Big Bend National Park - Velvia 50 a Good Choice? - Ektar 100?

[ggray79]

Haven't been to BBNP before. Are these two films good choices for the landscapes? Will be using a polarizer most of the time. Thanks!

 

[jeffreyg]

I used only b&w Take the polarizer but I don’t think you need it. I used no filters except when there were some light clouds and then used a light orange which was just a bit more than a yellow and slightly helped the green folliage. Check the moon position because it can be very bright and washout the Milky Way. I had to get out at 3:00 AM and got one fairly decent shot. I shot from a dirt road that the cashier in the restaurant suggested. None the less it was great to see along with the number of stars. Amazing how dark it was. I couldn’t see my hand in front of my face.
You might check for hints about Astro photography on Dan Zaffra’s website
Enjoy your trip.

 

[jeffreyg]

Correction Zafra

 

[Franswa]

Both good choices. Perhaps consider a soft graduated nd to tame those intense skies when shooting velvia. The Texas sun is pretty intense, hopefully you’ll get some nice puffy clouds here and there. You’re going to love the park though. It’s truly magnificent and otherworldly.

 

[ggray79]

Thank you both. I will also do BW with yellow or orange if there is much sky in the shot! Driving now!

 

[loccdor]

Have fun. I think the film choice would be helped by knowing the time of day you plan to shoot at.

 

[koraks]

Are these two films good choices for the landscapes?

Sure - one will give you slides, the other negatives. For an analog workflow, the difference is evident and the choice dictates where you can (not) go with the images.
In terms of scanning, the Ektar will give a bit more leeway provided you give sufficient exposure, but rescuing an overexposed color negative is in my experience easier than an underexposed positive. Of course, underexposed negatives and overexposed slides are a dead-end street either way, so whichever option you choose, be sure to lean in the right direction depending on the material you've got. With CN color balancing will be more tricky than with E6.

 

[Kino]

Depends on the results you want.

Frankly, Portra would probably be more forgiving in that brutal desert light, but that's up to your shooting style.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

You could take the middle road with Provia.

PS What format are you shooting? Velvia 50 is no longer available in large format.

 

[2ndGenNikonian]

I've never shot film out at Big Bend, but I'm seconding the graduated ND suggestion. It gets extremely bright out there if there isn't cloud cover, and the filter will help keep it from blowing out. As for the films, Velvia's a classic for landscape photography. The colors might not be quite true-to-life, but the dramatic saturation is something else. Ektar would be a great choice for negative film. Early on in my photography journey, I shot some at Enchanted Rock. Most of the shots were amateurish, but the colors came out very well.

 

[mshchem]

35mm is pretty dinky for Big Bend

I would take slide film and bracket 1/2 stop.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

35mm is pretty dinky for Big Bend

I would take slide film and bracket 1/2 stop.

+1

 

[DREW WILEY]

With the potential contrast involved, Velvia would be problematic. I never found much use for it in the desert, even back when it was still relatively affordable in 8x10 sheets. A polarizer would even make it worse in terms of rendering earthtones realistically. I don't like the way they tend to kill the magic of natural glare and sparkle anyway unless one is thoughtful. Rock sheen and "desert varnish" is one of great beauties of our desert landscapes; but it depends on the specific geology.

ND grads seem to take a lot of experience to get right; in my hundreds of trips, I've never used one, and probably never will. It's really easy to make a scene look fake that way unless you've learned nuance first.

If the lighting ratio is just too much, sometimes you simply have to sacrifice the shadows and let them go black. Ektar will give you about a stop more realistic wiggle room either side than a typical slide film; about a stop and a half more either side than Velvia.

And it depends what you want out of it, and how you intend to print it, if at all. In recent years I've had great results with Ektar CN film and earthtones, but it's contingent on two things : 1) meter just as carefully as you would with a slide film (don't bet on "latitude"); 2) you have to color temp balance it with appropriate warming filters if bluish overcast or deep blue shadows are encountered. The latter is likely to be abundant in Big Bend (don't count on any of that "I can fix anything in PS afterwards; you can't).

