Velvia

Anouilh · 09-04-2009 10:12am #1

I rarely use slide film, but am always delighted with the results when I do.
http://www.templetons.com/brad/nondig/d30velvia.html

Is it still popular?

[IMG][/img]

DaireQuinlan · 09-04-2009 10:37am

Anouilh wrote: »

I rarely use slide film, but am always delighted with the results when I do.
http://www.templetons.com/brad/nondig/d30velvia.html

Is it still popular?

Sure, I shoot a bit of slide, particularly when I'm holidays. If it wasn't so comparatively expensive to get developed I'd probably shoot it almost exlusively. Provia 400x is a real beauty. OTOH the couple of rolls of Ektar 100 that I've shot over the last while suggest that it could be a good alternative to slide for a lot of applications.

I'm confused as to why you linked to that crummy comparison though. He scanned with his HP Photosmart ? And he then concludes that his 30D is better ? hmmm. Is that shot you posted a slide image ? In B&W ??

Slav · 09-04-2009 10:58am

Velvia is probably the most difficult film to scan; I prefer Astia for this reason.

Scanning Valvia on HP Photosmart is a good joke alright!

Schlemm · 09-04-2009 11:09am

What's the difference with slide film? And what sort of costs are you looking at for developing?

Some of our old school lecturers in college use slides and I thought they looked class, the tones and colours in the pictures were beautiful! I was wondering what they were using...might give it a whirl, I've been wanting to try out some different film types of late.

DaireQuinlan · 09-04-2009 11:20am

Schlemm wrote: »

What's the difference with slide film? And what sort of costs are you looking at for developing?

Some of our old school lecturers in college use slides and I thought they looked class, the tones and colours in the pictures were beautiful! I was wondering what they were using...might give it a whirl, I've been wanting to try out some different film types of late.

Slide (E6, transparency) is just a world in its own with regard to colours and contrast. Typically much less grainy than negative film aswell. Its more difficult than print film to shoot well, you have to nail the exposure better with slide as its dynamic range is typically a lot less than print film, the highlights tend to blow out on overexposure and the shadows can actually go to opaque black if you underexpose. When you get it right its worth it though. Velvia, as slav points out, is probably one of the most difficult to get right as its probably the most contrasty and saturated of the various films (actually there's another film, fortia, available only in japan which is even worse/better but not many people here see it).

Dev on slide is 6.50 dev only if you drop it into abbey street. I don't have time to do that anymore (kids ...) so I generally use the fuji mailers, which are 8.50 a pop. This is considerably more expensive than c-41 which I do myself at home for about €1.50 a roll or so.

Anouilh · 09-04-2009 12:47pm

I've written an explanatory post here:

http://shortsights.blogspot.com/2009/04/professional-film-scans.html#links

The Exif details attached to the photo explain that the scanner was a
Fuji SP3000. I desaturated the original to enhance the contrast.

DaireQuinlan · 09-04-2009 1:09pm

And sure what thread is complete without examples

Here's a Velvia shot of the red red rooftops of Dubrovnik. Good example as to why you shouldn't neccessarily use a polariser on a wide angle using contrasty slide film at midday in the Mediterranean ...

Here's a Provia 400x shot, Temple of Minerva in Assisi.

Lastly here's a shot from a roll of Fortia I shot. Fortia tends to blow out the greens to a huge degree, check out some of the other shots on my stream tagged fortia for more examples. Some of them are just laughably over-saturated, the pictures you see are almost exactly as scanned.

Slav · 09-04-2009 1:43pm

Anouilh wrote: »

The Exif details attached to the photo explain that the scanner was a Fuji SP3000. I desaturated the original to enhance the contrast.

I would not consider a Frontier as an option for slide scanning. Also I generally would not go for anything smaller then 645 format (there might be rare exceptions). Therefore the scanner should be at very least in Nikon 8000/9000 grade or better a drum scanner.

Otherwise pure digital process will produce better results at lower cost IMHO.

DaireQuinlan · 09-04-2009 1:49pm

Sorry Anouilh, never saw your post there when I was posting mine.

