Why Velvia 50 was and is so well liked?

[Wanderon]

I'm new to film so to speak in the realm of 4x5, I have used film in my 35mm camera but not the low ISO 50. Why is it that many of you like this film. I know that it is a slower film but what can it do that the 100 wouldn't do, is it the grain factor, or what? I'm wanting to try some out to see but would like some thought from you folks first. I'd like to know what type of shooting you mostly do with it. Is the new better than the older film?
Ralph

[Walter Calahan]

The way it captures color and contrast, as well as the fine grain.

[Gary Tarbert]

If you have to ask you definitley havn't used it,grain factor is not the reason colour pallette is,and no the new is not on first viewing (only exsposed 6 sheets so no critical
comparisons made yet)any better:) .cheers Gary

[Bill_1856]

Velvia is very useful in hiding mediocre images behind a kaleidoscope of colors.

[nicol_verheem]

A film salesman once told me about a university study on "human color memory". Basically if you are shown a color swatch, and asked 10 minutes later to pick it out of 1000 similar swatches, you'll be close. An hour later, statistically eveyone pick something 10% more saturated. 24h later, everyone picks something 20% more saturated. So basically human memory remembers color more staurated than it was.

So Fuji (especially Velvia) aims to mimick how you'll remember the scene, not how it looks. Cool story at least.

I like shooting provia and velvia of the same scene, scan the provia, and adjust in CS2 until it resembles the velvia on a light box. I find the velvia too hard to scan with a low dmax scanner like mine.

[rippo]

so...ok...i'm in the same position. i've have only shot velvia in roll format, and it was asa 100, and maybe two rolls. so i've had little experience with it, but more experience with provia in 4x5 format. i don't spend a lot of time with chromes on a light table. they go into my scanner and get worked on that way.

so, if i'm only using chromes with scanners and photoshop, is there still any benefit? i can get similar color and contrast (not saying identical!) in PS. are there any other non-contrast, non-color reasons to shoot 'velveeta'?

[walter23]

Velvia is very useful in hiding mediocre images behind a kaleidoscope of colors.

No, that's the job of Fortia ;)

For the record, I'm perfectly happy with Velvia 100, and one of my favorite films so far is Kodak Ektachrome E100VS. I don't have a lot of experience with velvia 50 though.

[SamReeves]

COLOR, COLOR, and COLOR! :p

[rippo]

i seem to recall getting that 'color' thing on provia too though. ;)

[riooso]

I keep trying to get into Velvia 50 and keep going back to Velvia 100. The grain of both is excellent. 50 is like balancing a ball on a razor blade to get the right exposure. I often take the same shot with Velvia 100 and Provia 100 and the only difference is Provia has a more natural look to it. The saturation of both is very close at a good exposure. If I were to do it again I would start with Velvia 100 and Provia, much more managable and you will like the results of both. You still have to get another film that will work better in high constrast conditions but that is what is really good about sheet film you can pick the film that you want to shoot.

Good Luck,
Richard

[Frank Petronio]

I always thought it was crap.

[riooso]

Wait a minute Frank! you shoot a lot skin, a lot! :) . Velvia was never good for skin.
Richard

[Frank Petronio]

22 years of landscape, architecture, corporate work

>2 years of, umm, skin

I just really dislike the purple skies and overly intense greenery, it reminds me of a lightweight high on bad mushrooms.

[Christopher Hansen]

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

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

[Frank Petronio]

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

[rippo]

well frank, you're hitting the nail on the head for me. my medium format photography tends to be on neg film when shooting color. and i've gotten some great results with it. the only reason i shoot chromes on 4x5 is because, well, that's what i've managed to score for cheap in the expired market. i think, if someone gave me both a box of provia and a box of portra, i'd probably shoot the portra first. just because it gives me some latitude and scans well.

so...velvia fans. why? besides the color and contrast thing. is it just because you know the film well and are comfortable with it? or is there some technical reason beyond the 'look' that makes it worthwhile?

[Gordon Moat]

The colour response of transparency films is one reason for using them. Another is that when you scan film, you have an easy to view image to which you can match the image file. Then there is a situation when a problem might come up in commercial printing, such as a client complaining about colour, and you have ready proof in the chrome that what you shot started out properly; of course now taking into account that most work is delivered as files.