I always carry a 1B light pink skylight filter and KR1.5 or 81B warming filter on such trips. Ektar isn't artificially "fleshtone" warmed like most color neg flms; but it is a lot better overall hue balanced and saturated. Blue skies tend to come out a little cyan inflected unless you counter that with a 1B filter.

Portra 160 would be rather bland to my taste for those kind of scenes, but it's more forgiving.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

With the potential contrast involved, Velvia would be problematic. I never found much use for it in the desert, even back when it was still relatively affordable in 8x10 sheets. A polarizer would even make it worse in terms of rendering earthtones realistically. I don't like the way they tend to kill the magic of natural glare and sparkle anyway unless one is thoughtful. Rock sheen and "desert varnish" is one of great beauties of our desert landscapes; but it depends on the specific geology.

ND grads seem to take a lot of experience to get right; in my hundreds of trips, I've never used one, and probably never will. It's really easy to make a scene look fake that way unless you've learned nuance first.

If the lighting ratio is just too much, sometimes you simply have to sacrifice the shadows and let them go black. Ektar will give you about a stop more realistic wiggle room either side than a typical slide film; about a stop and a half more either side than Velvia.

And it depends what you want out of it, and how you intend to print it, if at all. In recent years I've had great results with Ektar CN film and earthtones, but it's contingent on two things : 1) meter just as carefully as you would with a slide film (don't bet on "latitude"); 2) you have to color temp balance it with appropriate warming filters if bluish overcast or deep blue shadows are encountered. The latter is likely to be abundant in Big Bend (don't count on any of that "I can fix anything in PS afterwards; you can't).

I always carry a 1B light pink skylight filter and KR1.5 or 81B warming filter on such trips. Ektar isn't artificially "fleshtone" warmed like most color neg flms; but it is a lot better overall hue balanced and saturated. Blue skies tend to come out a little cyan inflected unless you counter that with a 1B filter.

Portra 160 would be rather bland to my taste for those kind of scenes, but it's more forgiving.

I've learned to dial down polarizers from maximum polarization to about half. Otherwise they suck the life out of objects. For example, colors in green leaves and other foliage, and grass get intensified. But if you have the polarization dialed up 100% like I did in the photo below, it removes all light reflections sucking the life out of it. Polarization is not just about removing reflections and darkening blue skies. It intensifies colors by removing light reflections from all objects. Turn the polarizer while viewing the scene ,and opt for something in the middle that appears the best. Then take the shot. You could try bracketing as well to see what's best later.

 

[jeffreyg]

ggray79 did you happen to see the moon smiley face last night from BB ?

 

[Sirius Glass]

35mm is pretty dinky for Big Bend

I would take slide film and bracket 1/2 stop.

That raises the cost by a factor of 3. Instead buy a light meter, get it calculated and shoot the slide film a box speed. That always worked for me.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Alan -Try bracketing 8x10 Ektar or Ektachrome?. Hmmm, you mean spending a $150 per shot, and then possibly not liking even any of em polarized? For me a scene where every color looks saturated (or "intensified") also looks inauthentic, as if it had been painted with tempera or something else opaque. I love the delicate nuances and transparency of light just as they are.

 

[Dr. no]

Big Bend
A vote for Kodachrome... The first few color shots in this gallery were Kodachromes on 35mm. The later color shots were Velvia in 120 or 4x5. No filters for color, but you either accept the contrast, lose the sky or find the magic light at dawn and sunset.

Other examples:

Careful metering, balanced with "gotta get this shot because the light changes so fast" (the Moonrise, Hernandez scenario is every day in the desert), and a tripod.

When you look at your developed pictures from BBNP, several things will occur to you:
1. I need to go back
2. I need to get better
3. I need a bigger camera, and more time...

 

[djdister]

Big Bend
A vote for Kodachrome... The first few color shots in this gallery were Kodachromes on 35mm. The later color shots were Velvia in 120 or 4x5. No filters for color, but you either accept the contrast, lose the sky or find the magic light at dawn and sunset.

