PDA

View Full Version : Analog-digital workflow: which film suits best?



Kamox
12-Mar-2008, 08:19
As I stated on my presentation post, the intended workflow with my Crown Graphic is the following:

1-Develop the film
2-Scan it (with an Epson V750 owned by a photographer nearby who will scan my film, drum scanning is way too expensive for me)
3-Retouch in PS as needed
4-Send the file to the lab and print it on photo paper

Now, chatting in a newsgroup with a pro LF user, he told me that the density of a Velvia 50 sheet (the emulsion I first thought to use as above) is too high even for an Epson V750 and its wild colours (esp. dark ones) couldn't be extracted. I've received similar opinions by MF users.
This man suggested me to use a less contrasty film (such as Astia), then adjust curves and saturation in PS.
Do you agree? Or should I use, for example, Kodak Portra VC, given its wider dynamic range and (supposed) more "space" for digital retouching? :confused:

Thanks.

roteague
12-Mar-2008, 08:47
I'm quite happy with the scans I get off my Velvia transparencies. Yes, the scan doesn't match the transparency, but I see no reason to go to something like Astia.

vinny
12-Mar-2008, 09:33
Velvia, the original scans fine for me but i use a drum scanner. Veliva 100 seems to be the most difficult and harsh looking. It's contrast is different in the upper midtones and the highlights in the original don't scan as well, but that's for me.

Bruce Watson
12-Mar-2008, 09:55
Now, chatting in a newsgroup with a pro LF user, he told me that the density of a Velvia 50 sheet (the emulsion I first thought to use as above) is too high even for an Epson V750 and its wild colours (esp. dark ones) couldn't be extracted. I've received similar opinions by MF users.
This man suggested me to use a less contrasty film (such as Astia), then adjust curves and saturation in PS.
Do you agree? Or should I use, for example, Kodak Portra VC, given its wider dynamic range and (supposed) more "space" for digital retouching? :confused:

Thanks.

I do agree. And I take it that little bit farther and shoot mostly 160PortraVC (readyloads) for my color landscape work. The only thing you'll miss is the instant gratification of seeing your tranny on a light table. What you'll gain is the ability to capture scenes with a higher scene brightness range (SBR) and a film with less density than a tranny.

The negative film can be easier to scan -- the lower density is easier for a consumer flatbed like the V750 to handle meaning that you'll get better detail from the dense areas. But either through scan software or photo editor software, you have to remove the orange mask and reverse the negative to a positive image. This can add some steps.

Some perspective -- I own a drum scanner and do my own drum scanning. I could easily read through trannies. Yet I shoot negative films. Because I like the results better. Clearly, YMMV.

jetcode
12-Mar-2008, 10:07
I'm quite happy with the scans I get off my Velvia transparencies. Yes, the scan doesn't match the transparency, but I see no reason to go to something like Astia.

What is the point of using Velvia (or any film for that matter) if it can't be reproduced faithfully?

roteague
12-Mar-2008, 10:50
What is the point of using Velvia (or any film for that matter) if it can't be reproduced faithfully?

It is still better than the alternative, IMO. I can get pretty close with a drum scan, and can do pretty good with my desktop (Minolta 5400 Elite II film scanner), but a transparency will hold much more detail than any scanner can pull out.

Bruce Watson
12-Mar-2008, 10:56
What is the point of using Velvia (or any film for that matter) if it can't be reproduced faithfully?

Films aren't meant to be reproduced faithfully (even if we could agree on what that might mean). Tranny film is meant to be the final product -- projection through the film onto a screen is the intended mode of viewing. Negative films are meant to be intermediaries -- prints are the mode of viewing.

Current usage of all films is overwhelmingly toward using them as intermediaries to make prints. And reflective media like prints can't hope to compare to transmission media like trannies. The laws of physics are the laws of physics. Faithful reproduction isn't possible.

Kamox
12-Mar-2008, 11:08
I do agree. [cut]
I own a drum scanner and do my own drum scanning. I could easily read through trannies. Yet I shoot negative films. Because I like the results better. Clearly, YMMV.
I see, thanks Bruce. I'll try Portra, then.
A side benefit, which I forgot to mention, is that "conventional" printing (i.e.: bringing the exposed negative to the lab and having it developed and printed, without any digital intermediate steps) is cheaper than I thought: for a single sheet, developed and printed on 8x10" fuji cristal they ask me 10 euros ($15).

David Luttmann
12-Mar-2008, 12:31
If you're scanning with a V750, then you may not want to use a high contrast film such as Velvia. You are more prone to blocked shadows as the scanner can't dig deep enough into the shadows. A lower contrast film such as Astia is a better choice....along with some of the color neg films like Fuji Pro 160. And not that it matters much, but Astia has finer grain than Velvia.