Another reason for me is that the local pro lab that I prefer to use does not do C-41 processing of 4x5 films. So while I suppose I could shoot colour negative films, but doing that creates a new set of problems for me (developing, client meeting image reviews, editing, sorting, scanning).

Anyway, certainly no reason for people to use E-6 films, unless they have good personal reasons to make that choice. In 4x5, I predominantly shoot E100VS and Astia 100F, two films for which I have yet to see any similar colour negative films that even come close to the same rendering of a scene.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

[roteague]

I love Velvia, and I wouldn't shoot anything else. It is the only film that records colors the way I see them, the only film that captures the subtle colors that I see in many scenes, and I love the sharpness. Mostly I shoot the 50 version, but also shoot the 100 - different films for different purposes. For example, I will shoot the 50 doing landscapes and the 100 doing city scenes.

I just shot my first roll of Provia 400X (at the Sydney Opera House, no less), but haven't had it processed yet. I'm looking forward to seeing if it works for low light stuff.

[riooso]

Hey lighten up Mr. Petronio, levity was the only thing offered. Velvia is not my favorite either but it has it's place. In my ideal world I would rather shoot 160s and have a scanner and lab that could do it justice.

Richard

[Wanderon]

Thanks to all of you, guess that I'll have to try it to see the color myself, to answer the question about you "defiantly haven't tried it if you have to ask" no I haven't. I have been using a box of artista 200 edu to learn. I just wanted to try out some color sheet film and wanted to see if there was difference enough between the 50 and the 100 to spend the extra money on ... I have tried a box of Velvia 100 (I'm not finished, with it yet) having fun learning on the artista. Find that I want to branch out from the B/W.

Ralph

[Patrik Roseen]

The colour response of transparency films is one reason for using them. Another is that when you scan film, you have an easy to view image to which you can match the image file. Then there is a situation when a problem might come up in commercial printing, such as a client complaining about colour, and you have ready proof in the chrome that what you shot started out properly; of course now taking into account that most work is delivered as files.

Another reason for me is that the local pro lab that I prefer to use does not do C-41 processing of 4x5 films. So while I suppose I could shoot colour negative films, but doing that creates a new set of problems for me (developing, client meeting image reviews, editing, sorting, scanning).

Anyway, certainly no reason for people to use E-6 films, unless they have good personal reasons to make that choice. In 4x5, I predominantly shoot E100VS and Astia 100F, two films for which I have yet to see any similar colour negative films that even come close to the same rendering of a scene.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

I am with Gordon. I like shooting chromes so I can judge the quality of a frame without scanning it. If I want it printed I can point at the chrome and say that this is what it should look like.
Also, for 4x5 I have fallen in love with E100VS, really nice colors. For MF I have been shooting Agfa 100 RSX II, with very accurate and nice colors.

[Bruce Watson]

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

I'm with Frank on this one. Frank, don't look sooo shocked! ;)

I quit shooting trannies years ago. All my landscape work is with 160PortraVC (because it comes in Readyloads) or 400PortraNC (nothing better when you need the speed). The Portra films drum scan beautifully.

The one point where negatives loose out to trannies for me is the instant gratification of seeing a tranny on a light box. But with practice one can learn to see past the orange mask and the reversed colors, just like evaluating a B&W negative, or that upside-down and backwards view on the ground glass. It's not a big loss as far as I'm concerned.

That said, I think people should use the tools and workflows with which they are most comfortable. If you like working with tranny film, go for it. Choice is a wonderful thing.

[Gary L. Quay]

I got into shooting Velvia becuse a wise person at my favorite camera shop told me that the color was sensational. He also said, "This film will make or break you hand-held metering technique. If you can cosistantly handle this film's exposure latitude, you can shoot anything." I added some words for clarity, but that's what he said. I used it as a learning tool, and shot miles of it over the years because people said "wow" when they saw my work. I haven't used much of it lately; however, because of the disappearance of reversal paper. I can't print from it in my darkroom until I can learn (and afford) Ilfochrome.

