That Provia really renders the sky well. I noticed that when I compared a few with 4x5 Velvia. The Velvia kept a bit of a magenta cast which threw off the clouds. Mid-day I might like Provia. I like the composition of that second one corposant. But the color in 1 looks purer, maybe too much cyan in the second? Is there a difference between the two slides in the color of the sky? Maybe just more exposure in the second. Just wondering. I still haven't shot much color film. I really need to force myself to get out. I am just not inspired by my location.
Zaitz wrote:
That Provia really renders the sky well. I noticed that when I compared a few with 4x5 Velvia. The Velvia kept a bit of a magenta cast which threw off the clouds. Mid-day I might like Provia. I like the composition of that second one corposant. But the color in 1 looks purer, maybe too much cyan in the second? Is there a difference between the two slides in the color of the sky? Maybe just more exposure in the second. Just wondering. I still haven't shot much color film. I really need to force myself to get out. I am just not inspired by my location....Show more →
#1 was underexposed and shot with the sun at about 7 o'clock, whereas #2 was exposed more for the colorful trees in the right part of the frame, with the sun at about 10 o'clock, which ought to explain the difference in the sky. The slides confirm this - however while I often find myself processing color negative scans, slides I almost always minimally process, just usually hit them with some fill light if they have been underexposed.
Zach - you should really give Provia a try. While some consider it blasphemous to use anything but Velvia for scenic shots, I think Provia comes close to Velvia in resolving power, but also has some other nice features - greater dynamic range (especially in the shadows) that a scanner can access, as well as huge reciprocity for long exposures (which is one of Velvia's big failings).
Here's an example of a shot I posted earlier, followed by the straight scan.
I have set Fill Light to 30 in ACR, with no levels adjustments in CS5. Granted I had shot so much Velvia on this trip that I was pretty conservative, so I could have probably exposed EV+1.5 or so here, but you get the picture. If DR on Velvia is 5 stops, I would guess Provia is probably 6.5 in the right situations.
All that shadow detail is nice in higher contrast images (like your Dunes series), without feeling like you are pushing much.
If you want a film which is an interesting combination of the two, I like E100VS, which is much warmer, and "different" highlights. I hope you found this helpful.
corposant wrote:
I am guessing it's "tripod mandatory?" The GSW690's appeal would be that it's (sort of) handholdable. Ditto the M9. The alternative is to use my Mamiya 7 and then stitch digitally (not a bad option either, and it's free).
Yes difficult to do away with a tripod. You can certainly stitch digitally with smaller formats. However, you won't be capturing the moment, nor will you have shiny 6x17 chromes on the light table Back to gear being all about compromises I suppose.
Another "comparison" shot - black and white vs. color. Happily I got a couple of good poses, though it carries a very different mood in each. I don't like to go to a popular place (Morro Bay in this example) and take the typical postcard shots, so I was grateful for the few opportunities I had.
I'm surprised to see Acros carry less shadow detail than Provia 400 (perhaps the exposures were different?). Also, perhaps it is just my monitor, the Provia 400 shadows look over-aggressively opened up digitally. The 'pose' in the second shot is much better!
corposant wrote:
#1 was underexposed and shot with the sun at about 7 o'clock, whereas #2 was exposed more for the colorful trees in the right part of the frame, with the sun at about 10 o'clock, which ought to explain the difference in the sky. The slides confirm this - however while I often find myself processing color negative scans, slides I almost always minimally process, just usually hit them with some fill light if they have been underexposed.
Zach - you should really give Provia a try. While some consider it blasphemous to use anything but Velvia for scenic shots, I think Provia comes close to Velvia in resolving power, but also has some other nice features - greater dynamic range (especially in the shadows) that a scanner can access, as well as huge reciprocity for long exposures (which is one of Velvia's big failings).
Here's an example of a shot I posted earlier, followed by the straight scan.
I have set Fill Light to 30 in ACR, with no levels adjustments in CS5. Granted I had shot so much Velvia on this trip that I was pretty conservative, so I could have probably exposed EV+1.5 or so here, but you get the picture. If DR on Velvia is 5 stops, I would guess Provia is probably 6.5 in the right situations.
All that shadow detail is nice in higher contrast images (like your Dunes series), without feeling like you are pushing much.
If you want a film which is an interesting combination of the two, I like E100VS, which is much warmer, and "different" highlights. I hope you found this helpful. ...Show more →
Thanks for taking the time to write that. I know you mentioned the same before as well. You can definitely see the difference in the shadows. I really love the colors of Velvia in most morning/evening photos. But if there is a strong blue sky with some clouds I find the magenta of the Velvia too strong. I don't like how it renders mid-day skies.
So now you've got me searching films again...and to my disappointment Kodak has recently discontinued 8x10 tri-x and Ektar to only special orders. I do not shoot those films but I was interested in focusing only on 8x10 over 4x5. I knew that'd be a dumb move, but now I am thinking it would be 100% stupidity! My plan was to use Velvia and Portra 400. Velvia for the colors and Portra for it's incredible dynamic range. But with the discontinuation of Ektar I am just wondering how long it'll be before Portra goes. Portra's film technology is just second to none from what I've read. Perhaps Kodak will keep that around as long as they are still alive....which may not be long. I wanted to try and use both slide and negative film to take advantage of their respective strengths.
