My first ever roll of Fuji Velvia.

Naboo32

Naboo32

Messages
3,278
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
A slightly image-heavy post here, but that's not normally a disadvantage IMHO ;).

Having read lots about the legendary 'Velvia saturation' and then having discovered that my local lab would process a roll of 135 for only 2.20GBP :eek:, I decided that I'd try and shoot one off before that film gets dropped as well :|.

These are my favourites from the roll of Velvia RVP 100. Despite all of the scaremongering on various blogs/forums about the sensitive nature of slide film, from an exposure point of view, I had no really bad exposures and the Matrix metering mode on my Nikon FA seemed to handle everything that was thrown at it, with little interference from me :).

The scans were done on my Epson V500 flat bed and are really the weak link in the chain, as I had to apply massive amounts of sharpening to get them to look presentable at this size and so some 'grain' has been introduced :(. I reckon that, if scanned properly, this film could produce images to rival many DSLRs :shrug:.

1.
2012_R09_Flower_01_0900.jpg


2.
2012_R09_KnockKnock_01_0900.jpg


3.
Hannover_Rathaus_01_0900.jpg


4.
2012_R09_Angry_Skies_01_0900.jpg


5.
2012_R09_Churchyard_01_0900.jpg


6.
2012_R09_Kronsberg_Hill_02_0900.jpg


Thanks for looking (y)!
 
My choice is the last one. Have you tried a slide projector and screen for your positive shots?

BTW as a computer monitor is an equalizer any shot (with decent equipment) should look sharp.
 
Last edited:
Andy, I am REALLY annoyed! :bang: I had just decided that transparency film in general and Velvia in particular is probably not for me, when you go and produce these, self-scanned too! :clap:

I just think they're wonderful... I probably like the last one most.
 
excalibur2 said:
My choice is the last one. Have you tried a slide projector and screen for your positive shots?

BTW as a computer monitor is an equalizer any shot (with decent equipment) should look sharp.
Click to expand...

Hi Brian,

No, I don't have a slide projector - I display most of my photos online, so getting high quality digital images is always my main aim (although I really enjoy the process of shooting film in order to get the images in the first place :naughty:).

I take your point about the computer screen, but the problem I have seems to be that the lens in my scanner is not really focusing accurately enough on the negative, producing a somewhat soft image. I know that the negatives are basically OK, as professional scans of the same negs have looked a lot sharper :shrug:.

ChrisR said:
Andy, I am REALLY annoyed! :bang: I had just decided that transparency film in general and Velvia in particular is probably not for me, when you go and produce these, self-scanned too! :clap:

I just think they're wonderful... I probably like the last one most.
Click to expand...

Sorry Chris :p! I dunno - I'm always annoying someone ;).

Yes, the last shot was my pick of the bunch too. It's funny, the light didn't really look like that on the day, but Velvia has a stange way of turning blue into purple, whilst not messing with the reds and leaving the greens pretty much accurate too :thinking:. For some scenes, like this one, it really adds to the effect, but for other subjects it can just look 'plain wrong' :|.

Perhaps you should try a roll after all, Chris (assuming that you haven't already) - you'll never know otherwise ;).
 
I'm a real Velvia fan. Just love this set. Beautiful Velvia skies. Good stuff.
 
Naboo32 said:
Yes, the last shot was my pick of the bunch too. It's funny, the light didn't really look like that on the day, but Velvia has a stange way of turning blue into purple, whilst not messing with the reds and leaving the greens pretty much accurate too :thinking:. For some scenes, like this one, it really adds to the effect, but for other subjects it can just look 'plain wrong' :|.

Perhaps you should try a roll after all, Chris (assuming that you haven't already) - you'll never know otherwise ;).
Click to expand...

