 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Film and Labs / September 2004velvia, saturation, medium format and digital
Hey folks - For about 5 years now, I've been attempting photography off and on, with dissapointing results. Finally I discovered Fuji velvia. This is what I've been missing. I always thought colors were too dull on my prints, or something must be wrong with my eyes. But, it turns out, regular film is just dull ;) Now I know some of you think velvia is too bright, but for me, it's spot on, especially for sunset clouds. (I don't do hardly any people photography). Anyway, I was looking at getting some medium format equipment. The local camera store had some used equipment that was cheap. The sales guy said it was cheap due to everyone switching to digital. He showed me an 18" x 20" blow-up from a 6MP pro-sumer canon (or something like that), and I was really impressed. Not as good as medium format, but still surprising! I asked him about saturation, noting that I liked velvia, and he said that was 'just a slider in photoshop'. So I'm trying to decide whether to finance one of these 6+ MP prosumer cameras, or get some medium format equipment. Here's the factors, with no relevance in their order 1. I work on computers all day, and I don't want another reason to spend hours in front of one. I like the mechanics of old cameras. 2. I can finance a digital camera through the store. 3. A digital camera might be 'crummy' quality . 3.5. It might not do the saturation the way that I like it. 4. A digital camera might be an expensive, long-lasting disposable camera. By the time it breaks in 3 years (trust me, I've worked with computers long enough to know that the sh.t goes bad in *at most* that time) and it will be out of warranty, and buying a new one will be cheaper than repairing it. So I might be buying a new digital camera every 2-3 years. Which might not be bad, since I will probably be getting more megapixels each time. 5. I already have some canon lenses so I can just buy a canon digital body (I think) 6. Medium format seems really retro and cool and I could be a total snob about it. 7. I could save a lot of money on film if I go with digital. 8. With a film camera, I can get film like IR or really grainy B&W. I was thinking about trying to convince the cameraman into cutting me a deal on the medium format stuff if I finance a digital camera, b/c i'm pretty sure he gets commission on the financing. I don't know about the used equipment. Gosh, I've almost sold myself on the digital? Anyone care to try to talk me into the medium format gear? Steve [Snip] Steve, My two cents worth below your questions. > 1. I work on computers all day, and I don't want another reason to spend > hours in front of one. I like the mechanics of old cameras. Nothing like fine mechanics and like you I sit in front of computers all day (I'm an IT professional). Working in the digital world all day has made me appreciate the analog world so much better that I also rejuvinated my Reel-to-Reel tape deck and got out old vinyl albums and started listening to them again. The same album sound so much better on vinyl than CD. > 2. I can finance a digital camera through the store. No comment. This is a personal thing for you. > 3. A digital camera might be 'crummy' quality . Today's digital camera will be "crummy quality" in short order. This is just like in the PC world. What you buy brand new and bleeding edge today is superceded tomorrow. Also, the best way to work on digital photo's and to get the best quality will require a pretty powerfull PC or MAC (the better choice), and the necessary software. This will add to your overall cost unless you have them at hand right now. That is unless you wish to print all your digital print at the Kodak kiosk... > 3.5. It might not do the saturation the way that I like it. Nothing in the digital photography rhelm is of a fixed quality. Like the man said, "It's only a slider in Photoshop". You should be able to acheive something close in both world. If you like moderately high contrast and painfully saturated colors and a sharpness that makes your eyes bleed, try taking a Provia MF slide to someone and have it enlarged to 11X14 or 16X20 on Ilfochrome (formerly Cibachrome) or learn to do it yourself. > 4. A digital camera might be an expensive, long-lasting disposable camera. > By the time it breaks in 3 years (trust me, I've worked with computers [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I might be buying a new digital camera every 2-3 years. Which might not be > bad, since I will probably be getting more megapixels each time. See my answer to no. 3. It's the dog chasing it's tail syndrome. Don't forget the PC and software that will need to be upgraded at about the same time... > 5. I already have some canon lenses so I can just buy a canon digital body > (I think) Canon auto focus lenses (EF not FD) will work on their digital bodies. > 6. Medium format seems really retro and cool and I could be a total snob > about it. It also put's you into another league. Yeah, looking down into the view finder (with a waist level finder) is 'retro cool', but using a MF camera has other more important advantages. When you start with more information on the film, you have more possibilities. > 7. I could save a lot of money on film if I go with digital. Sorta. Digital media gets somewhat expensive. But then so does processing (and I do my own). Digital is reusable, film isn't. Digital also has some unanswered conservation and archival questions that the real answers won't be known for say, 100 years (will someone still have a CD-ROM reader available? ex.: who has a 5.25" floppy drive anymore? 