I'd agree with slav on the scanner. Although apparently those frontier machines are actually capable of producing good scans, most places just give you fairly low-res 8-bit scans which are jazzed up to match whatever they reckon customers want. Typically this means over-sharpening them and bumping up the saturation and contrast. If you want to do it properly you have to do it yourself. I use a Nikon coolscan V to do all my 35mm stuff, probably the best consumer grade scanner you can buy nowadays. Sadly I'm stuck with a canon 8600 for my medium format which, from the point of view of getting a digital image out of the transparency, sort of obviates a lot of the benefits of using MF in the first place ...

Mr. Grieves · 09-04-2009 7:48pm

Slide is amazing! The shot below was taken on Provia 100, but Velvia 50 is even better.

As mentioned, it's difficult to work with though because of the low dynamic range. I've found even if the highlights aren't blown, I can't get a good scan of a contrasty scene. I can see loads of detail in the highlights and shadows on the slide, but they seem lost on screen. Trying to bring out the shadows just introduces lots of noise. Maybe it's my screen, I don't know.

Slav, why do you say Astia is easier to scan, I'm curious?

I'd like to be able to develop E-6 cos it's so expensive in the shops. Sounds difficult though. I've seen interesting examples of pushing Provia 400 to 1600 on flickr. Anyone ever tried it? I wonder would a shop do it if you ask.

melekalikimaka · 09-04-2009 7:56pm

just shot some ektachrome last week, in me lomo, expired 2001 got a box of it, gonna send it in to get xproed and see the results :-)

Mr. Grieves · 09-04-2009 7:59pm

Where are you getting it cross processed? I was thinking of giving that a go. Did you shoot at the rated speed? I've heard you should shoot as if you're going to push it.

melekalikimaka · 09-04-2009 8:01pm

200iso in sunny sunny weather... cant really rate it in a lomo, i emailed camera exchange and they said they'd do it

Rojo · 09-04-2009 8:32pm

We've got hasselblad scanners in college, which ROCK for trannies!

punchdrunk · 09-04-2009 8:34pm

Camera ex will C/P as the last order of the day before the chemicals get binned,as them nicely and they'll do it!

Anouilh · 10-04-2009 11:49am

Thank you for all the helpful information.

This is leading up to whether or not I will get a film and slide scanner instead of bringing my work to the professionals.

Here is another photo from the same batch.
It was a dull day and there seems to be a colour cast on the end result. I used the "auto-adjust colour" feature in Irfanview to brighten it up a bit. 6034073

Slav · 10-04-2009 12:43pm

Mr. Grieves wrote: »

Trying to bring out the shadows just introduces lots of noise. Maybe it's my screen, I don't know.

Most likely it's the scanner.

Slav, why do you say Astia is easier to scan, I'm curious?

Astia has lower contrast and natural colour rendition. With Velvia you just have to start thinking about colour-correction and contrast even before you expose the film: correct interpretation of the lighting conditions, careful choose of filters, etc. On the other hand with Astia it's easier to left a good amount of work to post-processing in Photoshop and therefore shoot and scan "as normal" (under normal shooting conditions). Therefore Astia can be seen a more universal emulsion though you might get a superior result with Velvia on certain scenes if everything is done right.

I'd like to be able to develop E-6 cos it's so expensive in the shops. Sounds difficult though.

E-6 chemistry is quite expensive as well and does not live for too long once it's opened but still DIY E-6 development does make sense if the volumes are relatively high.

Schlemm · 10-04-2009 1:26pm

melekalikimaka wrote: »

200iso in sunny sunny weather... cant really rate it in a lomo, i emailed camera exchange and they said they'd do it

how much does it cost to get a roll xpro'd?

melekalikimaka · 10-04-2009 6:42pm

Schlemm wrote: »

how much does it cost to get a roll xpro'd?

normal price, like 8 euro or summa

charybdis · 13-04-2009 6:28pm

melekalikimaka wrote: »

normal price, like 8 euro or summa

Good ol' Pav Friday.

