Given that you have to use one of those 'getty picture onto computer thingy' devices for transparency these days, rather than printing optically, I was wondering who uses still transparency over negative material in 35mm and why.
If I'm shooting color, I'm almost always shooting Velvia (I do shoot a little Ektar every once in a while). I shoot exclusively 35mm.
Why 35mm? I take most of my pictures in places where a larger camera system can't go -- up mountains, down rivers, across the middle of the desert, all on my two feet or in a small boat (usually a canoe/kayak). So either I don't want to be lugging a heavy bag around, or it physically wouldn't fit in the boat.
Why Velvia? This is more difficult to explain. I wish I could print it. All the time. But I've tried out just about every C-41 film that there is, and none of them have given me the results that I want. I really only use color for landscapes, and even on a computer screen or as a hybrid print there's no other way to get the colors I want. I like the way that Ektar handles certain situations, especially ones that have a lot of green in them, like a New England forest, or the odd occasion that I need to have a color picture of a person. But 90% of the time I go for Velvia. If I'm shooting color I'm shooting it for the color. Velvia gives me the colors I want.
And maybe I'll be able to make real prints from it in the future. I'll have the positives. That's another advantage of Velvia: Fuji says it will archive for hundreds of years under the conditions I store them.
This is the first post where I have read that a photographer cannot get the colours he wants from Velvia in e.g. RA-4 printing. Additive and subtractive colourimetrics are routine in professional RA-4 print-prep production from transparency film (it is, admittedly, far removed from the straightforward CMY fiddling that was common to the Ilfochrome Classic process, even with its restrictive 2-step contrast choices). While the film's gamut is much wider and deeper than standard and extended-gamut RGB, this does not mean you are going to get willy-nilly or totally-out representations of the scene's colour. That is just not true. Tell you what, much more serious problems are caused by photographers shooting RVP in scenes with high contrast and poor highlight control. For them, not even the marvels of electronics (or a very, very skilled operator) can salvage a dog's breakfast.
How do you get slides to print on RA-4???
Be custmized RA-4 reversal processing. Or by using make-shift internegatve films.
When I project colour slides at home my children love it. That's enough reason for me to keep shooting slide film (35mm).
I used to shoot a lot of 35mm transparency, Velvia 50 and Provia, then I got an RB67 and tended to use that instead. In 35mm I mostly switched to negative material, but I've recently rediscovered using 35mm transparency. Given that you have to use one of those 'getty picture onto computer thingy' devices for transparency these days, rather than printing optically, I was wondering who uses still transparency over negative material in 35mm and why.
Slides offer a different colour palette, both between different slide films, and even more so compared to negative film. If the lighting situation and the subject matter call for slide film, that's what I use, even if I mostly scan my slides.
Be custmized RA-4 reversal processing. Or by using make-shift internegatve films.
How is this customized [RA-4] process done??
I stopped shooting slides when my children were born since I wanted prints [1980s]. I have never gone back to slides.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?