8" floppy?, etc...) > 8. With a film camera, I can get film like IR or really grainy B&W. Also effects you can plug in with Photoshop (or other software). > I was thinking about trying to convince the cameraman into cutting me a > deal [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > me > into the medium format gear? I went MF several years ago rather than digital for the reasons in 1, 3, 3.5, 4, and 6 above. The biggest reason was number 1. The magic of developing my own prints can't be replaced with pressing the print icon! It's a much more personal thing. I would imagine it's not unlike a true carpenter creating a desk from boards. You may not do your own processing, so that's something you need to consider. Can your local shop handle the processing of MF films? Try this before you make your decision. Talk to the camera shop owner and tell him/her you want to try both cameras for a couple of hours (they'll also earn some money from the rest of the test). Leave a deposit if they want - you'll get it back. Take some slide film for the MF (Provia or Astia would be my recommendation), have the slides processed and then select one and have it printed (8X10 is enough). Take the same shot with the same lighting with the digital. Print it out to your liking and place both prints side by side in a place you can look at them several times a day. Then choose. No one can make this decision for you. This test should cost you about $25.00. Jim << Digital also has some unanswered conservation and archival questions that the real answers won't be known for say, 100 years (will someone still have a CD-ROM reader available? ex.: who has a 5.25" floppy drive anymore? 8" floppy?, etc...) >> The "Plugged In" column in the Baltimore Sun a couple of weeks ago reported that the National Archives is developing a universal digital storage format, from which data can be converted to whatever storage or playback technology happens to be in use at any time in the future. I'm not sure how or if this technology will be available to the general public or whether it will be affordable for the average person. But there will probably be companies that will convert data from one format to another for a fee, just as there are companies today that will tramsfer old home movies to video tape or DVD's. About 30 years ago I was involved in a NATO group on image processing, and we had the problem of exchanging data among labs with different storage media (7-track vs 9-track tape, different start and stop bits, end of file bits, etc.). Our solution was to develop a "transfer format" such that one lab could transform their data into the transfer format, and the receiving lab could transform the data into their format. It worked very well and became a NATO standard. So people are definitely working on the long-term data storage issues. And successes are in sight. Best regards from the top of the Chesapeake Bay-- > Hey folks - > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Now I know some of you think velvia is too bright, but for me, it's spot on, > especially for sunset clouds. (I don't do hardly any people photography). Velvia is very contrasty and the color is nowhere near accurate. I hate it, frankly. Most color films are too saturated, and Velvia is by far the worst. What many people don't realize is that lens quality has a lot to do with saturation. They buy cheap lenses with poor color characteristics and then try to compensate by using Velvia. That's bass-ackwards. Get one of the better systems (Hasselblad/Rollei with Zeiss or Schneider lenses) and the color will take care of itself. > Anyway, I was looking at getting some medium format equipment. The local > camera store had some used equipment that was cheap. As I said above, 'cheap' is the problem. Get 'good'. Hasselblad or Rollei, nothing less. And be sure to get the lenses that are multicoated (T*). > Velvia is very contrasty and the color is nowhere near accurate. I > hate it, frankly. Most color films are too saturated, and Velvia is by [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > one of the better systems (Hasselblad/Rollei with Zeiss or Schneider > lenses) and the color will take care of itself. I guess this is a dumb question. How do you measure color accuracy? Is there a subjective element to a person's experience of the color when they view a photograph? What happened was I went to a large art show. I asked all the people at the photography booths what filmed they used. All the nature photographers said they used velvia, and it was all on medium format equipment, so I assume it's halfway decent. And those looked the most accurate to me, anyway. What film do you recommend? > > Velvia is very contrasty and the color is nowhere near accurate. I > > hate it, frankly. Most color films are too saturated, and Velvia is by [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > a subjective element to a person's experience of the color when they view a > photograph? Yes, of course. > What happened was I went to a large art show. I asked all the people at the > photography booths what filmed they used. All the nature photographers said > they used velvia, and it was all on medium format equipment, so I assume > it's halfway decent. And those looked the most accurate to me, anyway. 