[Dan Fromm]

I've never understood why anyone likes Velvia. The colors are false and it renders some greens as black.

But there is a reason to prefer slow film to fast, and its not grain. I do a fair amount of closeup work out of doors with flash. I prefer (great stress prefer, not everyone shares my preferences) to overpower ambient completely and have all of the photographically useful exposure come from the flash. By Sunny 16, with shutters that have relatively low sync speeds (most 35 mm SLRs, all larger ones with focal plane shutters), using flash as I prefer with ISO 100 films sometimes forces use of an aperture that's too small.

With small leaf shutters that sync flash at 1/400 the problem isn't nearly as bad, so with LF the need for a really slow color film isn't as great as with 35 mm.

IMO, ISO 50 is too fast for full control of aperture as I shoot macro. ISO 25 is about right. That's why I mourned when KM was discontinued.

[roteague]

I've never understood why anyone likes Velvia. The colors are false and it renders some greens as black.

Obviously, those who shoot it don't agree with you. I see nothing fake about the colors, nor do I find it renders greens as black.

[Gary Tarbert]

Hi Ralph , Sorry didn't mean to sound like a smart A... ,as this thread shows opinion
can be divided anybody that shoots mainly portraits , iwould not reccomend velvia
Although can work for browner skin subjects forget it with fair skin european complexions,my suggestion would be seek out images you know are photographed on this film and determine whether you like the general feel of these images.
Or as you said try a box and see how you like it.
If you shoot landscapes i am sure you will enjoy using this film, but it is not a allrounder and for this reason i use provia as well.cheers Gary

[Dan Fromm]

Obviously, those who shoot it don't agree with you. I see nothing fake about the colors, nor do I find it renders greens as black.When I tried out Velvia, some of my subjects were freshwater gobies with iridescent green in their dorsal fins. KM got the color right, Velvia rendered it as black. All slides well-exposed; the problem wasn't due to asking Velvia for more latitude than it has.

As a matter of empirical fact, yes indeed there are people who prefer Velvia to other color reversal films. You're one of them and I can't deny that you exist.

Cheers,

Dan

[QT Luong]

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

[Sal Santamaura]

I think Philip Greenspun (remember him ?) said the difference between art and snapshot is the use of Velvia...So which one was Phil saying use of Velvia is associated with? :)

[roteague]

When I tried out Velvia, some of my subjects were freshwater gobies with iridescent green in their dorsal fins.

As much as I like the film, I'll have to admit it isn't the best for every subject. Just recently I photographed a children's choir, using Fuji Astia, because Velvia is just too much for that. Mostly, I use Velvia 50 for landscapes and nature scenes, Velvia 100 for travel and city photography, Provia 400X for nighttime photography, and Fuji Astia for people pictures (which I do very little of). My last trip, I shot more Velvia 100 than 50 - I also did a lot of shooting in Sydney.

[Robert Fisher]

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


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

Thanks!

[JPlomley]

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

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

[Bill_1856]

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

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

[QT Luong]

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

Thanks!

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

[jetcode]

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

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

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

[roteague]

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

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

[jetcode]

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

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

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

[David_Senesac]

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

[joolsb]

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

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

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

[JPlomley]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[jetcode]

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

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

control - what if Velvia doesn't render the image the way you want?

If you are OK stocking every film for every situation great. I'd rather stock one film I can rely on (like 160NC) and apply the color balance in post processing. PS can saturate color to the point of becoming cartoon like.

[sog1927]

When I lived in Tokyo in the early 90s, I started using Velvia for people pictures. I found that the various Ektachromes seemed to render Asian skin with a really unpleasant greenish cast. The Velvia, on the other hand, produced really nice results. The contrast wasn't much of an issue, either, since Tokyo is overcast a lot of the time and the light can be pretty flat. I don't think *any* film precisely matches the color response of the human eye - you need to pick your tools to match your subject (and the effect you're trying to create). I love the sharpness of Velvia.

