I am done with Velvia....

analoguey · Sep 17, 2015

My first shots with Velvia were in 35mm. I shot it because everyone talked of the great colours with it (and that's what I could see with the pictures that say "velvia") - and of a full roll I shot (sunrise at a hilltop, no less!) I got about 4 good shots, most ruined cos of exposure issues - and me not knowing Velvia's latitude. (you can see a couple of the good ones, in the gallery here)

Then a friend here told me about its needing Diffused light to do well - and man the shots I tried with that advice, on a sunny day, they just pop right out!
I LOVE Velvia in 120 - especially the shadow detail. (fwiw I don't use a light meter, its sunny 16 for me)

Trail Images said:
It was only a year back I was struggling with the same thing. Since making changes with suggestions made by APUG members I've had a full year with few images going in the round file.
For years I had no issues with V-50. All my shots are in low light of sunrise & sunset. But all of a sudden I was having problems with both 120 & 4x5. After spending serious time re-verifying light meters, both spot and incident, I also got serious with using reciprocity table.
Problem solved. I was totally sloppy about reciprocity and got away with it off and on. But after wasting film I've used the table enough now I have the numbers memorized.
So, don't give up on it unless you're sure you've checked all possible issues. Good luck.

Do you have any link to the table available?
I thought Velvia has good enough latitude - but I havent shot too much with long exposures.

twelvetone12 · Sep 17, 2015

Sorry if this is an often asked question but... How do you print Velvia without a direct positive color paper? By making an internegative? Do you have any pointers to the process? I would like to try it out.

Poisson Du Jour said:
, and latterly the excellent Kodak and Fuji RA4 print media (either/both give a much better result to boot). Printing from Velvia is a specialised task though.

Poisson Du Jour · Sep 17, 2015

Velvia, Provia is traditionally precision scanned and proofed (just once) then run to final print on chosen RA4 media. No interneg used at all.

Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk

Roger Cole · Sep 17, 2015

So basically lighjet or equivalent digitally exposing RA4? That's certainly viable and I could see how you could really control the results via manipulating the intermediate scan but it isn't something I can do at home. I'd be more likely to scan and squirt (ink jet *g*) since I CAN do that all myself. But I can print color beg directly and optically onto RA4 paper in my modest darkroom. Portra and Ektar are superb films too. Ektar may not be Velvia but it's saturated enough for me when I want a saturated look (though I admit some pining for the old Agfa Ultra 50 for that look. Man was that a saturated film!)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk and 100% recycled electrons - because I care.

perkeleellinen · Sep 17, 2015

I'm lucky enough to have some rolls of Ultra 50; I use a roll or two most years at classic car shows where I hunt bright red cars for macro abstracts. The saturation is incredible and it needs to be printed to bring that out I think.

I thought this thread was going to be about being done with Velvia because of the price! At least in 35mm it is costly.

I used to enjoy shooting Velvia 50 at ASA64, meter on a bright colour, preferably in the evening, and plunge the rest into deep black. I love that look for abstracts.

Poisson Du Jour · Sep 17, 2015

Pegasus (Kodak) RA4 production, Roger. The only manipulation is replacement of loss at the scan step e.g. light lost from the image through scanning is replaced a little over 1x, as a bit more will also be lost in printing (typically 0.3 stop) and gamut interleaving, print profiling. The whole process is very speedy, but printing still takes about 2 weeks given lab timelines and the running of the printer in batch jobbing in Fridays only. That means my 5 big prints of New Zealand will be run off tomorrow and collected on Monday. Happy as! I would still urge the OP to not give up on Velvia, and I suspect there is a problem with technique and/or the camera set up.

Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk

Ricardo Miranda · Sep 17, 2015

DavidClapp said:
(...)a 6x12 120mm roll film back (...)

I'll suggest you need to study (read) a bit more. Try to measure 120mm. 120 is just a film code first used by Kodak for their catalogue and classification. There's no mm in there.
You can read some of Lee Frost and Charlie Waite books, especially those from 15 years ago.
Also Joe Cornish.
They were/are Velvia users.