Actually I realised after pressing "submit" that I was being daft. I sent off a roll of Velvia 100 and one of Provia 100F yesterday, so why was I making judgements before seeing the results? And I ordered a roll of Velvia 50 at the same time! (I'm experimenting with lots of different film types to see what I like.) I think I was just feeling grouchy, sorry! :bonk:

But I have found slide film difficult to scan, particularly where there is fairly deep shadow. Some Kodachromes from the Red Centre in Australia spring to mind, and the (over-exposed) EliteChrome film I got recently. Most processors seem to charge a tenner or more for a medium resolution scan (say 1800 dpi, or 6x9 in their terms) on top of their processing charges, so I want to be able to scan for myself. The alternative, if I can master my impatience, would be to find the cheapest reasonable process-only, then send the resulting negatives off to Photo Express who will do a 2000 dpi scan for £4 (sadly they don't do E6 or BW, or they would be my use-every-time processor).

The other alternative is to find a good colour negative film I like, and use Photo Express (£4 per roll process and scan at 2000 dpi if you're a TP member, min £5 per order). So far I've tried Fuji C200 (didn't like it), and Superia 200 and 400 (both not bad). Portra soon.
 
ChrisR said:
Actually I realised after pressing "submit" that I was being daft. I sent off a roll of Velvia 100 and one of Provia 100F yesterday, so why was I making judgements before seeing the results? And I ordered a roll of Velvia 50 at the same time! (I'm experimenting with lots of different film types to see what I like.) I think I was just feeling grouchy, sorry! :bonk:

But I have found slide film difficult to scan, particularly where there is fairly deep shadow. Some Kodachromes from the Red Centre in Australia spring to mind, and the (over-exposed) EliteChrome film I got recently. Most processors seem to charge a tenner or more for a medium resolution scan (say 1800 dpi, or 6x9 in their terms) on top of their processing charges, so I want to be able to scan for myself. The alternative, if I can master my impatience, would be to find the cheapest reasonable process-only, then send the resulting negatives off to Photo Express who will do a 2000 dpi scan for £4 (sadly they don't do E6 or BW, or they would be my use-every-time processor).

The other alternative is to find a good colour negative film I like, and use Photo Express (£4 per roll process and scan at 2000 dpi if you're a TP member, min £5 per order). So far I've tried Fuji C200 (didn't like it), and Superia 200 and 400 (both not bad). Portra soon.
Click to expand...

Hi Chris,

I too had read reports of positive film being hard to scan, but my experience was anything but! The negs arrived very clean and very flat - no need to even use the inner frame on the neg holder, or to use a cloth/blower on the negs themselves :).

I think that my scanner (Epson V500) automatically compensates for exposure with each scan, as the output was almost 'ready to post' straight from the scanner (I just tidied them up and sharpened them in LR3).

As for print vs. slide film, I have very little experience with either, but the results that I got from Fuji Superia and Fuji Reala were close to garbage :thumbsdown:. That had more to do with the lab than the film, I suspect, as their b&w processing wasn't even as good as my own attempts at home :shrug:.

Anyway, I hope that you get pleasing results from your slide film negs and can find a good source for scanning :). Please make sure to post some examples when the negs come back ;).

Andy
 
Yeah.... I'm back. Took another look at #6. Love the guy cycling into shot. Very well seen. I'd be really happy with this.
 
Nguss said:
Photos like these are the reasons that I love Velvia. 2, 4 and 6 are especially nice for me. 6 in particular has the classic Velvia look. Beautiful.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Nguss (y)!

trevorbray said:
Yeah.... I'm back. Took another look at #6. Love the guy cycling into shot. Very well seen. I'd be really happy with this.
Click to expand...

Hi Trevor!

You know, there's a little story behind this picture, although it's probably only of interest to me :D.

On that evening, I was heading up onto that hill to try and take some sunset shots (directly into the setting sun), but decided to make one frame of the hill(ock) itself, just so that I could remember the occasion. Whilst I was experimenting with different lens, a large cloud (which had been blocking out the sun) unexpectedly lifted and let a ray of golden light through underneath it. I knew that this would make a better photo, so I settled on the 50mm lens that I had on the camera at the time and just started walking closer to the hill (as I was quite a way off and looking through a 135mm lens before that ;)).

As I got close enough, I saw the cyclist (female, IIRC) coming towards me with her dog. My first instinct was to wait for them to get out of the way, but when I realised that she was wearing a bright red top and remembered how effective a little splash of red could be in photographs made up of mainly contrasting colours :naughty:, I decided that I would include her.

