Posted by Keith Anderson on November 20, 2006 at 4:31 PM
I've been, ever since I started photography seriously, using Fuji Velvia 50. I guess deep down I have used this because everyone else in landscape photography just about has, following a trend maybe? Now I know a few don't like it and your welcome to state why here as well.
Recently I shoot a couple of 4x5 frames with Provia 100F. One thing that struck me was the shadow detail in the images. Sure the colour punch isn't there but the detail scans much easier.
So my question basically is what film do you shoot, have you tried Velvia vs Provia vs Astia. Why do you shoot the film you do and why did you switch, if you used say Velvia but now use Provia.
Thanks
Posted by Stephen Weaver on November 20, 2006 at 4:43 PM
Keith
When I shoot 4x5 i use Astia 100 and Velvia 100F. The Astia is superior for good detail in the shadows and scans very well on my Artixscan 1800F. Velvia is a bit more chalenging to scan. I used Provia 100F before Astia 100F but really did not like the blueish cast. If you are printing digitally you can always add a bit of saturation so if you only want to shoot one film I recommend Astia 100F.
Posted by Bill Stice on November 20, 2006 at 4:59 PM
Keith, I'd agree with Steve about Astia 100F and Provia 100F. I have also used Velvia 100F and the newer Velvia 100 along with Velvia 50. I think they all have good and bad points. If you do scan them I definitely feel that Velvia is the most difficult to work with due to shadows blocking up. Thanks to Danny Burk I use NPS color negative film in bright or high contrast situations and it is outstanding in scans. I've done side by side tests of a variety of scenes and when the situation is right NPS is top notch.
If one prints digitally and is not making submissions of film originals, there really is no need to use one of the more contrasty transparency films. It goes without saying that a film which gives you the widest latitude makes the greatest sense for printing, as you can always increase the color saturation and contast in a low contrast original (while the reverse may not be possible).
For color films, I photograph exclusively with Fuji Astia and Fuji Pro 160s (formerly NPS). 160S get used when the contrast of the scene is too great for Astia.
Posted by Kent Staubus on November 20, 2006 at 9:16 PM
Provia 100F is my general purpose film for 4x5. It's sharp, gives pretty clean whites, doesn't block up shadows, and (important to me) can be pushed to ISO 400. I will use Vevlia 100 only when I need strong greens or very saturated colors and the scene isn't high contrast. I see Velvia as a special purpose film.
My primary film for 4x5 and 645 is Astia 100F. It scans beautifully (I have an 1800f, as well), has a neutral color pallet, and a decent dynamic range for a transparency film. In 645, I have shot some portraits with Astia 100F, and it does a really nice job with skin tones.
I liked Provia, but found it too blue in the shadows. I do a lot of my work at higher altitude where blue is an issue, so the Provia didn't work well for me there.
I also shoot some Velvia 100 (non F). I find it has a better range than V-50, but does odd things to reds and yellows-it looks to throw in some green. When I need punchy color and the scene lacks reds and yellows, I will use it. I think it also does not scan as easily as Astia.
I shot Velvia 100F for a while, but found that is exhibits a magenta cast when scanned. This is a well documented issue with this film.
I have yet to try the Pro 160s, but I've seen MG's work with it and I must say that it really does handle contrasty situations very well, indeed.
Overall, my vote is for Astia 100F for chromes and Pro 160s for color neg.
-PB
Posted by Keith Anderson on November 20, 2006 at 10:47 PM
Can someone point me to a couple of images on their site that they have used Astia on. I know it's probably had to judge on a small image but it might help. Preston the image on the front of your site, what film is that. It looks very natural.
Posted by David Senesac on November 20, 2006 at 10:57 PM
My photography has always been about creating landscapes that reasonably reflect the day time visual experience thus have never used the higher saturation films like Velvia. A friend I have done trips with for a couple decades did shoot Velvia and other high sat films for some years and we would sometimes compare the results. Those results just solidly convinced me to stay away. Since Provia 100F came out I have used that although have always had an interest in trying Astia too. Unlike Preston most of my work has been when the sun is up some and I tend to avoid shadows unless they really have a positive purpose. However I've increasingly been successful shooting low light conditions so next year will compare sheets of these two neutral films on some identical shots. ...David
Posted by William Vrolyk on November 20, 2006 at 11:55 PM
Most of the time I shoot with Provia 100F. But I have a box of Velvia 50 waiting their turn too.