'Nature photographers'. Ah! There's the rub. They're the last people on Earth I would ask. Photographers as a rule tend to follow one another. They're very insecure, as a rule. Independence is at a premium. Same cameras, same films, same beards, same tripods, same shirts, same photo vests, etc.... > What film do you recommend? Try a bunch and see what looks good... In 35mm, I use Kodachrome exclusively. What a twit you are Scarpitti. > Same cameras, same films, same beards, same tripods, same shirts, same > photo vests, etc.... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > In 35mm, I use Kodachrome exclusively.  Signature? ? ? ? LOL > What a twit you are Scarpitti. The Uranium Committee dispenses sound advice. They should worry about keeping their nuts from falling off and dropping into these newsgroups. > > What a twit you are Scarpitti. > > The Uranium Committee dispenses sound advice. Signature? ? ? ? LOL > ... How do you measure color accuracy? Is there > a subjective element to a person's experience of the color ... When you approaching a traffic light, can you tell the difference between the light colors? Is it subjective or objective? Of course anyone can measure the color accuracy, it's just that some think color accuracy does not matter to some degree. And that is a matter of taste. > ... All the nature photographers said they used velvia, ... This is probably quite true in USA, at least in California. I found this once when I went to Camel, the little lovely "city by the sea", where there are lots of galeries. I found that almost all paitings, photography, "fine-art", etc. are Velvia-like. All have strong, bold colors -- even the B&W!. Something you don't always see in the museums. I've seen a painting that makes the Paris Marais looks like the Mexico. -- Nothing wrong, of course. That's what he sees, or, that's what the buyers would pay. > > ... How do you measure color accuracy? Is there > > a subjective element to a person's experience of the color ... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > accuracy does not matter to some degree. And that is a matter of > taste. So what film is the most accurate? Here's my thing. I like walking around in nature, looking at little things like veins in leaves, insects, patterns of insect holes in bark. I've been extremely unimpressed with my photographs, but the photos shot with velvia seem to most accurately re-create *my experience* in nature. I'm trying to figure out if my attitude towards nature brightens what I perceive, or if actually regular film is dull, as one of the velvia-using nature photograhers told me. Steve Its not an easily answered question, perhaps your perception is that the colors and textures of nature are somewhat magical. Or the film just matches your perception of them,...its really not unusual for people to have different perceptions of color,...color is emotional,....which is why--- for me B&W is a more thought provoking media, the image only stands on composition and light. Never the less because Velvia is such a vibrant film you are willing to except its rendition as what you perceived,.... when in fact if you held the slide up too the original scene it might in fact be somewhat different. Most imagery I've seen that was done on Velvia i like, but you could try shooting several films of the same experience and look at them under the same conditions. Lots of photographers shoot color patches and grey cards to form a "real time impression of what the film is capable of. Velvia is slow, but it is very sharp & tight grained. It could also be that your lab does real well with this particular film versus the others you have tried. > Here's my thing. I like walking around in nature, looking at little things > like veins in leaves, insects, patterns of insect holes in bark. I've been [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Steve SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > > "Steve Lefevre" <lefevre.10@osu.edu> wrote in message > news:<ch4m9l$1g0$1@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > > So what film is the most accurate? Kodak claims that Ektachrome 64 Professional is the most colour accurate film they sell. Some other photographers might tell you that they get better colour accuracy using Professional Kodachrome 64. In general, if you go for a higher saturation film, you can always knock the saturation down a bit for printing. In that case, choosing Velvia, or E100VS, or similar, might allow more room to get what you feel best matches the colour in the final printed image. > Here's my thing. I like walking around in nature, looking at little things > like veins in leaves, insects, patterns of insect holes in bark. I've been [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > actually regular film is dull, as one of the velvia-using nature > photograhers told me. That could be the situation. I think the idea of lush green plants, and vibrant nature, could enhance the memory of these places. It is always easier to lower saturation, than to increase it. While imaging software can be used to boost colour saturation, it can often look much more "unnatural" than just using a highly saturated film. