Fuji Velvia RULES! ;-)

Discussion in 'Fuji' started by Matt Clara, May 11, 2006.

  1. Matt Clara

    Matt Clara Guest

    Matt Clara, May 11, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Matt Clara

    Randy Howard Guest

    Randy Howard, May 11, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Matt Clara

    Matt Clara Guest

    It appears to be a combination effect of the soft focus lens and a slight
    under exposure.
    Matt Clara, May 11, 2006
  4. Matt Clara

    Matt Clara Guest

    Plus trillium foliage _is_ dark green, and I was in the woods on an overcast
    day...some of the shots I gave more exposure to are brighter and more
    vibrant, but I liked them less and they were less "realistic" if that even
    matters given the lens I used (150mm soft focus lens for mamiya rb67).
    Matt Clara, May 11, 2006
  5. Matt Clara

    Peter Chant Guest

    Isn't that cheating a bit on a 35mm newsgroup. Surely this is MF rules!

    400ASA print film seems be a whole different ball game in MF.

    Peter Chant, May 12, 2006
  6. Matt Clara

    Matt Clara Guest

    Just wanted to put something up to counter Bret's comments earlier today
    that film is dead. This was taken on 50 ISO slide film.
    Matt Clara, May 12, 2006
  7. Matt Clara

    Advocate Guest

    Just wanted to put something up to counter Bret's comments earlier today
    You should have named the post "Trilliums Love Velvia!"

    Nice work by the way. Having cut my teeth on Canon 35mm equipment until they
    discontinues the manual FD cameras, I angrily switched my allegiance to
    Nikon. Just this spring I "discovered" Olympus and the OM-2 along with their
    simple OM flashes and petite lenses. I feel like a kid in a penny candy
    store all over again.

    Long live film!!!
    Advocate, May 12, 2006
  8. Matt Clara

    D Mac Guest

    Your picture Matt, represents the real art of photography. Sorry I don't
    agree about Velvia. I commend you on it anyway. These lens effects cannot be
    repeated with digital camera because of the toe/shoulder of capture needing
    to have a point at which recording stops. I particularly like the way you
    have refrained from the unreal brilliant colour thing too. Good work. If
    you'd like a canvas print of it, I'll make you one free if I can have one

    Many of my portraits are still done with film cameras for these reasons. I
    am slowly gaining skill with Photoshop and producing art portraits like the
    ones I get from film. Printing on canvas has helped. One here if you care to
    look. http://www.photosbydouglas.com/Rach-2.htm There will be more as I get
    the time to make them suitable for the Internet.

    D Mac, May 12, 2006
  9. Matt Clara

    ColinD Guest

    Well, I was going to comment on the sort of halo around the flowers, but
    then I saw it was a soft focus lens, so I guess that's why. Second, and
    seriously, can you say that the monotonal dark green of the foliage is
    accurate color? It looks artificial to me, but then I am used to
    looking at digital images, and there is undoubtedly a difference in
    color rendering between film and digital images. I guess it's what one
    is used to looking at.


    Colin D.

    *** ***
    ColinD, May 12, 2006
  10. Matt Clara

    Randy Howard Guest

    D Mac wrote
    I like the idea of the canvas portraits. Any chance of having a
    close-up showing the texture on a sample on the website? The
    images there don't really give you an impression of what they
    look like up close.
    Randy Howard, May 12, 2006
  11. Matt Clara

    Mike Guest

    Thats because he shot this picture with a large-format camera (right Matt?)
    Mike, May 12, 2006
  12. Matt Clara

    Mike Guest

    Bret couldn't dream of making an artistic image like yours. Bravo!
    Mike, May 12, 2006
  13. Matt Clara

    Mike Guest

    My bad-- is was 6x7 medium-format.
    Mike, May 12, 2006
  14. Matt Clara

    Steve Wolfe Guest

    Fuji Velvia, baby!
    Slide film has a lower dynamic range than print film, and even for slide
    film, velvia is known for high contrast. By choosing an exposure which
    would not blow out the white flowers, having the foliage look a little dark
    is to be expected.

    (Of course, it's always possible that adjustments were made in the
    developing, or that the image was just manipulated after scanning.)

    Steve Wolfe, May 12, 2006
  15. Matt Clara

    Peter Chant Guest

    Matt Clara wrote:

    Yes fair comment. I'm quite happily taking fantastic 25 MP images by using
    a Mamiya C330 and scanning the negs. Who rules now? Fantastic with
    400ASA, still experimenting with slower film.

    Bit of a learning curve with MF.
    Peter Chant, May 12, 2006
  16. Matt Clara

    Steve Wolfe Guest

    Well, I was going to comment on the sort of halo around the flowers, but
    Accurate? He's not shooting a Coca-Cola can for the advertising
    The key is the higher contrast and lower dynamic range that comes with
    velvia. As I said in another message, by choosing an exposure that keeps
    the white flowers where they need to be, the foliage will appear somewhat
    dark - ESPECIALLY in the shadows.

    While I haven't been trying to mimic Vevlia exactly, I've done a few
    portraits this spring with partially-shaded foliage in the background, and
    chosen an exposure to allow me to apply contrast and bring up the shadow
    level dramatically, while still keeping the skin tones and highlights where
    they need to be. The overall effect is very similar.

    Steve Wolfe, May 12, 2006
  17. Matt Clara

    D Mac Guest

    It's incidentally the look you get when you use low contrast portrait film
    properly. Traditional and classic. Those who question the colouration are
    conditioned to expect magazine cover style contrast and saturation. If you
    try, you can also achieve that saturated look with the exact same film he
    used for this shot. Photography like this is rapidly becoming a lost art.
    Even Canon's "portrait" setting on their 30D/5D cameras pumps up the
    contrast and saturation... Quite the opposite to what a real, traditional
    portrait should look like.
    D Mac, May 12, 2006
  18. Matt Clara

    DD Guest

    DD, May 12, 2006
  19. Matt Clara

    Peter Chant Guest

    Or indeed it might just have been dark foliage, it does happen!
    Peter Chant, May 12, 2006
  20. Very nice work, Matt, and while I like the contrast I think the dark
    area at bottom just unbalances the composition a bit.

    Then Douglas chimed in..
    Can you say 'trademark blown highlights'? (O: Yes, I know it's an
    *attempt* at high-key, but good grief... And as for the overuse of
    inappropriate special effects... Each to his own I suppose.

    Mmmm. Yes please! I can't wait to see more of your masterpieces.
    Shots like those make me hunger for more!!!! Eg:

    Superb posing, not forced at all - the missing leg and disembodied hand
    add nice touches... Interesting non-use of depth of field, notice any
    distracting elements...?

    I love the frame at top right, presumably to balance her shoulder?

    Needs a little work on the dodging/burning... (If you can't see the
    problems, checked your gamma lately?). And the effects on the pregnant
    lady....? (O:

    (remember, these are posed shots, that Douglas had complete control
    over, and they are presumably his best work..)
    mark.thomas.7, May 12, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.