to know. If you're flying the aeroplane, lots the pilot must know.
~This is the difference here.

Once you're done the work and know very well what is possible and what is not possible at all, it is not possible to "un-learn" that knowledge, experience and all related to that. Being from a generation of Fotographers that HAD to learn this and know it extremely well, how does one "un-learn" or discount it's value?

Myopia is not always a good thing as expanding one's knowledge, learning from others with hard earned knowledge, experience, wisdom and more... is worth _?_


Bernice





Designing, building, and testing a plane is a LOT more complicated than most wanna know too, but most of us just need to go from point A to point B.

Similarly, the need for exact accuracy and control is something most folks don’t need to get into , or honestly, care for most practical uses, such as portrait or landscape photography.

As usual, discussions here just end up making the most unnecessary turns away from what the OP was asking for.

[Kiwi7475]

If you're taking a aeroplane ride, lots that one does not need to know. If you're flying the aeroplane, lots the pilot must know.
~This is the difference here.

Once you're done the work and know very well what is possible and what is not possible at all, it is not possible to "un-learn" that knowledge, experience and all related to that. Being from a generation of Fotographers that HAD to learn this and know it extremely well, how does one "un-learn" or discount it's value?

Myopia is not always a good thing as expanding one's knowledge, learning from others with hard earned knowledge, experience, wisdom and more... is worth _?_


Bernice


If you're taking a aeroplane ride, lots that one does not need to know. If you're flying the aeroplane, lots the pilot must know.
~This is the difference here.

Once you're done the work and know very well what is possible and what is not possible at all, it is not possible to "un-learn" that knowledge, experience and all related to that. Being from a generation of Fotographers that HAD to learn this and know it extremely well, how does one "un-learn" or discount it's value?

Myopia is not always a good thing as expanding one's knowledge, learning from others with hard earned knowledge, experience, wisdom and more... is worth _?_


Bernice

I don’t disagree it could be worth it, if knowledge was actually transferred.

All I read though is some people saying how much more complex it is, and random bits of factoids and ramblings that don’t really allow anyone to learn anything.if there’s documents, books, or resources that point to how the hue control was achieved, techniques that people could still use… that would actually be useful.

[Drew Wiley]

The limited selection of color films in this day and age still has to be versatile enough to keep the industry afloat, and at LOT of R&D history is behind these. But at the user end, I've worked as a color consultant, and I can very confidently state that 98% of color photographers have barely a clue about the complex interactions of physiology and psychology in how humans perceive color. Some high-paid Cinema photographers are good at it. And great painters have to know these things. And even differentiating complex hues is an acquired skill. One has to know how to approach it, and what to compare against what. Understanding the variables of light are also key.

It's NOT only about color temperature or density range or contrast, etc, but about relationships between hues and differing placements and specific volumes of color interaction, often subconsciously. Our eye cones are just like our taste buds, and react differently when refreshed than when exhausted by too much of a certain thing. Try drinking a fine cup of Java just after eating a cayenne pepper - that just doesn't make sense; you can't appreciate the nuances. Same thing when folks just want to oversaturate colors, and overwhelm our visual receptors. You can't really visually taste anything well, even if nuance is there somewhat. And simple de-saturation doesn't necessary work either. It all depends.

In manufacture, it's critical to tightly define critical points. But psychologically, those points move around depending on the colors around them, just like the motion of planets is affected by the gravity of other planets as well as the sun. It's all fascinating, and a wonderfully challenging dance.

And in the scope of all those possibilities, any given film can swallow only a small slice of the pie; and then how it's printed and presented, even a smaller slice of that. Learning to live within limitation goes a long ways to handling film eloquently, versus trying to beat it into something it's really not.

[Alan Klein]

The limited selection of color films in this day and age still has to be versatile enough to keep the industry afloat, and at LOT of R&D history is behind these. But at the user end, I've worked as a color consultant, and I can very confidently state that 98% of color photographers have barely a clue about the complex interactions of physiology and psychology in how humans perceive color. Some high-paid Cinema photographers are good at it. And great painters have to know these things. And even differentiating complex hues is an acquired skill. One has to know how to approach it, and what to compare against what. Understanding the variables of light are also key.