Steve

Hi Ralph , Sorry didn't mean to sound like a smart A... ,as this thread shows opinion
can be divided anybody that shoots mainly portraits , iwould not reccomend velvia
Although can work for browner skin subjects forget it with fair skin european complexions,my suggestion would be seek out images you know are photographed on this film and determine whether you like the general feel of these images.
Or as you said try a box and see how you like it.
If you shoot landscapes i am sure you will enjoy using this film, but it is not a allrounder and for this reason i use provia as well.cheers Gary

[John Curran]

If you can cosistantly handle this film's exposure latitude, you can shoot anything."

Agreed.

john

[Jim Rice]

Kudzu.

[Matus Kalisky]

Although my experience and knowledge are still rather modest, my impression sofar is following: If you tweek th photo too much with the PS to saturate the colors or adjust contrast the final result will start to look too muich "digital". So I just take more saturated film (E100VS in 4x5) for scenes that I think it may fit or less saturate one (E100G) if I feel like that or even color negative (Pro160S) if the contrast is too high.

[Gordon Moat]

Somewhat the same approach as Matus. Usually shoot E100VS for that saturated colour look, or Fuji Astia 100F when a lesser colour approach is desired. However, I have shoot lifestyle and fashion using E100VS.

What I have found in post processing is that it is easier to knock down saturation and retain a smooth film look, than it is to boost saturation. While in college (1994-1998) we often used a technique we called cartoon colour, which was a way of boosting the colour saturation of any image. That technique also smoothed the grain, or eliminated it entirely. Unfortunately it never looked the same as a similar scene that originated on highly saturated film.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

[Ben Chase]

I think Velvia is good for some things, but I find myself liking Provia and Astia more and more.....

It just depends on what your intentions are. Film is a tool, you use the right tool for the right job. Anything low-light - I always use Provia or the new T64 from Fuji. I like both of them for that particular purpose.

[Ben R]

I wonder just how much we would bother looking at photographs which were a truly accurate representation of the scene were the photo was taken. Just how much landscape photography would survive Astia? Just as with painting where you are representing the colours in often exaggerated ways for the purpose of expression, Velvia has done that for photography. A representation of the scene rather than a clinical and emotionless carbon copy of it. Artistic license?

[john borrelli]

Velvia 50 is an absolutely wonderful film for landscapes!
Used in the right type of light it can produce stunning images. Low contrast (make that very low contrast) light is best. It is very finickey about light. I usually do not use it in the summer (and I live in New England), but other seasons are OK. I prefer the light just before sunset when the light skims along the ground. Also, prefer this light when there are some clouds to diffuse the light and help fill the shadows. A cloudy overcast day can be OK(for example for Autumn scenes). If you are thinking Summer day light with blue skies and white clouds, Fuji Astia might be a better fit.
For me, the best thing about this film is its ability to give a deep, three dimensional quality to the image. For example, make a still life photograph of a colored vase with Velvia. Examine the sides of the vase. You will be able to see a front side, middle side and(you'll think) some of the back of the vase. In fact,it will seem like you could put your hand around the back of the vase and pick the thing up! Other high color/high contrast films will just give you a brightly colored, flat, two dimensional vase. In landscapes, you will get a depth to objects in the scene as well as depth to the scene itself. Films I have used in the past that were OK in this regard, include an old black and white film Agfa 25, and an old color print film Kodak Ektar 25.
The downsides of Velvia include it is persnicketty about contrasty light (as detailed above), it is best bracketed(1/2 a stop makes a difference, unfortunately this makes it expensive to use with large format), it can produce some unusual color shifts (that are hard to predict), it is slow (and reciprocity failure characteristics are better with newer Velvia 100), and lastly, you will probably need to do your own digital printing as each slide seems to require hours of Photoshop processing to capture some of the Velvia magic you will see on your lightbox

[Ed Shapiro]

Ask 100 Photographers about film or equipment choices and you will probably get 100 different answers. It comes down to artistic and technical choices which boils down to "different strokes for different folks". Some photographers will make snide comments about films the don't particularly care for but that doesn't tell you much.

As a commercial photographer, however, I am in a different boat in that I have to understand the characters of a number of different films and match the right film to any given assignment.

