Flickr Home Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums
I know this is controversial but I think Velvia is overrated. It’s just a bit more contrasty (mostly because the shadows fall darker more quickly), a bit more vivid, and with a definite red cast. All those things can be easily added in photoshop and it gets really close. I know these are things that a lot people love but even the team that created Velvia 50 went on to produce Velvia 100 as a way to correct these “defects”. But of course it didn’t take off.
Flickr Home Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums
At least the processing options for E6 are becoming more price-competitive here on the West Coast, along with the revival of Ektachrome itself, which seems to be driving that. I don't worry about it much with 4X5; but it does heavily factor heavily if one is shooting 8X10. At one point, the processing cost as much as the film itself, essentially doubling the price of every 8X10 shot to around $30 every time you tripped the shutter. I'm not blaming anyone. The remaining film labs were under a lot of overhead, and terrible pressure from redevelopment, being forced to relocate. And without sufficient daily film volume, the dedicated machines can't realistically be kept in operation. 4x5 was never an issue, but 8x10 processing got scarce, sometimes for E6, sometimes for C41. And I really didn't want to add yet another development process to my own darkroom schedule.
Now things are reaching equilibrium a little better; and even though there's a distinct rise in the price of color sheet film, it's somewhat offset by a trend toward lower processing rates. Again, I don't worry about this if I'm getting done just a few sheets or 4X5 at a time, or 120 roll film - I just want the most convenient local lab with the least nerve-wracking traffic congestion in between. But if I were to return from a long trip with a lot of shots, or shoot a number of 8x10's, then there is a significant advantage to having a choice of processing options, with some at more reasonable rates.
Currently, I'm not printing from chromes at all - Cibachrome being long gone. But I am making internegatives from select large format chromes already on hand, then optically enlarge these onto RA4 print media. Yes, a fair amount of expense and work is involved, including advanced masking skills; but in the majority of instances so far, I'm getting the best color reproduction ever, and certainly better than what I'd expect from inkjet or other scanned options. But my primary shooting is now all color neg film. I'm toying with the idea of again shooting 8X10 chromes, and then converting those to contact internegs. But gosh, two sheets of 8x10 color film (one positive, one negative), plus processing, at least one sheet of black and white 8x10 film, maybe several, for masking purposes - heck, that can easily run $75 to $100 per image just for prep, even before actual printing costs, plus a lot of very meticulous fuss. So for now, I'm just doing that for a select few of my very many already extant LF chromes. The bigger problem at the moment, however, is just acquiring the specific rolls of RA4 paper I really want. The epidemic has caused a lot of missing gears and slipping pulleys to the supply chain, it seems. But that should improve.
Bookmarks