Anouilh · 30-04-2009 8:53am

The Luas system is a nice subject for film shots, I have found.

This photos is from the same reel as in the op and it has a bit of a purple/red colour cast.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/anouilh/3203356543/sizes/o/

Can anybody explain why this is the case, please?
Is it a feature of the film, or something that occurs during processessing and/or scanning.

cnocbui · 30-04-2009 11:19am

Anouilh wrote: »

This photos is from the same reel as in the op and it has a bit of a purple/red colour cast.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/anouilh/3203356543/sizes/o/

Can anybody explain why this is the case, please?
Is it a feature of the film, or something that occurs during processessing and/or scanning.

Is this cast evident in the slide itself or is it in the scan?

Anouilh · 30-04-2009 8:37pm

cnocbui wrote: »

Is this cast evident in the slide itself or is it in the scan?

Apologies for the delay answering, cnocbui.

In fact I don't know the answer.
I do not have a film scanner and the exif details in photo as uploaded to Flickr probably cannot discern this. Looking at the processed slides is probably not much use, if this is to be believed:

http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00NyL3

It turns out that Velvia does have an inherent color cast, a sort of extra layer that is supposed to help good exposure or contrast... I'm not quite sure. Then, some scanners have a sort of balancing color cast system, it seems. Since I have no equipment to test all of this, I remain puzzled.

If I bring Velvia for processing again, should I ask more questions or give instructions about white balance?

The lovely fisheye photos above have none of this problem.

cnocbui · 01-05-2009 9:41pm

Anouilh wrote: »

Apologies for the delay answering, cnocbui.

In fact I don't know the answer.
I do not have a film scanner and the exif details in photo as uploaded to Flickr probably cannot discern this. Looking at the processed slides is probably not much use, if this is to be believed:

http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00NyL3

It turns out that Velvia does have an inherent color cast, a sort of extra layer that is supposed to help good exposure or contrast... I'm not quite sure. Then, some scanners have a sort of balancing color cast system, it seems. Since I have no equipment to test all of this, I remain puzzled.

If I bring Velvia for processing again, should I ask more questions or give instructions about white balance?

The lovely fisheye photos above have none of this problem.

To tell if the slides have a colour cast, you just have to look at them using a reasonably daylight colour temperature light source, such as sunlight reflected off a white sheet of paper.

That article is more about the 'joys' of digitising velvia slides, than a testament to there being a cast to the film:D It is not to be believed. Slides were around before the digital era, they are meant to be viewed with the naked eye, so slide film should not have an inherent cast. Slide films have a 'look', but never a cast

Velvias look is high colour saturation, or zing if you want to be technical, with reds being slightly more zowie then zing.

I am presuming you shot a roll of velvia and sent it off for processing and had it scanned to CD. If that is the case, I think there being a cast on one slide and not others, would be an artifact of the scanning, rather than the original slide. Get the two slides and have a look at them together, as described, and your eyes will soon tell you for certain.

If you don't have a slide viewer or loupe, you can use a 50mm lens, or thereabouts, as a substitute. Just hold a slide or strip against the front filter ring and look through the rear element close-up. If you normally wear glasses, keep them on.

I grabbed the pic with the cast and had a peek at the levels in Photoshop. I think the levels were off slightly and that gave it a cast.

Here is your pic, before and after I adjusted the levels to what would seem to be more appropriate:

Here is what the original RGB levels looked like in PS:

Do you see how the black and white sliders (triangles), on the left and right respectively, are just pointing to areas of white? Well that gives a clue the levels are off. If you grab the sliders for each colour channel and move them to the nearest point where the black begins, like so:

Voila! - you get the result in the second adjusted pic - colour cast gone.

Film scanning is a PITA. To get the best results, at least with my film scanner, you have to adjust/changes the setting for almost every frame. I wouldn't ask your lab to adjust white balance, because that might require them to manually adjust for each frame, and they might charge a lot extra, if they would even be willing.