Keith: Both of the images linked below are Astia 100F. The first one is 645 and the second is 4x5. The photo of Lone Pine Peak on my home page was also on Astia (645).
Posted by Rick Dunn on November 21, 2006 at 10:58 AM
I've taken what I've learned in the digital realm and applied it to film. Shooting RAW has revealed the benefits of starting with a low contrast image, then adding contrast, saturation, etc., in a discriminating (and controlled) manner.
I look at Velvia/Provia vs. Astia in a manner similar to RAW vs. JPEG; I'd like to start with a film file that offers the greatest latitude for subsequent processing. I like some of the qualities of Velvia and Provia, but I don't always want them universally applied to all areas of the image.
Posted by Jess Lee on November 21, 2006 at 10:12 PM
Velvia is still the choice of many editors but if your work is intended for scanning you will be better served with Astia which in the newest form pushes quite nicely without the color cast of Provia.
Posted by Cliff Beittel on November 22, 2006 at 9:38 PM
"Velvia is still the choice of many editors but if your work is intended for scanning you will be better served with Astia . . . "--Jess Lee
An interesting paradox, in that all the Velvia selected by editors these days gets scanned in the production process and most often (assuming a good photo and a scanner operator who is experienced) looks good to spectacular when published.
Posted by David Senesac on November 22, 2006 at 11:51 PM
Cliff >>> "An interesting paradox, in that all the Velvia selected by editors these days gets scanned in the production process and most often (assuming a good photo and a scanner operator who is experienced) looks good to spectacular when published."
It is true that the multitude of shades and hues of reds to pinks to purples do have a rather universal response from viewers as being striking. Hence a major factor in our long march down the road of heavily saturated films and now heavy handed use of contrast, saturation, and hue shift controls. Magazines and advertising publishers have arguably had a strong influence on such preferences over two generations of pro landscape photographers particularly since they are a source of stock revenue and increasing one's reputation. Some well known outdoor photography magazines have a real preference for such unnaturally red images on their covers but if one takes a critical look at those red areas given the small magazine sizes, don't have the fine gradiations of color that one would find on a large fine art print. But just being red like posters they attract the uncritical viewer casually passing the magazine stand or with ads, the person flipping through pages, serving a definite purpose not lost on marketers. I with one small voice grating against the status quo more appreciate natural versus unnatural even though such obviously usually is not as "spectacular". ...David
Posted by Cliff Beittel on November 23, 2006 at 8:47 AM
"I with one small voice grating against the status quo more appreciate natural versus unnatural even though such obviously usually is not as 'spectacular'."--David Senesac
Which is just another way of saying we choose films based on the "look" we like. Can't agree that blazing color is unnatural, though. I see lots of it in nature, along with, at other times or places, soft, muted colors.
Posted by Jess Lee on November 23, 2006 at 2:52 PM
Velvia is still the choice of many editors but if your work is intended for scanning you will be better served with Astia . . . "--Jess Lee
An interesting paradox, in that all the Velvia selected by editors these days gets scanned in the production process and most often (assuming a good photo and a scanner operator who is experienced) looks good to spectacular when published."--Cliff
I agree Cliff ,Velvia has a dramatic "POP" on the light table or in print which many editors still love. I feel Astia allows the user more latitude to impart their own vision of how the scene should be represented.
I agree Astia is better in terms of dynamic range but after using it for a while I ended up going back to my old favorite - Provia.
Astia is just not sensitive enough in the blue range for my taste, rendering images with an overall warm yellow palette that is not to my liking. Provia does a better job separating warm and cool tones to my taste, though it does need 81a/b filtration in open shade.
Velvia 100F is my next favorite - similar to Provia but with a little more punch.
Velvia 50 is just too limiting to my way of work - high contrast and poor reciprocity characteristics.
Haven't tried Velvia 100 yet.
My least favorite film is Kodak E100VS. It easily blocks shadows or blows highlights and renders what a fellow photographer who shall remain nameless once referred to as "puke yellows".
Discussion
16 repliesRecently I shoot a couple of 4x5 frames with Provia 100F. One thing that struck me was the shadow detail in the images. Sure the colour punch isn't there but the detail scans much easier.