Also, I think I am pretty competent with post processing. I often read statements about how it is hard/impossible to replicate the Velvia look through post processing with a different film/digital. I used to think that just wasn't true. But after shooting more Velvia and some other films and digital, I think it may be correct. It isn't just an overall color cast that can be corrected/applied but both strong and subtle differences in how Velvia renders each individual color. The relationships of the colors change and it is just impossible to replicate. Anyway, here is a great link with many comparison of several films: http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/velvia_astia_provia_pro160_digital
And the Velvia blue sky/cloud cast I do not like mid-day: http://www.timparkin.co.uk/system/assets/1318
So now I am unsure what to do. 4x5 is just so much cheaper, most noticeable with color. It'll also probably be readily available longer. But composing on 8x10 is a whole nother experience. It's also hard to find a small 600mm lens for 4x5 too. The lens needs a large lens board, much larger than my Crown Graphic. Without buying a different camera that'd mean I need to lug my 8x10 anyway. But if I want to shoot both 8x10 and 4x5 then I need to carry the 4x5 back plus holders for each! Aaahhh, digital is easier for sure.... Kind of just ranting.
anandnvi wrote:
I'm surprised to see Acros carry less shadow detail than Provia 400 (perhaps the exposures were different?). Also, perhaps it is just my monitor, the Provia 400 shadows look over-aggressively opened up digitally. The 'pose' in the second shot is much better!
So was I - the development of that roll was really not wonderful. To be fair, it's also a pretty high contrast scene too!
I think if you are looking closely at the dark areas on top of the boat, what looks like the film backing is actually the grooves of the wood on top of the boat. Provia 400 is an awesome film that is unfortunately awesomely expensive.
Zaitz wrote:
So now you've got me searching films again...and to my disappointment Kodak has recently discontinued 8x10 tri-x and Ektar to only special orders. I do not shoot those films but I was interested in focusing only on 8x10 over 4x5. I knew that'd be a dumb move, but now I am thinking it would be 100% stupidity! My plan was to use Velvia and Portra 400. Velvia for the colors and Portra for it's incredible dynamic range. But with the discontinuation of Ektar I am just wondering how long it'll be before Portra goes. Portra's film technology is just second to none from what I've read. Perhaps Kodak will keep that around as long as they are still alive....which may not be long. I wanted to try and use both slide and negative film to take advantage of their respective strengths.
Also, I think I am pretty competent with post processing. I often read statements about how it is hard/impossible to replicate the Velvia look through post processing with a different film/digital. I used to think that just wasn't true. But after shooting more Velvia and some other films and digital, I think it may be correct. It isn't just an overall color cast that can be corrected/applied but both strong and subtle differences in how Velvia renders each individual color. The relationships of the colors change and it is just impossible to replicate. Anyway, here is a great link with many comparison of several films: http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/velvia_astia_provia_pro160_digital
And the Velvia blue sky/cloud cast I do not like mid-day: http://www.timparkin.co.uk/system/assets/1318 ...Show more →
I can see on B&H they still have sheets of Ektar 100 for sale. I have mixed emotions about this film. It has great highlights and compared to digital, you can shoot directly into your light source and still capture really strong colors:
(repost)
However its DR is very limited compared to the new Portra films, and while there are times it really delivers, it can frustrate me too. Honestly given it's DR, I'd rather just shoot slide and avoid highlights where I can.
Kodak integrated their Vision 3 motion picture film process into the new Portra stocks, which was in effect a "free" R&D move, as their movie customers effectively pay for that development. I can't imagine it will get much better than this for Kodak film!
I am not going to pretend to be an expert on LF shooting, but I know that with the Lomography revolution and companies like Hasselblad and Mamiya still producing film-capable cameras (albeit in low quantities), I would probably continue to use 120 film but not take it any further. My Mamiya 7 is like a Leica M7 on steroids - not heavy, relatively versatile, and has crazy IQ and DOF compared to 35mm (including most digital).
This is a 100% crop from a 270 megapixel drum scan. It seems like you can see the individual bricks... this is definitely not my sharpest negative also as it was overexposed (deliberately) and was a full 15 minute exposure...
Nice Katie. The Mamiya 7 is moving up my wish list pretty quickly.
Here's a bunch from a recent walk around the block with my daughter.
Nikon F3, 28 f/2 Auto, HP5 Processed and scanned at Richard Photo Lab (I need to find a cheaper option for B/W) and I'm not interested in scanning (developing, maybe.).
Katie - been a while since I have seen the dreamy Tri-X look. Ever think about trying TMAX 400? It's my preference - very sharp, very pushable.
Zalmy - I am pretty agnostic on who I use for color film processing (everybody from NCPS to Costco) but I will only let RPL touch my B&Ws. They are the best thing next to doing it yourself. Might be worth bringing up the blacks in #7/#8 (if that's your thing).
Back to gear being all about compromises I suppose.
Kind of just ranting. 