It's NOT only about color temperature or density range or contrast, etc, but about relationships between hues and differing placements and specific volumes of color interaction, often subconsciously. Our eye cones are just like our taste buds, and react differently when refreshed than when exhausted by too much of a certain thing. Try drinking a fine cup of Java just after eating a cayenne pepper - that just doesn't make sense; you can't appreciate the nuances. Same thing when folks just want to oversaturate colors, and overwhelm our visual receptors. You can't really visually taste anything well, even if nuance is there somewhat. And simple de-saturation doesn't necessary work either. It all depends.

In manufacture, it's critical to tightly define critical points. But psychologically, those points move around depending on the colors around them, just like the motion of planets is affected by the gravity of other planets as well as the sun. It's all fascinating, and a wonderfully challenging dance.

And in the scope of all those possibilities, any given film can swallow only a small slice of the pie; and then how it's printed and presented, even a smaller slice of that. Learning to live within limitation goes a long ways to handling film eloquently, versus trying to beat it into something it's really not.

I shoot Velvia 50 and scan but don't print just look on the screen, for now. I adjust colors, contrast etc to please my eyes. After I'm satisfied, I never check to see if I matched the colors of the original slides. Who cares? After all, some probably dead by now Japanese designer selected the original hue of the film. I want to please my eyes. Not match his preferences. So Velvia 50's design is just a starting point as would be any other film.

I don't think you have to have knowledge of all those variables you mentioned to get a pleasing picture. I rely on my eyes. If they are pleased, I assume other people's eyes would be pleased as well. In the end, it's our brain's interpretation of what's nice, not some formula. We're not trying to match the actual original colors. Unless you're doing ads for clothes manufacturers. Of course, knowing how to process film and prints requires that specialized knowledge of formulation. So there it's necessary if processing chemically. But with digital manipulation, that's kind of the same thing with possible more variables allowed.

[Drew Wiley]

That's somewhat uncorrect, Alan. Velvia is part of a trio of films which was designed and marketed to cover a range of applications, with each fine-tuned for its own niche. Other things being equal (which they never truly are), higher contrast can yield better separation of similar hues, but only within a certain range. And there are indeed certain colors which Velvia could handle superbly if within a stop or so plus or minus the center. But too far outside of that, one encounters issues. Then Povia products were (are) middle of the road. And Astia was slightly lower contrast, but by far the best balanced overall with respect to hue and gray scale neutrality, though certainly not perfect with respect to every possible color the eye sees.

Monitors are themselves limited, as are all the forms of making color prints or reproducing pictures for publications. The entire workflow has to come under consideration. And at one time, the color rendering characteristics of chrome films were very important commercially. Product photography or studio color portraiture could be nitpicky. And if the final output in a magazine or picture book didn't reasonably match what the editor picked out on the lightbox, somebody didn't get paid. Now, of course, commercial workflow has gone more digital; but there are still applications where some of us expect predictable results, especially given the high cost of color sheet film. That's why I control my own workflow, and do my own printing.

I rely on my eyes too, but also high quality reference standards, calibration of paper batches to master chromes and negs, etc. And one reason, among many, is that I often I pick out color relationships and compositions in nature that the public wouldn't even notice unless I carefully put them before their eyes. I'm not claiming those colors are totally realistic, but that an equivalent impression is involved. It's not about merely being "colorful". People walk right past things I take into notice and try to figure out what on earth I'm doing with my camera and tripod. After the shot, I'll allow them to peek under the ground glass, opening up the aperture of course. Even upside-down, the composition can be a revelation to them - Why didn't I see that?

I certainly don't avoid saturated color, but often phrase it in the context of sophisticated neutrals and subtle shades quite difficult to convey using color film. I need to squeeze every drop out of juice of the lemon that I can.

What I think you'll discover is that once you get past viewing scanned images on a screen and want something tangible in a frame on the wall, that a lot more is involved getting from Point A to Point B. So at the very least you will need to locate a quality lab capable of understanding exactly what you want, and with the skill level requisite to bringing that into realization. What might look great backlit on a screen or in a traditional slide show can often be a real bear to print. And that is where some of these film distinctions come into play.