The next decision was where to 'put her' in the frame :thinking:. Looking through the (SLR) camera, I decided that she would look best filling up the flat empty space on the right of the frame, as there was already a boulder to fill up the left side. Then it occured to me that, just maybe, she would turn left and cycle up the path through the centre of the hill (as many other people had done that evening). Finally, I decided that I would take one shot with her on the left, as an 'insurance policy' and then get the 'real one' when she crossed over to the right. A second after taking this shot, she called her dog to her, turned left and started ooffing and straining up the hill :(.

So, in this case, my 'insurance shot' turned out to be not just the only one that I got, but was also (by popular consent) the very best exposure on the roll and is now one of my favourite photos (of mine) :).

There's a moral in there somewhere, I'm sure :D ....
 
They are looking good Andy well done, I am shooting some velvia and provia at the moment and as soon as I have a few rolls exposed I am going to have my first go at E-6 developing..
 
Steve-B said:
They are looking good Andy well done, I am shooting some velvia and provia at the moment and as soon as I have a few rolls exposed I am going to have my first go at E-6 developing..
Click to expand...

Sounds tricky - best of luck, Steve (y)!
 
Fine set of photos, Andy, for me the pick of the set is no.2, really like the range of blues and the composition in that one.
 
Fishman Fuji said:
Fine set of photos, Andy, for me the pick of the set is no.2, really like the range of blues and the composition in that one.
Click to expand...

Thanks John :)!

What's interesting about that shot is that the door itself is made of some kind of bronze material, which has corroded. To the naked eye, the colour appears to be a grey/green mixture, but Velvia seems to lend it a much bluer hue. Added to which, I gave the colour balance a little nudge towards the blue end of the spectrum when processing the scan in LR3 ;) (but it really was only a nudge).
 
Very nice film shots, maybe that's another area I could try out. :p

My favourite is number 2, but I also like the last one, lovely colours and contrast with the sky.
 
Sarky said:
Very nice film shots, maybe that's another area I could try out. :p

My favourite is number 2, but I also like the last one, lovely colours and contrast with the sky.
Click to expand...

Thank you, Tom (y)!

Now that I've overcome my 'fear' of the 'Mighty VELVIA' :shake:, I feel that there's really nothing to be afraid of, so I'd heartily recommend that you have a go if you're curious about it :). Many forum posts that I read, before trying Velvia, warned of it being critical to get within 2/3 of a stop for exposure and of the film being 'hard to scan properly', but either these things are not true or I was just very lucky :shrug:.

In 35mm format though, Velvia is pretty expensive :|.

Good luck!
 
ChrisR said:
The alternative, if I can master my impatience, would be to find the cheapest reasonable process-only, then send the resulting negatives off to Photo Express who will do a 2000 dpi scan for £4 (sadly they don't do E6 or BW, or they would be my use-every-time processor).
Click to expand...

Are there cheap companies who will scan developed Provia 100f, photo express can't.
 
Bennp2000 said:
Are there cheap companies who will scan developed Provia 100f, photo express can't.
Click to expand...

I got the impression that Photo Express would scan it once processed (for £4 I thought) but can't process it. I just got a roll of Provia (and one of Velvia) processed and scanned by Genie at 2000 dpi for £5.99 plus VAT plus postage per roll. They did a pretty god job of the Provia; the Velvia has needed a lot more work in PP, and a lot of frames have shadows that just disintegrate when you move the shadow recovery slider in Aperture. :thumbsdown: Their scanner says in the EXIF it is "d-lab2/3 der AgfaPhoto GmbH". Most of the others have been Noritsu Koko.
 
Sorry to hear that the scans didn't work out, Chris :( - I was looking forward to seeing some more Velvia output on the forum.

Hopefully, you'll have better luck with the Portra :).
 