Xmas · Sep 17, 2015

But if the OP got consistent under exposure he needs to adjust ISO/EI and take more care.

I got away invercone on Weston and deep hood on single coated lenses at box ISO.

Trail Images · Sep 17, 2015

Do you have any link to the table available?

@ Analoguey, I sent a PM with chart.

markbarendt · Sep 17, 2015

Xmas said:
But if the OP got consistent under exposure he needs to adjust ISO/EI and take more care.

This is the problem from my perspective, Velvia doesn't make shooting easy.

If one wants consistently good results with Velvia, one needs to take more care when shooting and processing. Velvia simply takes more effort to do well and has a higher probability of exposure error failure than other films.

Trail Images · Sep 17, 2015

This is the problem from my perspective, Velvia doesn't make shooting easy.

If one wants consistently good results with Velvia, one needs to take more care when shooting and processing. Velvia simply takes more effort to do well and has a higher probability of exposure error failure than other films.

Exactly......it takes real care with understanding and working within the exposure latitudes.

Sirius Glass · Sep 17, 2015

I prefer Kodak Ultra Color 400 to Velvia. The color saturation is not the same, however the exposure latitude is much better.

DavidClapp · Sep 17, 2015

Poisson Du Jour said:
Velvia has been around for a long time now. It is very rare for people to express frustration with it. Truth be told, it's not the film, but the photographer.

Photographers have had ample time to learn the tricks of mastering Velvia. Casualties are rare. If people move away from it, it's because of processing difficulties e.g. the distance to or absence of an E6 lab; they fall back to C41 emulsions or B&W. I have been using it since 1994 in 35mm and 120, printing to Ilfochrome Classic (which presented its own nasty problems) and latterly RA-4 hybrid. There is truth that the more experience and skill you have, the better you are able to achieve what you desire. Don't give in! True, also it's easier to get exposures correct in MF and LF, but exposures will always be a bit more challenging in 35mm because of all the contrast squezed into a frame the size of a postage stamp and that you are allowing the camera to make critical decisions when scenes are not as straightforward as they first appear (Galen Rowell wrote extensively about this many years ago), so dump 35mm. And all my 120 work is multispot metered (I bypass the TTL meter on my Pentax 67). I never use grad. filters, but almost always use a polariser for my rainforest work.

Thanks for the detailed response. It is me for sure, but I'm also starting to believe it's the developing as well. I am going to try by changing labs and seeing if the results are any different. I try using a really accurate Gossen Lunasix meter and cross referencing this with a Canon digital, but only 20% are anywhere near keeping... I have rolls left so another go is vital. There is little to no light falloff except with a 65mm Nikkor, but nothing is that significant. The Chamonix works so well with 6x12 that I shoot it exclusively.

I was in the same boat shooting 35mm Velvia 10 years ago, which is why I abandoned it for a Canon 5D, but I do look at the transparencies and wonder why I bother. Saying that I think your observation about shooting in diffused light make well be exactly here I am going wrong... thanks for you help.

DavidClapp · Sep 17, 2015

wildbill said:
Have someone who know's how to use a spot meter show you how to use it. I'd say 90% of my shots are spot on, 5% still usable, 5% complete rubbish because I made a calculation error.

I think this is another area I am lacking skills, I do need some help here. I have a Soligor Digital Spot Meter, but again results have not been good. I need a lesson from someone.

DavidClapp · Sep 17, 2015

TheFlyingCamera said:
From a color palette standpoint, and from an exposure latitude standpoint, I'm an Ektar/Portra guy myself, but one of the things I've always been told about Velvia when I shot it was expose it at 40, not 50. It's not a huge change, but it will knock that saturation down just a teensy bit and open up your shadows a teensy bit, which with Velvia is a good thing.

Thanks I will give that a go...

DavidClapp · Sep 17, 2015

markbarendt said:
It is that type of adjustment and the regular admonition to bracket that made shooting negatives so attractive to me.

