Pictures of architecture

This is my first job (I ever made pictures for myself before now) and
I'm worried a lot.
They asked me for colors, I thougth using Velvia slides But someone
told me not to use slides for two reasons:
1) low latitude (i dont't know the exact translation... I mean you
cannot
differ exposure a lot...)

Velvia would be my last choice for traditional architectural photography or
for reproduction as the colors are super saturated and the contrast is high.
If you client is specifically looking for such an effect, fine, otherwise in
the Fuji slide line Astia would be a much better choice.

John

Ken Burns wrote:

"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
om...
"Ken Burns" wrote in message
link.net...
I use 4x5 Ilford HP5+ for everything: landscapes, portraiture,
architecture.
There's nothing any better!

Unless you need color.


Color? Who needs color? If you want to see it in color, don't shoot a
photo of it. Just go look at it in person! If you want a real photo of it,
shoot it in B&W.

I love this sense of humor, exquisite!

I hope that you will get that B/W television and
B/W computer monitor at a resonable price!

Quoth Gordon Moat :
| Carlo wrote:
....
| They asked me for colors, I thougth using Velvia slides But someone
| told me not to use slides for two reasons:
| 1) low latitude (i dont't know the exact translation... I mean you
| cannot
| differ exposure a lot...)
|
| Latitude refers to how much you can be off and still get a usable print

I have never printed anything from Velvia, but I have the impression
that you could be dead on and still not be so lucky as to get a usable
print. Latitude would depend partly on the subject, though, as it
would seem that a subject with a narrow range of values would probably
be printable even if slightly under or over-exposed.

....
| Saturated choices: Fuji Velvia and Velvia 100F, Kodak E100VS
|
| More even choices: Fuji Astia 100F, Kodak E100GX, Kodak E200

Better prints without heroic efforts: any color negative film.

Donn

"John Horner" wrote in message ...
This is my first job (I ever made pictures for myself before now) and
I'm worried a lot.
They asked me for colors, I thougth using Velvia slides But someone
told me not to use slides for two reasons:
1) low latitude (i dont't know the exact translation... I mean you
cannot
differ exposure a lot...)

Velvia would be my last choice for traditional architectural photography or
for reproduction as the colors are super saturated and the contrast is high.
If you client is specifically looking for such an effect, fine, otherwise in
the Fuji slide line Astia would be a much better choice.

John

I'll probably make pictures in light bad conditions so I thought using
an high contrast slide could be a good choise (isn't it?). I Also
think usina an 81C Filter.

So confused... slide or negative... at end I'll use a coin!

Carlo

HI Carlo,

In my experience, a high contrast slide in poor lighting conditions does
not yield a good print. I recall trying to make a print from several
high contrast slides and never getting it right. Printing from slides
involves Ilfochrome paper that is also high contrast. While I could see
subtle detail in the slide, I could not get it onto the paper.

In bad lighting conditions (e.g., inside of a cathedral), negative film
- color or B&W - should yield a better print. Besides, in B&W there are
ways to increase negative contrast, and in color printing, there are
ways to increase color saturation in the print.


Francis A. Miniter


Carlo wrote:

I'll probably make pictures in light bad conditions so I thought using
an high contrast slide could be a good choise (isn't it?). I Also
think usina an 81C Filter.

So confused... slide or negative... at end I'll use a coin!

Carlo

Donn Cave wrote:

Quoth Gordon Moat :
| Carlo wrote:
...
| They asked me for colors, I thougth using Velvia slides But someone
| told me not to use slides for two reasons:
| 1) low latitude (i dont't know the exact translation... I mean you
| cannot
| differ exposure a lot...)
|
| Latitude refers to how much you can be off and still get a usable print

I have never printed anything from Velvia, but I have the impression
that you could be dead on and still not be so lucky as to get a usable
print.

I suppose that usable is in the eyes of the beholder. However, I have seen
some nice gallery images from using Velvia. My personal feeling is that I do
not like the overdone green, except for some landscape images.