If you have PS, just adjust the scans you are not happy with. Otherwise get a hold of GIMP for free and use that - I am assuming it lets you adjust RGB levels indipendently.

cnocbui · 01-05-2009 10:06pm

Anouilh wrote: »

The lovely fisheye photos above have none of this problem.

Oh, I don't know, they look like they could have been shot on Ektachrome Tungsten 64...;)

In other words, a bit heavy on the blue.

Lets just grab that blue channel highlight and drag it way over to the left, now lets drag the midtone slider to the left just a smidge...

Damn, ruined it!

Anouilh · 04-05-2009 7:04pm

Everything is now much clearer, especially how to repair a colour cast.

Do many others posters here use slide film.
It is so often recommended on expert photography sites.

It cost over 18 euro to have the roll of film processed and scanned to CD. It is a bit of a luxury as a result.
However, since the roll was left uncut, it was not as expensive as having a series of single slides scanned.

cnocbui · 05-05-2009 1:27pm

I shoot slide almost exclusively, as I decided not to go digital as I couldn't bear the thought of Moor's law scale depreciation/obsolescence and I already had a very nice selection of lenses and such for 35mm.

Instead, I got a decent film scanner.

It might be worth your while considering getting something like a Canon MP980 multifunction printer/scanner/photocopier (€269 from komplett.ie)

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRINT/MP980/MP980.HTM

Not only will it give you dedicated photo lab quality prints, including monochrome, but it will also let you scan slides and negatives to a higher standard than you are getting at present.

I have a lesser version of one of these myself, a several year old MP600, and it is simply brilliant.

Anouilh · 06-05-2009 6:23pm

Thanks again... I'll certainly add that scanner to my shopping list, in time.

This site may be a bit on the Pixel Peeping side, but I thought you might find it interesting.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/velvia_vs_povia.shtml

darraghsherwin · 06-05-2009 10:09pm

E-6 is not a hard processes or expensive.
It costs around €1 per roll of 120 or €1 per 2 rolls of 35mm.
The difficultly with E-6 is keeping the temperature with 0.3 degrees of 38 degrees for the first 3 baths
I regularly do E-6 using a jobo cpe-2 processor which can be bought on eBay for about €100 and a 5 litre kit which will do 25 rolls of 120 or 50 rolls of 35mm from Gunns for €25.

Darragh

cnocbui · 06-05-2009 10:45pm

I'm not convinced by that at all. I think it was written in 2000. I am not sure, but don't the latest Velvias post date that?

He only scanned at 3200 dpi. My scanner does 4000 dpi and I wouldn't mind more than that. He might be getting aliasing artifacts. Provia and Velvia 100 are supposed to have the same grain, but the Velvia has greater resolution, so I think something doesn't sound right.

The main problem with scanning Velvia, as I understand anyway, is that it has a greater dynamic range than most scanners can capture.

To get pro quality scans from 35mm film, you apparently need a drum scanner which encodes at 8000 dpi or greater, so I think 3600 dpi may not be enough for a definitive test.

This is not meant to be critical in any way, but there is substantial visible 'grain' in the photo you posted in post 16 of this thread. I think this must be a result of the resolution at which your lab scans your slides, as Velvia doesn't have that sort of grain.

Here is a Velvia slide scanned at 4000 dpi:

Here is a fraction of the image blown up a bit:

As you can see, the film grain is still not very pronounced.

To get the most out of 35mm in a digital age, a way to get decent scans is a must, IMO.

Being able to do high quality scans and prints at home is a nice capability. Christmas isn't that far a away.

'Dear Santa...'

Anouilh wrote: »

Thanks again... I'll certainly add that scanner to my shopping list, in time.

This site may be a bit on the Pixel Peeping side, but I thought you might find it interesting.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/velvia_vs_povia.shtml

cnocbui · 06-05-2009 10:54pm

darraghsherwin wrote: »

I regularly do E-6 using a jobo cpe-2 processor which can be bought on eBay for about €100 and a 5 litre kit which will do 25 rolls of 120 or 50 rolls of 35mm from Gunns for €25.

Darragh

How long do the chemicals keep? 50 rolls would take a fair while to shoot.

Velvia

Comments