In bread and butter commercial work we are producing large format transparencies for catalog and packaging reproduction. In cases like this color accuracy is of the utmost importance because the products we are photographing have to be as close as we can get to the actual color of the item. Films like Kodak Ektachrome EEP and EPP are my choice for this category of work because the offer very good color reproduction and matching qualities and work well when push or pull processing is required.

In fashion photography and more creative illustrative work one can exercise more artistic license and get into high contrast and more exaggerated color rendition. This is where the low speed, higher contrast color emulsion come into play. Many old timers like me who have false nostalgia for the old Kodachrome 16 and 25 films tend to like the slower and more contrasty films as it is reminiscent of the old Kodachrome look. Kodachrome 26 is still around but processing is hard to find and is probably very expensive nowadays.

Here is another sceneario. I do a lot of art reproduction on 8x10 film. In certain paintings it is hard to capture the entire dynamic range of the art piece on transparency film, especially when cross polarization is used to eliminate surface reflections. I use the aforementioned Kodak emulsions for that and over expose by one stop and have the lab pull process for that degree of over exposure. I get perfect range with this method.

In artistic photography your control over the color palette is a very important tool in expressing your artistic interpretation of any subject or scene. In the end the choice is up to you! Your best guide is experimentation. Try all the different products, bracket the exposures, try using polarizers to intensify saturation and standardize on a few favorite films that suit your purposes.

I hope this helps! Ed

[David_Senesac]

I wonder just how much we would bother looking at photographs which were a truly accurate representation of the scene were the photo was taken. Just how much landscape photography would survive Astia? Just as with painting where you are representing the colours in often exaggerated ways for the purpose of expression, Velvia has done that for photography. A representation of the scene rather than a clinical and emotionless carbon copy of it. Artistic license?

That opinion is and has been dominant since the early 90s though is simply not true. Superb images were captured with straight color film processes usually Kodachrome for many years prior to that and people didn't complain. It was only when audiences were regularly fed a diet of amped up neon images mainly from the photography print media that such changed. Something I as an old timer have grated at and continued to produce reasonably natural images despite the reality that post process bumping up contrast and saturation often does result in a more aesthetic result. With excellent subjects in good light one can capture superb images as one can readily witness in mine and other's work with such an attitude. It is true on the other hand that many soso often muted flat subjects in modest light can be enhanced to much more aesthetic results with films as Velvia. Thus a photographer shooting Velvia has a greater potential to bring back excellent results on a wider range of outings despite weather, subject, and light. ...David Senesac

[Gene McCluney]

That opinion is and has been dominant since the early 90s though is simply not true. Superb images were captured with straight color film processes usually Kodachrome for many years prior to that and people didn't complain. It was only when audiences were regularly fed a diet of amped up neon images mainly from the photography print media that such changed.

I don't think it was so much the photography print media, rather I think it is the public getting accustomed to TELEVISION and overly saturated color therein. Television images have always been overly saturated, as the set comes from the factory. People got used to it, and then react negatively to naturally saturated images. It's just like the exaggerated one-note bass on inexpensive stereos. When you hear this all the time, and are then presented with a balanced full-range reproduction of music, it sounds thin.

[timparkin]

The assumption that any film colour can be simulated by just tweaking sliders and stuff in photoshop is flawed..

I'll give you an example that isn't necessarily true but should illuminate possibilities.

I'm using a film that responds to infrared by adding exposure at the red end of the spectrum. Let's now take a picture taken with a digital camera that doesn't respond to infra-red and see if we can 'simulate it'.. We can't! because the data from the infra red just isn't their..

Now lets posit another idea.. we've shown that light of one 'color' (IR) can influence the result in another colour (red). This could be happening at other colours - I for one see Velvia cutting through haze.. is this because of some strange response with near ultraviolet? Who knows..

The result is that a *lot* of people say that Velvia gives results that you can't get through playing with sliders... My guess is that this is a possible reason why...

Tim

[roteague]

The result is that a *lot* of people say that Velvia gives results that you can't get through playing with sliders... My guess is that this is a possible reason why...

Tim

It comes from those people that "think" Velvia is only about saturation, which it isn't. Velvia has a wonderful way of rendering subtle nuances of color. At the moment I am reading the latest issue of Natures Best Photography and I can tell right off, which are digital and which are Velvia - those who are used to the film can pick it right up.