OK, I promised a post on my own first experiences with Velvia. This was Velvia 100 (not 100F) in a Pentax ME (bought by me from new some 35 years ago). For those who don't know it, it's aperture preferred, no manual mode, and exposure compensation appears to be only whole stops (expressed as 2x, 1/2x etc). I've only used the latter accidentally! I'm trying out loadsa different films to see what I really like. The idea is that the Pentax is for colour, and the Trip or QL17 are for black and white (so I don't have to stare at a yellow-tinged image through the viewfinder!).

So, I put the Velvia 100 in and went to North Berwick. First, the good news; I think this is pretty good...

007.jpg


Surprisingly, this shot didn't pick up the reds in these rocks as much as I expected...

016.jpg


Now we're getting towards the problems. These actually started earlier, with a couple of shots of Edinburgh High Street that have wonderful clouds and an almost black street... I just can't bring myself to post them up, but maybe I should. Anyway, I was walking/climbing round the coast towards the East, and came to a bay dominated by Tantallon Castle. I don't remember thinking the light was at all problematic; sadly I didn't think to take a shot with the X10 that was also with me. Most of the shots just turned into silhouettes. This was the best...

023.jpg


And this is an example of a problematic one. I was really looking forward to this, as I thought the rock pool reflection would really work...

025.jpg


With a digital camera or negative film, I would expect to recover some shadow detail from the cliff face under the castle, but with this film I was only able to move the shadow slider about 5% of the way before the cliff face turns into some sort of weird grid-like noise structure (almost like coarse cloth weave).

The majority of shots on this film have U-shaped histograms: Big peak at the bright end and big peak at the dark end.

I think partly this is about me learning to expose it better. I don't understand how the Pentax does its metering, but it looks like it's giving the bright sky tones lots of weight. Maybe I have to learn to over-expose the sky? Maybe I should try some bracketing... but as mentioned, I can only do so in whole stops.

The good results were better than I initially thought. Mostly these are the ones that had a more bell-shaped histogram. When I first looked at the scans I thought there was no way I was going to try more Velvia... and then remembered the roll of Velvia 50 that had just arrived in the post! maybe that should go into the fridge until I learn to expose better.:bang:

Any suggestions?
 
Chris, like you I have had my moments with Velvia. I now try to remember to expose in favour of the shadows and let the highlights take care of themselves.
My early stuff was terrible with any underexposure. I'm planning more and more when selecting my subjects to try to get the sun/light over my shoulder.

Not always possible, especially when going walkabout or having someone else tagging along who can't comprehend why it is worth waiting another few hours just to get the shot....:wacky:

Mind you, coincidence or not...my MF stuff is miles better.

There is no doubt that for me it is impossible (i use Aperture and CS3) to recover anything from any slight under exposure on 35mm
 
trevorbray said:
Chris, like you I have had my moments with Velvia. I now try to remember to expose in favour of the shadows and let the highlights take care of themselves.
My early stuff was terrible with any underexposure. I'm planning more and more when selecting my subjects to try to get the sun/light over my shoulder.

Not always possible, especially when going walkabout or having someone else tagging along who can't comprehend why it is worth waiting another few hours just to get the shot....:wacky:

Mind you, coincidence or not...my MF stuff is miles better.

There is no doubt that for me it is impossible (i use Aperture and CS3) to recover anything from any slight under exposure on 35mm
Click to expand...

Thanks Trevor. I'm slowly beginning to realise that the problem is as much me and my understanding of (and ability to use) the camera, as the film itself! Looking at the notes I've started taking of settings has helped that dawning realisation.

I'm not far enough ahead in my understanding to know how to proceed, however. There doesn't appear to be a histogram in the viewfinder of my Pentax ME :)cuckoo:), and I'm not sure I know how to control its settings. There's no manual mode, and no "half press, hold and re-frame" capability. The only thing I can think of is to get MUCH better at assessing the scene I'm trying to take, and use the exposure compensation dial to try to expose for the shadows. It only moves in whole stops, though (expressed as double or half exposure).

I'm interested in MF, and I'm sure I'll go there (I heard yesterday that my sister just might have my father's old folding Zeiss somewhere... :geek:), but I need to be careful not to get too distracted by "new" gear, and to continue trying to improve more basic understanding and technique in my photography! :help:
 
New gear is always tempting..