[Bernice Loui]

Excellent points made by Drew on color films to prints to this film centric color image production

Notes on Fuji color transparency films are near identical to real world experience with these same Fuji color transparency films.

Yes indeediee, back in the day if your color transparencies had un-acceptable color balance-rendition-density and ... Not gonna get paid and your reputation will take a very unpleasant hit negative which will ABSOLUTELY impact your ability to put food on the table, roof over your head and work and future of making images. Any wonder why that generation of color transparency image makers worked SO hard to get it proper? Add to this deadlines to meet the demands of the printer and all involved. It was basically DO NOT "Screw up" and get it done GOOD.


Habits of old often continue on to this day, until what was once achievable can no longer be achieved in the ways it once can.
Bernice





Other things being equal (which they never truly are), higher contrast can yield better separation of similar hues, but only within a certain range.

~And there are indeed certain colors which Velvia could handle superbly if within a stop or so plus or minus the center. But too far outside of that, one encounters issues.

~Then Povia products were (are) middle of the road.

~Astia was slightly lower contrast, but by far the best balanced overall with respect to hue and gray scale neutrality, though certainly not perfect with respect to every possible color the eye sees.

~"Monitors are themselves limited, as are all the forms of making color prints or reproducing pictures for publications. The entire workflow has to come under consideration. "~


~~~~And at one time, the color rendering characteristics of chrome films were very important commercially. Product photography or studio color portraiture could be nitpicky. And if the final output in a magazine or picture book didn't reasonably match what the editor picked out on the lightbox, somebody didn't get paid. Now, of course, commercial workflow has gone more digital; but there are still applications where some of us expect predictable results, especially given the high cost of color sheet film. That's why I control my own workflow, and do my own printing.~~~

~I rely on my eyes too, but also high quality reference standards, calibration of paper batches to master chromes and negs, etc. And one reason, among many, is that I often I pick out color relationships and compositions in nature that the public wouldn't even notice unless I carefully put them before their eyes. I'm not claiming those colors are totally realistic, but that an equivalent impression is involved. It's not about merely being "colorful". People walk right past things I take into notice and try to figure out what on earth I'm doing with my camera and tripod. After the shot, I'll allow them to peek under the ground glass, opening up the aperture of course. Even upside-down, the composition can be a revelation to them - Why didn't I see that?

I certainly don't avoid saturated color, but often phrase it in the context of sophisticated neutrals and subtle shades quite difficult to convey using color film. I need to squeeze every drop out of juice of the lemon that I can.

~"What I think you'll discover is that once you get past viewing scanned images on a screen and want something tangible in a frame on the wall, that a lot more is involved getting from Point A to Point B."~

So at the very least you will need to locate a quality lab capable of understanding exactly what you want, and with the skill level requisite to bringing that into realization. What might look great backlit on a screen or in a traditional slide show can often be a real bear to print. And that is where some of these film distinctions come into play.

[Alan Klein]

That's somewhat uncorrect, Alan. Velvia is part of a trio of films which was designed and marketed to cover a range of applications, with each fine-tuned for its own niche. Other things being equal (which they never truly are), higher contrast can yield better separation of similar hues, but only within a certain range. And there are indeed certain colors which Velvia could handle superbly if within a stop or so plus or minus the center. But too far outside of that, one encounters issues. Then Povia products were (are) middle of the road. And Astia was slightly lower contrast, but by far the best balanced overall with respect to hue and gray scale neutrality, though certainly not perfect with respect to every possible color the eye sees.

Monitors are themselves limited, as are all the forms of making color prints or reproducing pictures for publications. The entire workflow has to come under consideration. And at one time, the color rendering characteristics of chrome films were very important commercially. Product photography or studio color portraiture could be nitpicky. And if the final output in a magazine or picture book didn't reasonably match what the editor picked out on the lightbox, somebody didn't get paid. Now, of course, commercial workflow has gone more digital; but there are still applications where some of us expect predictable results, especially given the high cost of color sheet film. That's why I control my own workflow, and do my own printing.