Latitude would depend partly on the subject, though, as it
would seem that a subject with a narrow range of values would probably
be printable even if slightly under or over-exposed.

Sure, and lighting can flatten out that range . . . sometimes.



...
| Saturated choices: Fuji Velvia and Velvia 100F, Kodak E100VS
|
| More even choices: Fuji Astia 100F, Kodak E100GX, Kodak E200

Better prints without heroic efforts: any color negative film.

Donn

You probably do more chemical colour prints than I did. Most of my images
that get printed come off a commercial press, which is very different. In
that situation, I find it more convenient to scan transparencies.

I get better printed results on chemical prints from my transparencies.
Mostly, those have been portfolio images, or for display in galleries. Quite
likely it has more to do with my choice of lab, and that is the reason that
I recommend anyone discuss this with their lab first. I have never seen good
results from one hour places, and if that is all you have, avoid prints from
transparencies.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

Quoth Gordon Moat :
| Donn Cave wrote:
| Quoth Gordon Moat :
| | Carlo wrote:
| ...
|| They asked me for colors, I thougth using Velvia slides But someone
|| told me not to use slides for two reasons:
|| 1) low latitude (i dont't know the exact translation... I mean you
|| cannot
|| differ exposure a lot...)
||
| | Latitude refers to how much you can be off and still get a usable print
|
| I have never printed anything from Velvia, but I have the impression
| that you could be dead on and still not be so lucky as to get a usable
| print.
|
| I suppose that usable is in the eyes of the beholder. However, I have seen
| some nice gallery images from using Velvia. My personal feeling is that I do
| not like the overdone green, except for some landscape images.

Oh for sure, there are great Velvia prints, maybe the best color
prints of all time for some people's tastes. I'm just speculating
that there are also a higher than average proportion of hopeless
losers too. I believe emulsions marketed for commercial photography
tend generally to have wider exposure latitude, not because the
photographer is less likely to have his act together there - I
think they're the people who are testing batches and really getting
it right - but because wide exposure latitude also means it works
for a wider range of subjects.

|| Saturated choices: Fuji Velvia and Velvia 100F, Kodak E100VS
||
|| More even choices: Fuji Astia 100F, Kodak E100GX, Kodak E200
|
| Better prints without heroic efforts: any color negative film.

| You probably do more chemical colour prints than I did. Most of my images
| that get printed come off a commercial press, which is very different. In
| that situation, I find it more convenient to scan transparencies.
|
| I get better printed results on chemical prints from my transparencies.
| Mostly, those have been portfolio images, or for display in galleries. Quite
| likely it has more to do with my choice of lab, and that is the reason that
| I recommend anyone discuss this with their lab first. I have never seen good
| results from one hour places, and if that is all you have, avoid prints from
| transparencies.

I am indeed thinking of chemical prints, though it has actually been
some time since I have been set up to do it. I don't know what the
original poster intends to do, but today it would be fairly commonplace
to scan the film and work with it in digital form. That's what my
local lab does. I would expect color negative originals to work well
here too. I would say better, but maybe that's partly a matter of
personal taste. I don't know if digital manipulation is better for
dealing with the ``cross-over'' problems that people used to have with
Cibachrome.

Donn

Thanks a Lot Francis,

I'll surely use negative films!

"Francis A. Miniter" wrote in message ...
HI Carlo,

In my experience, a high contrast slide in poor lighting conditions does
not yield a good print. I recall trying to make a print from several
high contrast slides and never getting it right. Printing from slides
involves Ilfochrome paper that is also high contrast. While I could see
subtle detail in the slide, I could not get it onto the paper.

In bad lighting conditions (e.g., inside of a cathedral), negative film
- color or B&W - should yield a better print. Besides, in B&W there are
ways to increase negative contrast, and in color printing, there are
ways to increase color saturation in the print.


Francis A. Miniter


Carlo wrote:

I'll probably make pictures in light bad conditions so I thought using
an high contrast slide could be a good choise (isn't it?). I Also
think usina an 81C Filter.

So confused... slide or negative... at end I'll use a coin!

Carlo