In your shoes I'd probably add a stop when you're faced with a scene like the Castles and can see potential problems.

Not sure what Pentax gear you have, maybe worth looking out for a cheap manual body..
 
trevorbray said:
New gear is always tempting..

In your shoes I'd probably add a stop when you're faced with a scene like the Castles and can see potential problems.
Click to expand...

OK, the options I have are 4x, 2x, 1x, 1/2x and 1/4x. It normally sits on 1x. So adding a stop would be 2x, yes? (Twice the amount of light, less under-exposure of shadows, accept over-exposure of skies.) I have trouble with all this terminology, as you see!

Not sure what Pentax gear you have, maybe worth looking out for a cheap manual body..
Click to expand...

I've a Pentax ME with the f/1.7 50mm lens, and a Tamron 85-210 zoom. The latter is not really worth considering as it's just too big and heavy for me to use now. So in theory I could change to pretty much any SLR. I guess the point would be to find one with manual control as well as aperture-preferred...

But I find myself reluctant to change the Pentax, which I've had since new, and which has served me well. Aaaarrrggghhh :shrug:
 
Blimey a Pentax LX goes for up to £900 body only!!!!!
 
Get an ME Super as it has a manual mode as well, can be picked up for as little as £30 online. You can also do half stop exposure compensation on an ME/ME Super by simply putting the arrow on the dial between 1x and 2x for instance.

The problem with Velvia is that its designed really to be projected, not scanned; because of the massive amounts of light from a projector then shadow detail is much clearer as the shadows are just blasted through but most consumer scanners lack the necessary dynamic range to be able to this so they 'block up' in them which looks like underexposure. With something like a Nikon Coolscan etc though much more detail is usually visible.

Remember that transparency emulsions are quite high contrast and as so you can get results similar to yours in high contrast situations unless the exposure is very careful or grads etc are used help narrow down the dynamic range.
 
ChrisR said:
Blimey a Pentax LX goes for up to £900 body only!!!!!
Click to expand...

GULP...

I guess if you change systems the world is your lobster rodney,

Olympus OM great system. OM10 bargain for Aperture Priority and when fitted with optional Manual Adapter you get full control. I use one, always wanted an OM1 though.
Let's face it, what really matters is that the shutter is accurate, the glass is sharp and you make the right film choice.
 
s162216 said:
Get an ME Super as it has a manual mode as well, can be picked up for as little as £30 online. You can also do half stop exposure compensation on an ME/ME Super by simply putting the arrow on the dial between 1x and 2x for instance.

The problem with Velvia is that its designed really to be projected, not scanned; because of the massive amounts of light from a projector then shadow detail is much clearer as the shadows are just blasted through but most consumer scanners lack the necessary dynamic range to be able to this so they 'block up' in them which looks like underexposure. With something like a Nikon Coolscan etc though much more detail is usually visible.

Remember that transparency emulsions are quite high contrast and as so you can get results similar to yours in high contrast situations unless the exposure is very careful or grads etc are used help narrow down the dynamic range.
Click to expand...

Thanks Samuel that's very helpful. The projector up in the loft (a Leitz I believe) hasn't seen electricity for 30 years or so, and I didn't get this lot mounted, so I don't think projection is going to be an option. Both these films were processed by Genie Imaging who use an Agfa d-lab2/3 scnner; I'm not convinced (on a sample of 3 films on 1 occasion, ie non-scientific) that it's as good as the NORITSU KOKI that some of the other labs use (the Edinburgh processor near St Patrick's Sq used a Fuji scanner on my Elitechrome, also without spectacular success). That said, I haven't had transparency film done with the Noritsu, so what would I know!
 
trevorbray said:
GULP...

I guess if you change systems the world is your lobster rodney,

Olympus OM great system. OM10 bargain for Aperture Priority and when fitted with optional Manual Adapter you get full control. I use one, always wanted an OM1 though.
Let's face it, what really matters is that the shutter is accurate, the glass is sharp and you make the right film choice.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'll keep my eyes open and thinking cap on, but for now I'll stick with the Pentax ME and next time I'm trying Portra 160. Let's see if C41 can do better for me!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top