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html> Updated! > So what film is the most accurate? It depends on accurate for what. The old Kodak might be more accurate for the mid grey, white, and skin tone, while Fiji might be more accurate for the intensed colors. Personally I feel the old Kodachrome has the best skin tone and the best balanced vividity and fidelity. Now people may debate it's either Kodachrome of Fuji's Astia for the most pleasing skin tone. But Velvia? lots of people would easily agree that, if color accuracy is the goal, this is the last film you should consider. > Hey folks - > Gosh, I've almost sold myself on the digital? Anyone care to try to talk me > into the medium format gear? > > Steve What are you going to do with your exposed film? Are you going to make prints? Are you going to project the slides? or are you going to scan the film and make prints via inkjet? If you are not going to stay with traditional image processing like slide -> prints on reversal paper, then you are going to have to post-process the images somehow. If you are going to scan the film you will need a high quality scanner, computer for editing and high quality printer. If you are going to scrimp on any of the digital processing then the differences from medium format film will be lost. If you are going to take the scanned route than you can make any film look pretty much the way you want it to by adjustments in photoshop. Rent the used camera for a week and try it out, do what you plan to do with images and see if it's worth it. A friendly dealer will allow you to apply most of the rental price to the purchase. Medium format is slightly better than the best digital cameras at this point and you can expect the difference to decrease of the next few years. Color negative film has a much greater dynamic range than either slides or digital and is a very good choice for film to be scanned. I've got lots of tips on these issues on my web site, if you wish to read them. SignatureRobert D Feinman Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs http://robertdfeinman.com mail: robertdfeinman@netscape.net See replies below... > Hey folks - > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > 1. I work on computers all day, and I don't want another reason to spend > hours in front of one. I like the mechanics of old cameras. Analog may put you in front of a PC, digital WILL put you in front of a PC. > 2. I can finance a digital camera through the store. > 3. A digital camera might be 'crummy' quality . Not at all. NOt the equal of film, but certainly not bad. > 3.5. It might not do the saturation the way that I like it. Photoshop can work wonders. > 4. A digital camera might be an expensive, long-lasting disposable camera. So will film... > By the time it breaks in 3 years (trust me, I've worked with computers > long [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I might be buying a new digital camera every 2-3 years. Which might not be > bad, since I will probably be getting more megapixels each time. True. Even if it lasts, digicams have horrible resale value. > 5. I already have some canon lenses so I can just buy a canon digital body > (I think) Make sure they're EOS compatible lenses. FD lenses won't work. > 6. Medium format seems really retro and cool and I could be a total snob > about it. Hardly the reason to use it. Quality is the reason, not snobbery. If you want snobbery, buy a Leica. > 7. I could save a lot of money on film if I go with digital. On film, yes. But you'll spend it on ink and paper. > 8. With a film camera, I can get film like IR or really grainy B&W. You can get it with digital, as well. With a little effort in Photoshop > I was thinking about trying to convince the cameraman into cutting me a > deal [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > me > into the medium format gear? If you want a toy to play with, go digital, and spend even more time in front of a PC. If you want to take you time, and produce quality images, go medium format, although this isn't even close to an apples to apples comparison. > Steve You can do both!! I used to do darkroom stuff for 25 years but seldom do now,. I have digital and it's fine and convenient, but I use 35 mm and MF and have a very good film scanner with Digital Ice. This gives you the ultimate digital. > Hey folks - > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Now I know some of you think velvia is too bright, but for me, it's spot on, > especially for sunset clouds. (I don't do hardly any people photography). There is more of a trend in the last several years towards very saturated colours. While I am not a big fan of the more blue green of Velvia, I do use quite a bit of Kodak E100VS (more red yellow bias). > Anyway, I was looking at getting some medium format equipment. The local > camera store had some used equipment that was cheap. The sales guy said it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > asked him about saturation, noting that I liked velvia, and he said that was > 'just a slider in photoshop'. Telling someone that something is 'just a slider in photoshop' is