Other examples:




Careful metering, balanced with "gotta get this shot because the light changes so fast" (the Moonrise, Hernandez scenario is every day in the desert), and a tripod.

When you look at your developed pictures from BBNP, several things will occur to you:
1. I need to go back
2. I need to get better
3. I need a bigger camera, and more time...

Since Kodachrome and Kodachrome processing are no longer available, perhaps a practical suggestion would be better.

 

[koraks]

Other examples:

That's a very odd magenta foreground on the first image. Reminds me of a heavily exposed slide where the shadows were pulled up dramatically in digital editing.

Careful metering, balanced with "gotta get this shot because the light changes so fast" (the Moonrise, Hernandez scenario is every day in the desert), and a tripod.

So color negative might be a little more practical.

 

[Taylor Nankervis]

Would not even consider using a POL in early morning of evening (sunrise/sunset) light.
Take both films, perhaps another (mentioned near the end). With RVP photographs made in bright daylight rarely make the grade as technically or aesthetically considered especially if they are shot in colour transparency.
Remember that a landscape can be burnt and brash and bare in the harsh midday sun, yet take on ethereal, almost magical hues around dawn and after the sunsets (looking east, at the 'Rise of the Belt of Venus'). This is when you must be mentally prepared to square up to the scene and bring home the bacon.

If you get some diffuse cloud cover, that will be ideal for the muted palette of Ektar, better still with Velvia and pretty darned good with Provia. I would leave a polariser out of the work because only part of the sky will be under the effect of polarisation, with attendant metering error, and this does not make an attractive photograph at all — in any light.

What is your camera situation?
The 35mm format would not be my primary choice for open vistas/landscapes of which I may not be able to repeat again, with the exception of perhaps a rectilinear fisheye and a strong foreground focal point. A larger format e.g. MF spreads the contrast out (especially a noteworthy factor when using Velvia 50 in low light or unavoidably in bright light) and makes metering easier.

All things considered, Ektar will give you a small boost in dynamic range and speed (RVP is very uncommonly exposed at EI100 when Provia is there to eliminate risk). better separation of shadows and highlights and midtones, but on the flipside, nowhere near the punch and pizazz of Velvia. Decisions, decisions, decisions.

If the foregoing makes you undecided, fall back to the very forgiving and pretty much universally useful Provia 100F, but consider carrying a correction filter like Skylight 1B (light pink) or a warmer (81a or c). Like other E6 films, Provia too can look irksome in very bright sunlight so again, delivers its best when light is most favourable –soft, nuanced hues of early morning or evening that are given a gentle lift, rather than a knockout blow from Big Brother Velvia!

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Alan -Try bracketing 8x10 Ektar or Ektachrome?. Hmmm, you mean spending a $150 per shot, and then possibly not liking even any of em polarized? For me a scene where every color looks saturated (or "intensified") also looks inauthentic, as if it had been painted with tempera or something else opaque. I love the delicate nuances and transparency of light just as they are.

My bracketing suggestion was given to a guy shooting 35mm, not 8x10. I don't bracket usually when shooting 4x5 unless the lighting is difficult to gauge, even with a meter, like during magic hour.

Regarding color tastes, some like blondes, others brunettes.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Would not even consider using a POL in early morning of evening (sunrise/sunset) light.
Take both films, perhaps another (mentioned near the end). With RVP photographs made in bright daylight rarely make the grade as technically or aesthetically considered especially if they are shot in colour transparency.
Remember that a landscape can be burnt and brash and bare in the harsh midday sun, yet take on ethereal, almost magical hues around dawn and after the sunsets (looking east, at the 'Rise of the Belt of Venus'). This is when you must be mentally prepared to square up to the scene and bring home the bacon.

If you get some diffuse cloud cover, that will be ideal for the muted palette of Ektar, better still with Velvia and pretty darned good with Provia. I would leave a polariser out of the work because only part of the sky will be under the effect of polarisation, with attendant metering error, and this does not make an attractive photograph at all — in any light.