So my question basically is what film do you shoot, have you tried Velvia vs Provia vs Astia. Why do you shoot the film you do and why did you switch, if you used say Velvia but now use Provia.
Thanks
When I shoot 4x5 i use Astia 100 and Velvia 100F. The Astia is superior for good detail in the shadows and scans very well on my Artixscan 1800F. Velvia is a bit more chalenging to scan. I used Provia 100F before Astia 100F but really did not like the blueish cast. If you are printing digitally you can always add a bit of saturation so if you only want to shoot one film I recommend Astia 100F.
For color films, I photograph exclusively with Fuji Astia and Fuji Pro 160s (formerly NPS). 160S get used when the contrast of the scene is too great for Astia.
Kent in SD
My primary film for 4x5 and 645 is Astia 100F. It scans beautifully (I have an 1800f, as well), has a neutral color pallet, and a decent dynamic range for a transparency film. In 645, I have shot some portraits with Astia 100F, and it does a really nice job with skin tones.
I liked Provia, but found it too blue in the shadows. I do a lot of my work at higher altitude where blue is an issue, so the Provia didn't work well for me there.
I also shoot some Velvia 100 (non F). I find it has a better range than V-50, but does odd things to reds and yellows-it looks to throw in some green. When I need punchy color and the scene lacks reds and yellows, I will use it. I think it also does not scan as easily as Astia.
I shot Velvia 100F for a while, but found that is exhibits a magenta cast when scanned. This is a well documented issue with this film.
I have yet to try the Pro 160s, but I've seen MG's work with it and I must say that it really does handle contrasty situations very well, indeed.
Overall, my vote is for Astia 100F for chromes and Pro 160s for color neg.
-PB
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Moonset Over Mount Humphreys
Fall On Big Pine Creek
-PB
I look at Velvia/Provia vs. Astia in a manner similar to RAW vs. JPEG; I'd like to start with a film file that offers the greatest latitude for subsequent processing. I like some of the qualities of Velvia and Provia, but I don't always want them universally applied to all areas of the image.
An interesting paradox, in that all the Velvia selected by editors these days gets scanned in the production process and most often (assuming a good photo and a scanner operator who is experienced) looks good to spectacular when published.
It is true that the multitude of shades and hues of reds to pinks to purples do have a rather universal response from viewers as being striking. Hence a major factor in our long march down the road of heavily saturated films and now heavy handed use of contrast, saturation, and hue shift controls. Magazines and advertising publishers have arguably had a strong influence on such preferences over two generations of pro landscape photographers particularly since they are a source of stock revenue and increasing one's reputation. Some well known outdoor photography magazines have a real preference for such unnaturally red images on their covers but if one takes a critical look at those red areas given the small magazine sizes, don't have the fine gradiations of color that one would find on a large fine art print. But just being red like posters they attract the uncritical viewer casually passing the magazine stand or with ads, the person flipping through pages, serving a definite purpose not lost on marketers. I with one small voice grating against the status quo more appreciate natural versus unnatural even though such obviously usually is not as "spectacular". ...David
Which is just another way of saying we choose films based on the "look" we like. Can't agree that blazing color is unnatural, though. I see lots of it in nature, along with, at other times or places, soft, muted colors.
An interesting paradox, in that all the Velvia selected by editors these days gets scanned in the production process and most often (assuming a good photo and a scanner operator who is experienced) looks good to spectacular when published."--Cliff
I agree Cliff ,Velvia has a dramatic "POP" on the light table or in print which many editors still love. I feel Astia allows the user more latitude to impart their own vision of how the scene should be represented.
Astia is just not sensitive enough in the blue range for my taste, rendering images with an overall warm yellow palette that is not to my liking. Provia does a better job separating warm and cool tones to my taste, though it does need 81a/b filtration in open shade.
Velvia 100F is my next favorite - similar to Provia but with a little more punch.
Velvia 50 is just too limiting to my way of work - high contrast and poor reciprocity characteristics.
Haven't tried Velvia 100 yet.
My least favorite film is Kodak E100VS. It easily blocks shadows or blows highlights and renders what a fellow photographer who shall remain nameless once referred to as "puke yellows".
Guy