[timparkin]

It comes from those people that "think" Velvia is only about saturation, which it isn't. Velvia has a wonderful way of rendering subtle nuances of color. At the moment I am reading the latest issue of Natures Best Photography and I can tell right off, which are digital and which are Velvia - those who are used to the film can pick it right up.

Indeed! And it's something I am starting to recognise now that I use both formats!

Tim

[Peter Galuszewski]

Given enough time you can pretty much simulate any color film on the market in PS....

Why take photos... you can simulate those in PS as well... Actually, most of what I see now-a-days is just that...

Velvia is an example of horses for courses. It does some things that no other film can do, so if you are into photography, and not data-processing, you will choose it when that effect is desired. To see said effect, purchase Velvia, decide for self.

Its really frustrating to see a bunch of grown men make sweeping generalizations and pronouncements which all add up to something akin to complaining that you could never get good results with a hammer when your job really required a screw-driver...

[Gary L. Quay]

Why is it that many of you like this film.
Ralph

Pow! Zam! Kerpow! Snap! Crackle! POP!

--Gary

[jetcode]

Why take photos... you can simulate those in PS as well... Actually, most of what I see now-a-days is just that...

Velvia is an example of horses for courses. It does some things that no other film can do, so if you are into photography, and not data-processing, you will choose it when that effect is desired. To see said effect, purchase Velvia, decide for self.

Its really frustrating to see a bunch of grown men make sweeping generalizations and pronouncements which all add up to something akin to complaining that you could never get good results with a hammer when your job really required a screw-driver...

I stand by my assessment no matter how many traditionalists think otherwise - the goal is the final image not the process and for the record PS is far more powerful than any traditional tool available which is why record numbers have made the transition

I've shot nearly every film available so I have a pretty good idea about the differences - Velvia chromes pop but perhaps bleed is a better term - given a neutral color image one can fine tune color and contrast amazingly well in PS

[roteague]

I stand by my assessment no matter how many traditionalists think otherwise - the goal is the final image not the process

Fortunately, that is just your own opinion.

[jetcode]

Fortunately, that is just your own opinion.

fortunately that is just your opinion - closed minds cannot be changed no matter how well a case is presented

[SamReeves]

fortunately that is just your opinion - closed minds cannot be changed no matter how well a case is presented

Watch out, you'll hear the words "utter nonsense" in a bit. http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/shocked004.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org)

[roteague]

fortunately that is just your opinion - closed minds cannot be changed no matter how well a case is presented

And you are jumping to conclusions....

I don't believe for one minute that the end justifies the means.

[roteague]

Watch out, you'll hear the words "utter nonsense" in a bit. http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/shocked004.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org)

I suspect I've forgotten more about using Velvia than both of you combined have ever learned.

[jetcode]

I suspect I've forgotten more about using Velvia than both of you combined have ever learned.

and what - that makes you the pope? - purveyor of all things Velvia?

[Dave Parker]

and what - that makes you the pope? - purveyor of all things Velvia?

Robert is probably one of the most knowledgeable people I know about Velvia, and I have been shooting since day one, and his knowledge about Velvia puts me to shame..

Dave

[jetcode]

Robert is probably one of the most knowledgeable people I know about Velvia, and I have been shooting since day one, and his knowledge about Velvia puts me to shame..

Dave

I wish that was important to me - but it isn't.

[Dave Parker]

I wish that was important to me - but it isn't.

But it seems as if bashing those that it is important to seems to be..

Dave

[jetcode]

But it seems as if bashing those that it is important to seems to be..

Dave

you mean like this?



Why take photos... you can simulate those in PS as well... Actually, most of what I see now-a-days is just that...

Velvia is an example of horses for courses. It does some things that no other film can do, so if you are into photography, and not data-processing, you will choose it when that effect is desired. To see said effect, purchase Velvia, decide for self.

Its really frustrating to see a bunch of grown men make sweeping generalizations and pronouncements which all add up to something akin to complaining that you could never get good results with a hammer when your job really required a screw-driver...


and this?



fortunately, that is just your opinion


Apparently it's OK to completely discount the experience of another when it pertains to digital but let's not touch film, let alone Velvia, or it's the hot house for all - just an observation

[Dave Parker]

Well those of us that shoot film could say the same thing, this is getting old..

