Film for Landscapes

[cyron123]

Hi,
Thank you. Metering is a good point. In my test a have metered the lightest part. I think this is too dark for the whole picture. Is it a good idea to measure the lightest point and the darkest and use the middle?
I know it depends on the whole dynamic from dark to light... The way with light and two stops down could be a good way.

 

[Stephen Schoof]

Velvia 100 is capable of good results but I find Velvia 50 much more to my liking. They can be identical or similar at times but often the results are quite different, with 100 being contrastier and cooler, but with exaggerated reds and magentas. Velvia 50 was the classic standard landscape film for years until digital came along.

 

[Alan Klein]

I like Velvia over Ektar and other print films and Velvia 50 over Velvia 100. When you scan it's always easier to see in chromes what it is you got. Negatives always have to be adjusted after scanning to see what you have and then you never really know for sure. You can see immediately what you got with chromes. I bracket my landscapes and shoot in MF and scan with an Epson V600 using Epsonscan software. Processing is in post using Lightroom or Elements.

Velvia 50 https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/tags/velvia/
Velvia 100 https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/tags/velvia100/

 

[NJH]

I love Velvia but its the narrow dynamic range rather than the saturation which I think makes it not overly general purpose. Its amazing how it reacts to light and colour though, seems to capture the impression I have got from a scene in a way no other film or digital camera solution can. I have been seriously thinking today about buying a MF camera just to shoot velvia with. All the later colour stuff on my flickr stream below is Velvia shot in July last year in Ireland, the deep colour is to die for in this film.

 

[Trail Images]

I like Velvia over Ektar and other print films and Velvia 50 over Velvia 100. When you scan it's always easier to see in chromes what it is you got. Negatives always have to be adjusted after scanning to see what you have and then you never really know for sure. You can see immediately what you got with chromes. I bracket my landscapes and shoot in MF and scan with an Epson V600 using Epsonscan software. Processing is in post using Lightroom or Elements.

I find the same results, Alan. Although, I've never shot 100 or 100f long enough to get results I like with using the 50. I shoot 50 in MF & LF and find it suits my style of work. I do have to say that I shoot Velvia only during sunrise and sunset cycles catching low contrast scenes. The statements about it not working well in harsh contrast situations is very true and I've avoided those conditions overall.

 

[RMF]

Currently I select Fuji Superia 200 for landscapes color prints.
Fuji Pro 160 is also so good for landscapes prints, but is not available in 35mm.
The greens provides by the Fuji low speed films are awesome.
Unfortunately Fuji Reala is not available.


Definitely, prints must be made by color negative film.
In the past I only had success on slide film for prints purposes with kodachrome.

 

[DREW WILEY]

People like me who shot a lot of chrome film in the past simply got used to picking out scenes that matched the color and contrast parameters of a specific film. Actually printing what you get is a much more involved subject; but over time, if you do this a lot, you learn to see the world in that same manner not only your film does, but in harmony with your chosen print media itself. But chrome films have narrow latitude, and Velvia is especially narrow. With my spotmeter, I'd always read the highlights that I'd want to retain hue or texture in (versus pure white specular reflections etc), then the 18% midtone, and finally the shadows, if something was going to need to be sacrified there. But more often, I just avoided Velvia altogether in harsh lighting. Because I cut my teeth on Kodachrome, Velvia wasn't particularly difficult at all. And I'm grateful for having to learn strict discipline with this kind of exposure, because I take the same care even when
exposing color and black and white negs. I preferred the 100F version of this for a very simple reason: it was on a dimensionally stable
mylar base in sheet film. The 50 version was on unstable acetate and wouldn't maintain dimension in register with supplementary printing
masks.

 

[ME Super]

I've shot Velvia 100 and 50, but have never shot 100F. They're both good films, but like a lot of others, I prefer the look of Velvia 50.