Provia 100F and Velvia 50

[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