Me too, is such a relief, the dynamic range is superb and results are so realistic... I have had a few slides come out so beautifully that it keeps me experimenting, but the hit rate has been very low and the frustration builds. I love Ektar and Pro400H.

DavidClapp · Sep 17, 2015

markbarendt said:
This is the problem from my perspective, Velvia doesn't make shooting easy.

If one wants consistently good results with Velvia, one needs to take more care when shooting and processing. Velvia simply takes more effort to do well and has a higher probability of exposure error failure than other films.

I have to agree here - the problem is I can't think what more I can do to meter correctly. Using a digital camera is a godsend, but still I find the results are wayward...

Roger Cole · Sep 17, 2015

DavidClapp said:
Me too, is such a relief, the dynamic range is superb and results are so realistic... I have had a few slides come out so beautifully that it keeps me experimenting, but the hit rate has been very low and the frustration builds. I love Ektar and Pro400H.

But I can't admire the orange look I get if I project my Ektar negatives to several feet size...

Ok I suppose they could be scanned and projected digitally but with nowhere near the resolution.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk and 100% recycled electrons - because I care.

Poisson Du Jour · Sep 17, 2015

David, a digital camera sees the scene very, very differently to the precision of a spot meter (say 1°). All manner of factors can give you a decision, made by the camera, that could in all likelihood not reflect the reality of the scene when "picked over" by a spot meter. The easy get-go approach is to meter dark tones, but not solid blacks. Lock into memory. Then meter light tones, but not solid spectrals. Lock this into memory too. Next, find an approximate mid-tone, or spot meter from a greycard (midtone can also be done first). Average all. The chances are this last step of averaging will show a row of dots scattered hither and dither across the screen. The job then is to shift the exposure so there is an even distribution. This is what a digital camera's meter cannot do and the reason it is at times imprecise because it's based on a vast storehouse of similar images to which the meter makes a constant comparison, then tiny adjustments for the variations between the real scene and its library. You appear to have seen things go pear-shaped with your comment that "...but still I find the results are wayward...".

markbarendt · Sep 17, 2015

Roger Cole said:
But I can't admire the orange look I get if I project my Ektar negatives to several feet size.....

Orange Ektar, red Velvia, whatever.

markbarendt · Sep 17, 2015

Poisson Du Jour said:
David, a digital camera sees the scene very, very differently to the precision of a spot meter (say 1°). [/I]

Yes they do and they are actually both precision instruments.

The way that they need to be "read" is also very different. Think of the image the digital camera presents as an exposure map with a reference point, it is "read" as a whole, rather than a point in the scene.

Either method is very workable, they both can be very accurate and dependable, as can an incident meter. Each requires thinking a bit differently, all are very workable.

Poisson Du Jour · Sep 17, 2015

I am not concerned with or concentrating on the use of a digital camera for metering. David has stated his difficulty is in coming to a correct baseline exposure with his spot meter, and that is where the attention is needed. We can safely leave the digimon at home while that is nutted out. ;-)

Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk

Sirius Glass · Sep 17, 2015

DavidClapp said:
Thanks for the detailed response. It is me for sure, but I'm also starting to believe it's the developing as well. I am going to try by changing labs and seeing if the results are any different. I try using a really accurate Gossen Lunasix meter and cross referencing this with a Canon digital, but only 20% are anywhere near keeping...

One cannot compare the Gossen Luna Six with a digital camera. They will be close to each other and at times agree, but they see and measure the light differently. Just use the Gossen Luna Six.

DavidClapp · Sep 18, 2015

Yes I think I need a good spot metering lesson. I think my main problems are firstly using the wrong film for the wrong picture, attempting to use Velvia when the scene has too greater dynamic range and ballsing up my metering by not using the spot meter. Can anyone recommend some reading?

Poisson Du Jour · Sep 18, 2015

I thought of Sekonic's occasional online tutorials that guide people through the fundamentals of spot metering. I also thought of Ansel Adams' "The Negative", with its explanation and application of spot metering. "The Negative" deals heavily with the Zone System (i N a black and white context), but the basic metering principals still apply.

Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk

I am done with Velvia....

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency