No! Please not Provia!

StoneNYC · Jul 24, 2013

Roger Cole said:
What, film in general or E6?

Truth is, I generally prefer prints and print film, but I've been shooting mostly slides the past couple of years when I shoot color because I DO like to project them and I figure I'd best do it while I can.

Film in general but particularly E-6 since its next to go probably. I try not to put down films that I don't like that are still in production, like I'll bash EFKE because it was terribly unreliable and no longer around, but I won't talk about Foma even though most of it isn't to my liking. The only one I hate on is Tmax400 and only because I personally can't get the look I want from it, but many like it so I'm more loud about it because I can't figure it out, I'm sure it's great, I just suck at using it LOL.

But yes E-6 needs our support! Please! If you can, shoot a roll/sheet and show people how beautiful it is! (I actually carry a non-pick image in my wallet to show people the colors of a 120 shot I took of a model, it gets people excited (about film).

You can't say the same about looking at portra (at least not as much).

~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Roger Cole · Jul 24, 2013

Maybe not but you can about a well printed Ektar. And if you carry a print made from the transparency I doubt it's going to look any better than it could from negative film.

E6 is good, and nothing really beats the impact of a vivid, detailed image projected large, but I lost a lot of interest in it when analog methods of printing it all went away.

StoneNYC · Jul 24, 2013

Btw it appears Ferrania will be making a 100 speed E-6 film soon... Good news....

~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Jim Rice · Jul 24, 2013

A lantern slide (3 1/4"x4 !/4") projector can be had cheap.

Roger Cole · Jul 25, 2013

StoneNYC said:
Btw it appears Ferrania will be making a 100 speed E-6 film soon... Good news....

~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

If true, and if it doesn't suck, that's great news. If it's moderate saturation and contrast it's even better news (but even less likely, I think.)

Poisson Du Jour · Jul 25, 2013

Roger Cole said:
Maybe not but you can about a well printed Ektar. And if you carry a print made from the transparency I doubt it's going to look any better than it could from negative film.

E6 is good, and nothing really beats the impact of a vivid, detailed image projected large, but I lost a lot of interest in it when analog methods of printing it all went away.

LOL! I do beg to differ. A lot!

StoneNYC · Jul 25, 2013

Poisson Du Jour said:
LOL! I do beg to differ. A lot!

I agree ^^ that said... it's hard to get them made now with no paper available... the hybrid process I use makes some beautiful prints (real chemical prints, just hybrid projection process), but not the same as ilfochrome, which was better than RA4 in look IMHO... I've only seen a few ... but they were magical.

Poisson Du Jour · Jul 25, 2013

StoneNYC said:
I agree ^^ that said... it's hard to get them made now with no paper available... the hybrid process I use makes some beautiful prints (real chemical prints, just hybrid projection process), but not the same as ilfochrome, which was better than RA4 in look IMHO... I've only seen a few ... but they were magical.

Oh yes, Ilfo was the bees' knees compared to the 'poor cousin' RA4/ The trouble with Ilfochrome though is the restrictive two-grade contrast, among a litany of so many, many other problems with the media not worth rehashing here for the umpteenth time. I wish the folk here could see the results of hybridized printing: framed prints under spots. It's not done by inkjet either, but traditional photographic exposure using RGB.

Roger Cole · Jul 25, 2013

Poisson Du Jour said:
LOL! I do beg to differ. A lot!

Why? They're going to be scanned and output via lightjet or inkjet anyway. Other than the one from transparency having too much contrast, I doubt you'll notice much difference.

On, no negative film quite has Velvia saturation anymore (since Agfa Ultra 50 is long gone - man that was a saturated neg film) but if you print the negatives via hybrid like that you can juice up the saturation to suit, if that's your cup of tea. Ektar 100 is pretty darned saturated already.

Roger Cole · Jul 25, 2013

StoneNYC said:
I agree ^^ that said... it's hard to get them made now with no paper available... the hybrid process I use makes some beautiful prints (real chemical prints, just hybrid projection process), but not the same as ilfochrome, which was better than RA4 in look IMHO... I've only seen a few ... but they were magical.

I've seen, and made, more than a few. They could look great IF the original transparency was perfect. Anything other than flat lighting needed masking or at least extensive dodging/burning. I never got into masking. Some slides still printed great. Some needed a masking whiz to make a decent print.

Poisson Du Jour · Jul 25, 2013

Roger Cole said:
Why? They're going to be scanned and output via lightjet or inkjet anyway. Other than the one from transparency having too much contrast, I doubt you'll notice much difference.

On, no negative film quite has Velvia saturation anymore (since Agfa Ultra 50 is long gone - man that was a saturated neg film) but if you print the negatives via hybrid like that you can juice up the saturation to suit, if that's your cup of tea. Ektar 100 is pretty darned saturated already.

Negative is its own breed and style. It does not need to seek to impersonate any E6 emulsion. There are of course people who will swear by neg film, others still by positive. BTW, "juicing up the saturation to suit" is patently disastrous.

They are neither "lightjet" or "inkjet".

