Getting "reality" with film. It ain't happening.

[Rust Never Sleeps]

Now I don't mean compared to digital capture so let's not get into another useless film vs digital debate. What I mean is that every now and again I run across a web page or a post on a photo forum where somebody goes on and on about how they use so and so film because it portrays nature "realistically". Something along the lines of "I don't cheat like other photographers who use Disney Chrome, I use Provia 100F to show nature as "God" made it" or "Real men use Astia 100F, Girly men use everything else".

I have shot many scenes side by side over the last year or so using Velvia 50, Velvia 100, Provia 100F, and Astia 100F. What I found out was that none of the films are 100% reality but each have their own take on things, their own colorations, different color palates, different contrast levels. I was surprised how different some of the films were from each other. Shooting Velvia 50 and Astia 100F side by side is fun because they quite different.

Astia 100F gets the reputation as a film that is going to "realistically" portray what you are shooting but I found that not to be true. Sure the contrast is not pumped up and the colors are not hyper bold but the film has it own colorations like a blue tint and the shadows get a weird tint too sometimes. The blues and greens can be weak at times and other times the film looks very good. Looking at Astia 100F on the light table I would not call the film a 100% copy of the scene I was shooting.

What I learned from shooting the films side by side was that each film has its ups and downs depending on the scene at hand and sometimes it just comes down to personal preference as to which film looks best on a particular shot. But what the films are not is realistic. I use to get worked up over getting as close to a "real" shot as possible but now I realize that there is no problem with a slight twist on reality for "artistic" expression because we all see things differently and what is 100% "reality". Everybody sees things differently depending how we are wired.

I have settled on Velvia 50 and Astia 100F for most of my photography. I would rather tone down the contrast in Photoshop with Velvia 50 on some shots then get rid of the yellow cast in Provia 100F. I also don't mind adding a little contrast boost to Astia 100F from time to time if it is needed.

I also need to try Velvia 100F(used a little in 120[6x7 Pentax]) and Kodak 100VS.

[Dan Fromm]

Roses are red,
Shadows are blue.

We don't always perceive what's there very well.

[Vaughn]

We don't even see reality -- don't know why one should make a big fuss about any particular type of film/camera capturing it. What works, works.

[iml]

The thing I most like about colour analogue photography is that every film is wrong in its own distinctive way. Digital is boring because it (mostly) looks very similar.

[cmdrray]

Student: "Zen master, why do you close your eyes?"

Zen Master: "To see more clearly."

"Reality" has always been elusive in art, and it is different from culture to culture. It always has been, and it always will be so. The plate/film/sensor and camera one uses doesn't matter...what matters is what you are trying to convey. It's all about content, not form. All of us have our own take on "reality," and by participating in the arts, and sharing what we find with our chosen tools, we are adding to an on-going conversation.
That's the magic of art, and what helps us to be reasonable humans.

[Richard Mahoney]

... Shooting Velvia 50 and Astia 100F side by side is fun because they quite different.

Astia 100F gets the reputation as a film that is going to "realistically" portray what you are shooting but I found that not to be true. Sure the contrast is not pumped up and the colors are not hyper bold but the film has it own colorations like a blue tint and the shadows get a weird tint too sometimes. The blues and greens can be weak at times and other times the film looks very good. Looking at Astia 100F on the light table I would not call the film a 100% copy of the scene I was shooting. ...

I have settled on Velvia 50 and Astia 100F for most of my photography. I would rather tone down the contrast in Photoshop with Velvia 50 on some shots then get rid of the yellow cast in Provia 100F. I also don't mind adding a little contrast boost to Astia 100F from time to time if it is needed. ...

I mainly use Astia though as my stocks are getting low I'm probably going to have to switch to the Velvia 100F sitting at the back of the fridge getting closer and closer to its expiry ... shudder Anyway, having basically stuck with the same film for a good while I would tend to agree that it can at times seem a little bland and washed out. That said, I 've found that a little under exposure, especially under bright, harsh conditions can increase Astia's saturation and contrast considerably. Here are a couple of shots taken under almost identical conditions as a case in point. The shed was given a little over a stop less exposure. While the original drum scan shows far more shadow detail than this small image might suggest the level of contrast is still much higher than in the shot of the bridge. The reds too are very prominent in the roofing iron and diesel tank. What does not come through in the shot of the bridge though is just how dominant the reds actually were on the surface of the pylon. I was more concerned with trying to indicate the cast iron structure under the skin so made the `correct' exposure rather than underexposing. I rather like the ability to manipulate Astia's saturation and contrast by moving a stop or so either way ... I can only hope that Velvia 100F will be as flexible ...



4" x 5" Fujichrome Astia 100F, Schneider Super-Symmar HM 150/5.6, 1/30 s @ f/22-32



4" x 5" Fujichrome Astia 100F, Schneider Super-Symmar HM 150/5.6, 1/15 s @ f/22


Kind regards,

Richard

[bgh]

Now I don't mean compared to digital capture so let's not get into another useless film vs digital debate. What I mean is that every now and again I run across a web page or a post on a photo forum where somebody goes on and on about how they use so and so film because it portrays nature "realistically". Something along the lines of "I don't cheat like other photographers who use Disney Chrome, I use Provia 100F to show nature as "God" made it" or "Real men use Astia 100F, Girly men use everything else".

This is why I prefer black and white. Photography is an abstraction from what we see in the external world, and since most of us see in color, I find that black and white is more honest about being an abstraction.

Plus, it looks awfully darn cool.

Bruce

[Brian Ellis]

The first obstacle film must overcome in order to portray nature "realistically" is that it's a two dimensional medium whereas "nature" is three dimensional. Once that problem is overcome then we can talk about others if anyone thinks there's any point in doing so.

[John NYC]

One of my eyes sees color totally differently than the other eye. I've spent a lot of time analyzing this once I noticed it last year. Essentially, one eye has a warmer white balance and more vivid color and the other has a cooler white balance, less vivid color and less sensitivity to specular highlights. I am not imagining this, and I actually find it really valuable when taking color photos.

So, which eye is "reality"?

P.S. With both eyes open, I essentially get the color impression of my dominant eye.

[Brian C. Miller]

The first obstacle film must overcome in order to portray nature "realistically" is that it's a two dimensional medium whereas "nature" is three dimensional. Once that problem is overcome then we can talk about others if anyone thinks there's any point in doing so.

And that's why 3D cameras are so neat! I have lenticular and dual 35mm. I need to get one of those splitter devices for 4x5.

Here's a problem with photography: it doesn't copy enough from "reality." Where's the smell of the clearing thunderstorm? Where's the feel of the ground under your feet? The cold air against your face? No, you're in a gallery munching on crackers and brie, swilling wine and wearing a warm sweater, and the air is nearly fogged with cologne and perfume that must have been applied with a garden sprayer. The photograph should transport you to the Antarctic, where you will promptly freeze to death in 15 minutes. Now aren't you glad that film doesn't "get real?"

Personally, I like using film to portray an effect. Like amping up the color saturation, or reducing it significantly. So there is a wide variety of things that can be done with various films. I don't limit myself with format, and I don't see a reason to limit myself with film.