I had this scanned by a lab, it turned out different slightly than how it seems on the film. Like the color cast, I want your guyses expert opinion as to what you think, a keeper or a file awayer.
Also can I get a concensus from you film users which film you guys use.
Since you asked......what is it that you want the viewer to focus on? I think the black water is too much of a distraction to allow the eye to look into the frame. Personally, I'd rather see a telephoto of the farm and the pretty mountain - no fence, etc.
In general Velvia 100 tends to shift magenta especially if the chemistry being used in E6 processing is stale or old. I dont like the fact that you said that it came back different from the lab after being scanned unless that is what you specifically asked for. I will sometimes adjust the curves with my drum scanner during scanning to remove a color cast etc but usually handle color adjustment inside of photoshop and try to make the scan as accurate to the original film as possible.
Film wise I shoot Velvia 50, Velvia 100, Provia 100, Fuji 64T, Astia 100, Tmax 100/400. All of these films are used for different situations depending on lighting, zones, colors in the shot, purpose for final product etc..
I'm on the fence on this one (pun intended). You do have better shots on your web site, so I'd say this one's about average, at least among the shots I glanced at on your site. I personally like Fuji Velvia 100F over Velvia 100, but it's really just comes down to personal preference. The one suggestion I have is to learn Photoshop a little better. Some of the shots look good, but some look like they could benefit a lot from levels and curves adjustments, along with some better sharpening. The above shot doesn't look like it's been sharpened at all.
The scene has potential, but the biggest issue for me is that 2/3 of the image - the fence and everything below it - is dedicated to elements that aren't all that compelling. The fence makes for a nice complementary element, but it's the most prominent object in the scene. I agree w/ Dave that the barn and mountain need to be made more prominent.
One option would have been to have moved back quite a ways from the fence, and then zoomed in. That would have let you keep the fence as a smaller foreground element, while having the barn and mountain fill more of the frame.
Regarding film, (*warning - rant coming!* ) I think I'm in a small minority of people who don't like Velvia; actually, I hate it. In very skilled hands, it can be fantastic. For most, it overly complicates the image making process with it's limited range and intolerance for imperfect exposures. Provia is a little better; Astia is even more forgiving. Those are the two that I shoot.
If the end goal is a beautiful transparency, Velvia may be worth the hassle because it can look fantastic on the light table. But for prints and web, I think it's much easier to work with more forgiving films and then adjust the scanned image as desired in Photoshop. Anymore, I think of shooting film no differently than shooting digital; Astia (or even less contrasty films) are the film equivalent of shooting in RAW on a DSLR. The goal is to capture the maximum amount of information to allow you the greatest flexibility in post-processing.
One last comment for my anti-Velvia rant - I think it had it's time and place when prints were being made directly from transparency and you had to capture that color on film if you wanted to see it in your print. But now that most images get digitized before being printed, I struggle to understand why so many people continue to use it. [/end rant].
I agree that the foreground is too dominant. The farm and mountain is nice but you need more contrast between the sky and mountain to break the mountain out more.
I shoot Velvia 50/100, Provia 100, and Astia 100. My last trip I shot E100VS but I don't think I'll make it a regular film. I love the velvia slides and still shoot it probably out of nostalgia, but I agree with Rick that provia/astia is easier to get good scans from besides being more forgiving.
I think I'm with Dave and Grant here. I've seen the work yuou have on your site and there is a vast difference to my eye. A lot of great elements, just not where they need to be.
Hi Paul: I've always used Fuji Provia 100F. I used to take Velvia 50 and then found out that Provia was just as sharp and a stop faster. Then they came out with Velvia 100 and 100F and I tried it, but found that I was overexposing compared to 100F and that it was very garish, maybe because I was use to Provia. I've stuck with Provia, to me it's sharp and a bit more natural looking but can be zipped up with filters if necessary.
All of these suggestions are good. I might also mention that I had a Hi Tech GND filter that imparted a magenta cast. I replaced it with a better quality GND and also have another Hi Tech that is just fine.
Discussion
12 repliesAlso can I get a concensus from you film users which film you guys use.
Taken with Fuji Velvia 100.
Since you asked......what is it that you want the viewer to focus on? I think the black water is too much of a distraction to allow the eye to look into the frame. Personally, I'd rather see a telephoto of the farm and the pretty mountain - no fence, etc.
In general Velvia 100 tends to shift magenta especially if the chemistry being used in E6 processing is stale or old. I dont like the fact that you said that it came back different from the lab after being scanned unless that is what you specifically asked for. I will sometimes adjust the curves with my drum scanner during scanning to remove a color cast etc but usually handle color adjustment inside of photoshop and try to make the scan as accurate to the original film as possible.
Film wise I shoot Velvia 50, Velvia 100, Provia 100, Fuji 64T, Astia 100, Tmax 100/400. All of these films are used for different situations depending on lighting, zones, colors in the shot, purpose for final product etc..
RichieV
Jack
One option would have been to have moved back quite a ways from the fence, and then zoomed in. That would have let you keep the fence as a smaller foreground element, while having the barn and mountain fill more of the frame.
Regarding film, (*warning - rant coming!*
If the end goal is a beautiful transparency, Velvia may be worth the hassle because it can look fantastic on the light table. But for prints and web, I think it's much easier to work with more forgiving films and then adjust the scanned image as desired in Photoshop. Anymore, I think of shooting film no differently than shooting digital; Astia (or even less contrasty films) are the film equivalent of shooting in RAW on a DSLR. The goal is to capture the maximum amount of information to allow you the greatest flexibility in post-processing.
One last comment for my anti-Velvia rant - I think it had it's time and place when prints were being made directly from transparency and you had to capture that color on film if you wanted to see it in your print. But now that most images get digitized before being printed, I struggle to understand why so many people continue to use it. [/end rant].
Up in your neck of the woods now with 2-3zones and super saturated greens Velvia rocks. Those are about the only conditions I love it in!!
Down here you are totally right Velvia can be a tough one to manage.
RichieV
I shoot Velvia 50/100, Provia 100, and Astia 100. My last trip I shot E100VS but I don't think I'll make it a regular film. I love the velvia slides and still shoot it probably out of nostalgia, but I agree with Rick that provia/astia is easier to get good scans from besides being more forgiving.
and try a different grad ND filter, luckily I have 3, but have been using only 1 for a while now