Reversal vs negative

[SergeyT]

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

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

[SergeyT]

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

[Christopher Barrett]

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

[Drew Wiley]

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

[Bernice Loui]

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

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

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

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


Bernice

[Alan Klein]

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

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

[LocalHero1953]

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

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

[Bernice Loui]

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

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

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

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

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

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


Bernice

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

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

[LocalHero1953]

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

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

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

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

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

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


Bernice

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

[Alan Klein]

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

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

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

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

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

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


Bernice

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