really downplaying the importance of actual skills required to get good outputs from PhotoShop. It also shows a great lack of understanding that what you see on a monitor is rarely what you get on a printed item. Anyway, consider that even a pinhole camera can give an image that prints nicely, and you soon realize that there is more to a printed image than Mega Pixels. Oh well . . . on to the questions . . . . . . > So I'm trying to decide whether to finance one of these 6+ MP prosumer > cameras, or get some medium format equipment. Here's the factors, with no > relevance in their order > > 1. I work on computers all day, and I don't want another reason to spend > hours in front of one. I like the mechanics of old cameras. If you want to do your own prints, then you will spend hours on the computer. Of course, you could always drop off the memory card, and let a lab print the image for you. The mechanics of cameras is another issue, though if you went medium format digital back instead, you could use digital and medium format at the same time. Old mechanics meets new technology. > 2. I can finance a digital camera through the store. Scary . . . by the time you have it paid off, the resale will be quite low, a newer 8 MP camera will be easily available at a lower cost, and people will speak badly of the image quality of your (then) old 6 MP digital . . . unless this is for a company, and there is some tax advantage, think carefully before financing a camera . . . any camera. > 3. A digital camera might be 'crummy' quality . Any camera can allow a photographer to acquire compelling images. It is more important that a photographer have some creative vision than just owning some equipment. > 3.5. It might not do the saturation the way that I like it. Okay, let us assume that you take your Velvia to a good lab, and they print and make the print look like the transparency appears on a lightbox. Compare that to a maybe calibrated monitor for your digital image, and what you see on your monitor might be different than what the lab guy sees on his monitor, and it might be luck, or many proof prints, and you still might not get the colour you wanted. > 4. A digital camera might be an expensive, long-lasting disposable camera. > By the time it breaks in 3 years (trust me, I've worked with computers long > enough to know that the sh.t goes bad in *at most* that time) and it will be > out of warranty, and buying a new one will be cheaper than repairing it. So > I might be buying a new digital camera every 2-3 years. Which might not be > bad, since I will probably be getting more megapixels each time. Many industry financial analysts point to 2008 being the year in which no Japanese camera makers will make new film SLRs. By that time, only P&S digital, compact ZLR digital, and digital SLRs are expected. Almost all digital SLRs by 2008 are expected to be full frame versions. You should see some huge changes in four years. > 5. I already have some canon lenses so I can just buy a canon digital body > (I think) Better to wait until 2008, or buy something used and full frame within the next two years. Used digital SLR gear often sells at a huge discount. > 6. Medium format seems really retro and cool and I could be a total snob > about it. Big camera = professional photographer . . . . . . . . . . maybe, but I suggest you should get something because you like using it, and it allows you to express your creative vision. > 7. I could save a lot of money on film if I go with digital. Do you shoot lots of film now? With medium format, you only get half or a third of the images you would with 35 mm. The usual approach is to think more carefully about each shot, meaning that you would shoot less frames of medium format at a location, than one would normally use for 35 mm. Medium format roll films are often cheaper per roll, and sometimes less money for developing. You could actually save some money over 35 mm by going medium format. > 8. With a film camera, I can get film like IR or really grainy B&W. You can also have different films loaded into different film backs on quite a few medium format cameras. Also, medium format digital backs of about 36 mm by 36 mm are now showing up in the used market (like EBAY), with many going for under $2000. You could buy into used medium format digital backs in the future, and get digital on your medium format gear. > I was thinking about trying to convince the cameraman into cutting me a deal > on the medium format stuff if I finance a digital camera, b/c i'm pretty > sure he gets commission on the financing. I don't know about the used > equipment. Most camera stores sell used gear at a fixed commission. Newer gear can get the sales guy more commission, or result in more sales of accessories. Hey, he's a salesman . . . that is how he makes his living. > Gosh, I've almost sold myself on the digital? Anyone care to try to talk me > into the medium format gear? Buy the medium format now, but compare pricing at KEH <http://www.keh.com>. Do a quick search on EBAY for medium format digital back, and see what is out there now. Consider getting a medium format digital back in the future, perhaps when you want to spend more time on a computer. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> Updated! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.