Michael Gordon
12-Mar-2008, 20:28
It is still better than the alternative, IMO.

Better how, Robert?

If you're primary output is the fine print, there's no logical reason to use Velvia.

Ron Marshall
12-Mar-2008, 21:21
Another vote for Portra 160 or Fuji Pro 160; current neg films scan very well.

Keith S. Walklet
12-Mar-2008, 21:55
I favor Provia 100 pushed two stops. The film is much lower contrast than Velvia and handles highlights much better.

There is a drawback, however, if you submit your images for publication, since going head to head on a light table with a more saturated film like Velvia, the Provia will seem flat.

But, there is no need for a proof print.

I admit, that I have been able to take advantage of free push service at the lab I use here in the states (Calypso), but there are other reasons I prefer Provia over the Velvia. In pushing the Provia two stops, I gain an effective ISO of 400 which is handy to have when working with smaller apertures and slower lenses, yet there is no noticeable degradation of the film.

Now that Photoshop has the "align layers" feature, it is a bit easier to do multiple scans for images with higher dynamic range, one for highlights and one for shadows, and then combine the two. Takes a bit of time, but works.

Gordon Moat
12-Mar-2008, 22:41
I tend to prefer Kodak E100VS, since the saturation gives lots of colour to work with in post. However, my other film of choice is Fuji Astia 100F, which is nearly as easy to scan. I don't have specific experience with the Epson 750, so you might need to experiment a bit to find a film that scans easily on that; the suggestion of colour negative film might be easy for you to work with on a low end scanner.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

Kamox
13-Mar-2008, 04:17
If you're primary output is the fine print, there's no logical reason to use Velvia.
Which brings a question I always wondered about: why use Velvia in LF if it's not suitable for scanning and 4x5 projectors are hard to find, big and heavy?
What does an LF user do with a big slide? Just watches it on a lightened plan?

h2oman
13-Mar-2008, 06:35
So Michael, what film would you use if the end result is to be a nice (in my case not fine art!) print. I ask this question seriously, as a beginner.

Keith S. Walklet
13-Mar-2008, 07:07
For 4x5, it is easier to justify using Velvia because one is only using a sheet at a time. In low contrast, non-windy situations, it excels. If the wind kicks up and the dynamic range is more challenging, one can immediately switch to another film (in my case Provia 100). So, I carry both Provia 100 and Velvia 4x5 Quikloads in my kit.

While not impossible to do, the same strategy doesn't work as well with a medium format camera with a non-swappable film magazine. In that case, the roll of film needs to be exhausted before moving from one film type to the other, which is neither cost effective nor convenient.

Michael Gordon
13-Mar-2008, 08:30
So Michael, what film would you use if the end result is to be a nice (in my case not fine art!) print. I ask this question seriously, as a beginner.

I'd recommend what I use: Fuji Astia and Fuji Pro 160S (rated at 100). Both are wider latitude than Velvia (Pro 160S by far), and both scan easily. 160S gets used when the contrast is too wide for Astia. Both can be made to look more Velvia-like during post-processing.

Take a look at the attachment here. While this isn't the most ideal viewing (having been miniaturized to 72ppi and converted to sRGB), it will give you an idea of how these films behave relative to each other. The Velvia and Astia were scanned and only color corrected to match the chrome. The 160 has been color corrected to most closely match the Astia. The Acros scan has had no adjustment.

Velvia is a good-looking film under the right circumstances, but it mostly definitely isn't a multi-purpose film.

roteague
13-Mar-2008, 08:47
For 4x5, it is easier to justify using Velvia because one is only using a sheet at a time. In low contrast, non-windy situations, it excels. If the wind kicks up and the dynamic range is more challenging, one can immediately switch to another film (in my case Provia 100). So, I carry both Provia 100 and Velvia 4x5 Quikloads in my kit.

I generally find myself switching between Velvia 50 and Velvia 100 in those situations.


Velvia is a good-looking film under the right circumstances, but it mostly definitely isn't a multi-purpose film.

Depending upon what you are doing, of course. I shoot Velvia, either 50 (mostly) or 100, almost the time. In fact, in LF, I haven't shot any but Velvia in a couple of years; the film just works for me. However, in 35mm or MF, I will often switch to the new Provia 400X.

Eric Rose
13-Mar-2008, 09:14
My favorite film for years was NPS 160. I find the extra latitude very beneficial, especially when scanning. I've now gone to Kodak's neg material in LF. Any perceived deficiency in colour can be juiced up in PS without blocking up shadows etc.