What is your camera situation?
The 35mm format would not be my primary choice for open vistas/landscapes of which I may not be able to repeat again, with the exception of perhaps a rectilinear fisheye and a strong foreground focal point. A larger format e.g. MF spreads the contrast out (especially a noteworthy factor when using Velvia 50 in low light or unavoidably in bright light) and makes metering easier.

All things considered, Ektar will give you a small boost in dynamic range and speed (RVP is very uncommonly exposed at EI100 when Provia is there to eliminate risk). better separation of shadows and highlights and midtones, but on the flipside, nowhere near the punch and pizazz of Velvia. Decisions, decisions, decisions.

If the foregoing makes you undecided, fall back to the very forgiving and pretty much universally useful Provia 100F, but consider carrying a correction filter like Skylight 1B (light pink) or a warmer (81a or c). Like other E6 films, Provia too can look irksome in very bright sunlight so again, delivers its best when light is most favourable –soft, nuanced hues of early morning or evening that are given a gentle lift, rather than a knockout blow from Big Brother Velvia!

My Velvia 50 mainly without filters. Not needed. Most are MF 6x7, 120, a few 4x5.

Flickr Search

www.flickr.com

 

[DREW WILEY]

Depends what you are doing. Apparently Alan has backlit viewing of his Velvia trannies over a light box in mind, along with web presentation. Slide shows are analogous, being backlit. But once you get into any kind of serious quality print or offset production, the contrast issues of Velvia become a serious issue. Some magazines outright refused it. In the darkroom, it required intense "nuke" masking.

Don't get me wrong - I loved Velvia even for making contrasty Cibachromes when the shoe actually fit, like for boosting contrast and saturation in a misty low contrast scene to begin with. But out in harsh desert lighting, there's not only the risk of losing most highlight and shadow tonality, but with it, a lot of hue color quality itself.

Velvia and Provia can trend slightly purplish, but so can actual Southwestern desert evening light, Koraks. I've seen that with my own eyes countless times. But I don't appreciate how many try to over-the-top post-tweak it in PS;
why gild the lily?

Somebody who once saw my 8X10 chrome of a sky remarkably violet-apricot inflected due to the Mt Pinatubo eruption asked me why I didn't just use a "stronger colored filter" over the lens to for even more dramatic
effect? I just momentarily glanced back at him as if to say, "Hey, I actually experienced this and saw it with my own eyes - did you ever actually have that kind of experience, or just a bunch of filtration and PS fakery?" Of course, I never actually said that to anyone; but I was certainly thinking it.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Depends what you are doing. Apparently Alan has backlit viewing of his Velvia trannies over a light box in mind, along with web presentation. Slide shows are analogous, being backlit. But once you get into any kind of serious quality print or offset production, the contrast issues of Velvia become a serious issue. Some magazines outright refused it. In the darkroom, it required intense "nuke" masking.

Don't get me wrong - I loved Velvia even for making contrasty Cibachromes when the shoe actually fit, like for boosting contrast and saturation in a misty low contrast scene to begin with. But out in harsh desert lighting, there's not only the risk of losing most highlight and shadow tonality, but with it, a lot of hue color quality itself.

Velvia and Provia can trend slightly purplish, but so can actual Southwestern desert evening light, Koraks. I've seen that with my own eyes countless times. But I don't appreciate how many try to over-the-top post-tweak it in PS;
why gild the lily?

Somebody who once saw my 8X10 chrome of a sky remarkably violet-apricot inflected due to the Mt Pinatubo eruption asked me why I didn't just use a "stronger colored filter" over the lens to for even more dramatic
effect? I just momentarily glanced back at him as if to say, "Hey, I actually experienced this and saw it with my own eyes - did you ever actually have that kind of experience, or just a bunch of filtration and PS fakery?" Of course, I never actually said that to anyone; but I was certainly thinking it.

Many magazines like Outdoor Photographer switched to Velvia when it came out and frankly retired Kodachome and other slides for consumer purchases.

Somehow they managed to make Velvia work as many were used for cover shots. All the pros switched to Velvia not to be left out.