I rely on my eyes too, but also high quality reference standards, calibration of paper batches to master chromes and negs, etc. And one reason, among many, is that I often I pick out color relationships and compositions in nature that the public wouldn't even notice unless I carefully put them before their eyes. I'm not claiming those colors are totally realistic, but that an equivalent impression is involved. It's not about merely being "colorful". People walk right past things I take into notice and try to figure out what on earth I'm doing with my camera and tripod. After the shot, I'll allow them to peek under the ground glass, opening up the aperture of course. Even upside-down, the composition can be a revelation to them - Why didn't I see that?

I certainly don't avoid saturated color, but often phrase it in the context of sophisticated neutrals and subtle shades quite difficult to convey using color film. I need to squeeze every drop out of juice of the lemon that I can.

What I think you'll discover is that once you get past viewing scanned images on a screen and want something tangible in a frame on the wall, that a lot more is involved getting from Point A to Point B. So at the very least you will need to locate a quality lab capable of understanding exactly what you want, and with the skill level requisite to bringing that into realization. What might look great backlit on a screen or in a traditional slide show can often be a real bear to print. And that is where some of these film distinctions come into play.

Thanks for that info. I understood that once I go to printing then I would need to look at things a little differently. In the old days when I made prints, I gave the Velvias to the printer who did internegatives with 4x5s and printed on R (?) paper. He did a pretty good job so I guess he knew what he was doing.

[Drew Wiley]

R-prints are a thing of the past, so it will more likely be a scan and some kind of digital print, either Inkjet or a laser printer onto RA4 paper like Lightjet. In those cases, the better the scan, the better your odds of a good outcome. I don't think any commercial labs offer quality internegatives anymore; doing that in an optimal manner using current films is rather labor intensive, involving registered masks etc. I still do it, but only for certain of my own older chromes.

[Bernice Loui]

Color "R" - prints, consider color print fading with the passage of time. Often applies to many color prints with few exceptions, and the color layers do not fade at the same rate.


Bernice

[Drew Wiley]

Bernice - I just took back a large installation of framed 30X40 Fuji prints when a corporate office building changed ownership due to a retirement, which was intended as a "find out the truth" test all along, even though beautifully hardwood framed etc. The interior of that building was a gorgeous remodel, and they wanted something elegant to match. Anyway, these were printed on gloss Fuji CA Super C, and subjected to 18 hrs a day of distinctly less than ideal artificial lighting relatively high in UV, plus a certain amount of direct sunlight during the day from numerous overhead skylites. I overprinted these a bit more saturated to begin with so that they'd age gracefully, knowing in advance that the owners of that big law firm were targeting around 15 years before retirement. So now, after 15 years of relatively abusive display, they do indeed seem to look just right, but with a tiny bit of fading evident is the palest hues. No overall color shift yet. So extrapolated, that might lead to a 30 year estimate for the print lifespan under those same commercial conditions, and no doubt far longer under ideally illuminated residential conditions. Pretty good.

The latest flagship Fuji RA4 paper, which so far I've been unable to acquire a roll of, is claimed to be even more lightfast than Super C, and from all the specs seems to simply be the same emulsion as Fujiflex Supergloss coated onto RC paper base instead. And there is little doubt in my mind that Fujiflex has the best display life of any conventional color medium. Whether it has the same superb dark storage life as Cibachrome is something I simply won't live long enough to determine. But in all such cases, the term "archival" is unfortunately relative and rather malleable, and really depends on a range of variables, especially the duration, intensity, and UV content of the actual lighting involved. But great progress in permanence has been steadily achieved since the days of Type R and Ektacolor 74 prints. Chromogenic printing is no longer the ugly duckling of relative permanence.

[Bernice Loui]

Indeed Drew, those Type "R" kodak Ektacolor prints were not the most color stable with the passage of time. Kodak did improve the color stability problem, not to the degree Fuji did.

That Fuji CA print paper is GOOD, still have some prints from back in the day. They have held up surprisingly good. Think color stability was one of the Fuji selling points.
Cibachrome-Ilfordchrome comes to mind for color stability. Loss of this color print material was not a happy event as it remains one of the better color print materials. While difficult to work with to get really GOOD color prints, when done properly these color prints are simply a beauty to behold.


Bernice

[Serge S]

Well said:)
Many factors to be sure!


(in response to Drew Wiley Post above)