Is this subject brightness range impossible for slide film?

[ChrisGalway]

Black adds drama. Velvia 50 6x7

Beautiful photo.

I view my (stereo) 50x50mm slides (Provia 100f) in an high quality immersive optical viewer in which you can control the intensity of the illumination. Those shadows that appear can hopeless in scans, actually often are revealed in the viewer, and definitely add to the viewing experience. It's a bit like viewing the original scene, where your visual system had no problem with the shadows or dynamic range.

Viewing in this way, I find the most important thing is not to burn out the highlights.

Of course, using a special optical viewer is selfish I suppose ... the only way to share the experience is to hand the viewer around in person ... forget digital replicas, they are second best!

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Beautiful photo.

I view my (stereo) 50x50mm slides (Provia 100f) in an high quality immersive optical viewer in which you can control the intensity of the illumination. Those shadows that appear can hopeless in scans, actually often are revealed in the viewer, and definitely add to the viewing experience. It's a bit like viewing the original scene, where your visual system had no problem with the shadows or dynamic range.

Viewing in this way, I find the most important thing is not to burn out the highlights.

Of course, using a special optical viewer is selfish I suppose ... the only way to share the experience is to hand the viewer around in person ... forget digital replicas, they are second best!

Thanks. Regarding handheld viewers, not much different than the old days when you passed around the photo album.

 

[Vaughn]

For me, for my photography, it's not about the tools. I am concerned with the result. But that can vary from person to person. There is nothing against wanting to play with your stuff. But that's not me. First I want to take a certain photo. Then I look for the right resources for that.

True, one can play with one's tools as much as they like, but I was not referring to 'playing', but using them to create.

I approach it the opposite way (but certainly not the only way to approach it). I find that one's tools shape the user as much as the user uses it to shape.

We appear to approach image-making very differently. If I have understood correctly, you stated that you match the needed tools to the image you already have in mind. I wander and find images that match my tools I have with me as I wander. Both equally valid.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I was using Provia 100F. You can see the curve below I applied to the image. It needed to be exposed at EV15 to keep the detail in the sky, but I think the wooded areas in the scene can't be more than EV11. Viewed in-person, these woods were quite rich and colorful, not dark.

View attachment 410115

If I apply a second curve to try to pull up the shadows a little more, I can make it more like you would see with your eyes, but the gradation becomes harsh and odd looking.

View attachment 410116

If I'm out shooting slide film, are there things that can be done to improve the image from a scene like this? Or is this just something that's just going to be better on negative? Should I be carrying some kind of adjustable square neutral density filter than I can darken the sky with? Will that make the shot look unnatural? Thanks for your ideas.

A big part of your problem is that the Sun is in front of you, not directly in line with the lens, but still in front of you and the foreground is back lit. If you had taken the exposure for the vegetation only, then the sky would be slightly washed out and the rest of the exposure would be correct. For decades I have taken light readings without the sky in the field of view and I have almost never had your experience that you have. Do not take light reading with any of the sky in the field of view and you will not have this problem again, also there will be much less post processing needed.

 

[Vaughn]

Black adds drama. Velvia 50 6x7

Great image, and it fits what I was trying to say very well....and viewed on flicker, you kept quite a bit of detail and textures in those dark areas behind the swan, along with good deep blacks.

It may not have been the right situation for it, but sometimes a polarizer filter is work well if there is no direct sun and a lot of blue light coming from an open sky (or even a light overcast). This 'excess' blue light will reflect off on shiny leaves and such, turning green leaves bluegreen and can dull reflective yellows. A polarizer turned to reduce the blue light reflecting off the leaves towards the lens might allow you to have reduced blues in your green leaves without having to lower the blue globally in the print. Something you might like to play with in these circumstances. Just do not accidentally kill the glow!

 

[loccdor]

If you had taken the exposure for the vegetation only, then the sky would be slightly washed out and the rest of the exposure would be correct.

I may have been able to add one more stop of exposure at the most, before highlights got totally blown. If I went the four+ stops the vegetation needed, the sky would have been nearly all white.

Korak's idea about the two exposures in the digitization step is interesting but my experience with the DR on this digitization camera is you can get a little more shadow detail from slide by adding an extra stop, but beyond that, you don't really get a lot more that you can pull up from the RAW compared to the normal exposure. And if there's more detail there, you can see it with your eyes pretty well with the slide in front of the light source. In this case, it was a little dark even for the human eye, so more exposure was required.

Thanks everyone for the ideas.

 

[koraks]

Korak's idea about the two exposures in the digitization step is interesting but my experience with the DR on this digitization camera is you can get a little more shadow detail from slide by adding an extra stop, but beyond that, you don't really get a lot more that you can pull up from the RAW compared to the normal exposure.

Yes, I accept that; my recommendation is perhaps more relevant for regular scanners than for digital camera digitization. Either way, it depends on the system and its inherent properties.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I may have been able to add one more stop of exposure at the most, before highlights got totally blown. If I went the four+ stops the vegetation needed, the sky would have been nearly all white.

Korak's idea about the two exposures in the digitization step is interesting but my experience with the DR on this digitization camera is you can get a little more shadow detail from slide by adding an extra stop, but beyond that, you don't really get a lot more that you can pull up from the RAW compared to the normal exposure. And if there's more detail there, you can see it with your eyes pretty well with the slide in front of the light source. In this case, it was a little dark even for the human eye, so more exposure was required.

Thanks everyone for the ideas.

If you want a wider exposure latitude, you need to use C41 color print film.