For the most part, I don't care what anyone shoots, but I understand that everybody has a hot point..

Dave

[jetcode]

Well those of us that shoot film could say the same thing, this is getting old..

For the most part, I don't care what anyone shoots, but I understand that everybody has a hot point..

Dave

I agree and I shoot both film and digital. They each have purpose. What I am adressing here is not the merits of Velvia but the mindset that denies that a film or print can be emulated (very closely) using powerful image processing tools.

[Dave Parker]

I agree and I shoot both film and digital. They each have purpose. What I am adressing here is not the merits of Velvia but the mindset that denies that a film or print can be emulated (very closely) using powerful image processing tools.

For some, "Very Closely" is not good enough, I enjoy a good amount of business, because I still shoot Velvia, we are photographers, and we all have out mind sets about certain things, I own both digital as well as film cameras and use them for the job at hand, but I fully understand both sides..and I have just about any powerful processing tool you want to talk about, due to a couple of our other business..shoot what you shoot and don't worry about what the other guy shoots, works for me..

Dave

[jetcode]

For some, "Very Closely" is not good enough, I enjoy a good amount of business, because I still shoot Velvia, we are photographers, and we all have out mind sets about certain things, I own both digital as well as film cameras and use them for the job at hand, but I fully understand both sides..and I have just about any powerful processing tool you want to talk about, due to a couple of our other business..shoot what you shoot and don't worry about what the other guy shoots, works for me..

Dave

It would be a fun exercise to expose 4 different color films, match them in PS, and hold a blind taste test. Then we will see two things: how well I can match color spectra, and how well participants can detect which film is which. To be truly precise the exact color correction processes would be notated and revealed at the end of the test.

[timparkin]

I agree and I shoot both film and digital. They each have purpose. What I am adressing here is not the merits of Velvia but the mindset that denies that a film or print can be emulated (very closely) using powerful image processing tools.

I'm happy to send you two digital files.. One on Velvia and the other on a 5D and you can try to match them .. I can't even get close - the colours are completely different.

Tim

[Rory_5244]

Ha Ha! 50 sheets of ORIGINAL 8x10 Velvia in the freezer rearing to go...

You know, many digital shooters are new to the scene, and are quite unaware about Velvia, and E100VS, and such stuff. Let me tell you, plopping an 8x10 Velvia transparency down on a light box for a group of DSLR users last Wednesday had them gasping for oxygen. I doubt very much that, of the 25 individuals in the room, any one of them was thinking, "Oh yeah, I can do that in Photoshop". Maybe someone thought that in retrospect, but not in that moment.

[Wanderon]

Ha Ha! 50 sheets of ORIGINAL 8x10 Velvia in the freezer rearing to go...

You know, many digital shooters are new to the scene, and are quite unaware about Velvia, and E100VS, and such stuff. Let me tell you, plopping an 8x10 Velvia transparency down on a light box for a group of DSLR users last Wednesday had them gasping for oxygen. I doubt very much that, of the 25 individuals in the room, any one of them was thinking, "Oh yeah, I can do that in Photoshop". Maybe someone thought that in retrospect, but not in that moment.

Rory, you had me falling off my chair with that comment, Thanks
Lynn

[steve simmons]

You know, many digital shooters are new to the scene,

I think this is true in many areas. Newcomers think they've discovered something that is better than anything that happened before but in reality they don't have any sense of what has come before. Since it is new to them it must be new and better...

I hope us old timers stay around long enough to keep a sense of historical perspective alive.

steve simmons
a 49er

[mdd99]

In short, Velviavision.

[Garry Madlung]

Viva Velvia. I prefer it over the Kodaks, which I still use in 4x5. But it's a pure love affair with the old 50. In a panic upon hearing it was to be discontinued I horded every roll of 120 I could find in Toronto. Once that stock is done I'll start using the new stuff....I guess.

Now to order it in 4x5. In Toronto it's probably a special order. Does anyone know if it is stocked here?