Roger Cole · Jul 25, 2013

They may not be a brand name, but digitally written to conventional RA4 paper via computer controlled lasers. That, or inkjet, are pretty much the only games in town for most people to print from transparencies nowadays, barring certain alternative processes.

clayne · Jul 25, 2013

I can recognize an E6 shot from a mile away. Why is that?

StoneNYC · Jul 25, 2013

clayne said:
I can recognize an E6 shot from a mile away. Why is that?

+1

How about this?

Gah! Couldn't find a better one in my phone... You get the idea

~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

batwister · Jul 25, 2013

StoneNYC said:
+1

How about this?

Gah! Couldn't find a better one in my phone... You get the idea

~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Who's the photographer?

Roger Cole · Jul 25, 2013

StoneNYC said:
+1

How about this?

Gah! Couldn't find a better one in my phone... You get the idea

~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Purple rocks and excessively green water means it's probably Velvia. But that's just a guess.

pentaxuser · Jul 25, 2013

Poisson Du Jour said:
LOL! I do beg to differ. A lot!

I can understand why you feel personally affected but it is unfair to keep passing the bad news to the cat. His face says: "I can't take much more of this"

pentaxuser

StoneNYC · Jul 25, 2013

batwister said:
Who's the photographer?

Haha, me of course!

The excessive green is because it's the colorado river in the grand canyon ... I believe it was Provia100f actually... and this cell phone image doesn't do it justice at all...

StoneNYC · Jul 25, 2013

Here's a better one I just took, sadly my cell phone won't cut it to see the sharpness, it's way nicer in person... And the colors aren't the same, sadly the phone seems to give the closeups a yellow tone, which is wrong.

So can anyone tell what THIS One is??

~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

StoneNYC · Jul 25, 2013

OK last post about this... but I just realized I had this image actually in my gallery ... so for those who are subscribers....

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Poisson Du Jour · Jul 25, 2013

Roger Cole said:
Purple rocks and excessively green water means it's probably Velvia. But that's just a guess.

Might be a good guess; mine is that it's unfiltered Velvia 100 (can be hideously magenta-ish), too.
Also UV penetration and degradation of print. Can't pass any sort of judgement really on the traditionally piss-poor iPhone snaps... Step up to the soapbox sir and tell us what it was!

StoneNYC · Jul 25, 2013

Poisson Du Jour said:
Might be a good guess; mine is that it's unfiltered Velvia 100 (can be hideously magenta-ish), too.
Also UV penetration and degradation of print. Can't pass any sort of judgement really on the traditionally piss-poor iPhone snaps... Step up to the soapbox sir and tell us what it was!

Just posted a link to the image on the gallery right before your post... and I just checked, it's definitely Provia100f, I used a Circular Polarizer, the Mamiya 7 specific one at full polarization strength so that helped.

Here's the link again...

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

tsiklonaut · Jul 26, 2013

Roger Cole said:
Purple rocks and excessively green water means it's probably Velvia. But that's just a guess.

Indeed, how I HATE those excessive colours the E6 brings. Makes me want to shoot bayer-digital, the most "natural" looking unexcessive colors on planet Earth! I will never ever bother with E6 anymore since verything is EXCESSIVE and ugly, oversaturated, just horrible those E6 films are... And that's Provia, Astia and E100G included - better shoot a bayer-sensored dSLR digital for much more humble almost unnoticable mathematically calculated colors :munch:

Provia vs Velvia "humbleness":

Tanjung Aan beach by tsiklonaut, on Flickr

European Southern Observatory (ESO) by tsiklonaut, on Flickr

Reflections (i) by tsiklonaut, on Flickr

Old Believers church by tsiklonaut, on Flickr

Reflections (ii) by tsiklonaut, on Flickr

Frozen landscape by tsiklonaut, on Flickr

Baltic Sea by tsiklonaut, on Flickr

After reading this E6 "bashing", looking at my E6 pics now I think I've made a most horrifing mistake in my life, I should've switched to humble digital long time ago or de-saturate and de-contrast all of my pics ASAP! Why I even shot the E6 in the first place? It's just beyond me! Especially now when they're considered very poor, horrible, excessive and oversaturated films by so many well regarded pro photographers. Will I ever grow up?

Cheers,
Margus

clayne · Jul 26, 2013

This is a particular fav of mine from your shots:

Marathonist by tsiklonaut, on Flickr

Roger Cole · Jul 26, 2013

Margus, you've gone nuts or something. I didn't bash Velvia in this case, I just said it looked like Velvia. When over used it's a look I don't particularly care for, but some people do. And Ektar 100 can be over saturated for some things too, not to mention the potential abuses hybrid processing opens up. But used to add some pop in flat lighting Velvia can be great.

I still find most modern E6 films - well I guess that's only two now - over saturated and overly contrasty for my personal tastes. YMMV of course. You're right, color neg doesn't really look like that unless you torture it into it in hybrid post processing. Provia is manageable for "normal slides" as I'd call them if the light isn't too harsh.

No! Please not Provia!

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency