velvia, saturation, medium format and digital

Hey folks -

For about 5 years now, I've been attempting photography off and on, with
dissapointing results. Finally I discovered Fuji velvia. This is what I've
been missing. I always thought colors were too dull on my prints, or
something must be wrong with my eyes. But, it turns out, regular film is
just dull

Now I know some of you think velvia is too bright, but for me, it's spot on,
especially for sunset clouds. (I don't do hardly any people photography).

Anyway, I was looking at getting some medium format equipment. The local
camera store had some used equipment that was cheap. The sales guy said it
was cheap due to everyone switching to digital. He showed me an 18" x 20"
blow-up from a 6MP pro-sumer canon (or something like that), and I was
really impressed. Not as good as medium format, but still surprising! I
asked him about saturation, noting that I liked velvia, and he said that was
'just a slider in photoshop'.

So I'm trying to decide whether to finance one of these 6+ MP prosumer
cameras, or get some medium format equipment. Here's the factors, with no
relevance in their order

1. I work on computers all day, and I don't want another reason to spend
hours in front of one. I like the mechanics of old cameras.
2. I can finance a digital camera through the store.
3. A digital camera might be 'crummy' quality .
3.5. It might not do the saturation the way that I like it.
4. A digital camera might be an expensive, long-lasting disposable camera.
By the time it breaks in 3 years (trust me, I've worked with computers long
enough to know that the **** goes bad in *at most* that time) and it will be
out of warranty, and buying a new one will be cheaper than repairing it. So
I might be buying a new digital camera every 2-3 years. Which might not be
bad, since I will probably be getting more megapixels each time.
5. I already have some canon lenses so I can just buy a canon digital body
(I think)
6. Medium format seems really retro and cool and I could be a total snob
about it.
7. I could save a lot of money on film if I go with digital.
8. With a film camera, I can get film like IR or really grainy B&W.

I was thinking about trying to convince the cameraman into cutting me a deal
on the medium format stuff if I finance a digital camera, b/c i'm pretty
sure he gets commission on the financing. I don't know about the used
equipment.

Gosh, I've almost sold myself on the digital? Anyone care to try to talk me
into the medium format gear?

Steve

"Steve Lefevre" wrote in message
...
[Snip]

Steve,

My two cents worth below your questions.


1. I work on computers all day, and I don't want another reason to spend
hours in front of one. I like the mechanics of old cameras.

Nothing like fine mechanics and like you I sit in front of computers all day
(I'm an IT professional). Working in the digital world all day has made me
appreciate the analog world so much better that I also rejuvinated my
Reel-to-Reel tape deck and got out old vinyl albums and started listening to
them again. The same album sound so much better on vinyl than CD.

2. I can finance a digital camera through the store.

No comment. This is a personal thing for you.

3. A digital camera might be 'crummy' quality .

Today's digital camera will be "crummy quality" in short order. This is
just like in the PC world. What you buy brand new and bleeding edge today
is superceded tomorrow. Also, the best way to work on digital photo's and
to get the best quality will require a pretty powerfull PC or MAC (the
better choice), and the necessary software. This will add to your overall
cost unless you have them at hand right now. That is unless you wish to
print all your digital print at the Kodak kiosk...

3.5. It might not do the saturation the way that I like it.

Nothing in the digital photography rhelm is of a fixed quality. Like the
man said, "It's only a slider in Photoshop". You should be able to acheive
something close in both world. If you like moderately high contrast and
painfully saturated colors and a sharpness that makes your eyes bleed, try
taking a Provia MF slide to someone and have it enlarged to 11X14 or 16X20
on Ilfochrome (formerly Cibachrome) or learn to do it yourself.

4. A digital camera might be an expensive, long-lasting disposable camera.
By the time it breaks in 3 years (trust me, I've worked with computers
long
enough to know that the **** goes bad in *at most* that time) and it will
be
out of warranty, and buying a new one will be cheaper than repairing it.
So
I might be buying a new digital camera every 2-3 years. Which might not be
bad, since I will probably be getting more megapixels each time.

See my answer to no. 3. It's the dog chasing it's tail syndrome. Don't
forget the PC and software that will need to be upgraded at about the same
time...

5. I already have some canon lenses so I can just buy a canon digital body
(I think)

Canon auto focus lenses (EF not FD) will work on their digital bodies.

6. Medium format seems really retro and cool and I could be a total snob
about it.

It also put's you into another league. Yeah, looking down into the view
finder (with a waist level finder) is 'retro cool', but using a MF camera
has other more important advantages. When you start with more information
on the film, you have more possibilities.

7. I could save a lot of money on film if I go with digital.

Sorta. Digital media gets somewhat expensive. But then so does processing
(and I do my own). Digital is reusable, film isn't. Digital also has some
unanswered conservation and archival questions that the real answers won't
be known for say, 100 years (will someone still have a CD-ROM reader
available? ex.: who has a 5.25" floppy drive anymore? 8" floppy?, etc...)

8. With a film camera, I can get film like IR or really grainy B&W.

Also effects you can plug in with Photoshop (or other software).


I was thinking about trying to convince the cameraman into cutting me a
deal
on the medium format stuff if I finance a digital camera, b/c i'm pretty
sure he gets commission on the financing. I don't know about the used
equipment.

Gosh, I've almost sold myself on the digital? Anyone care to try to talk
me
into the medium format gear?

I went MF several years ago rather than digital for the reasons in 1, 3,
3.5, 4, and 6 above. The biggest reason was number 1. The magic of
developing my own prints can't be replaced with pressing the print icon!
It's a much more personal thing. I would imagine it's not unlike a true
carpenter creating a desk from boards. You may not do your own processing,
so that's something you need to consider. Can your local shop handle the
processing of MF films?

Try this before you make your decision. Talk to the camera shop owner and
tell him/her you want to try both cameras for a couple of hours (they'll
also earn some money from the rest of the test). Leave a deposit if they
want - you'll get it back. Take some slide film for the MF (Provia or Astia
would be my recommendation), have the slides processed and then select one
and have it printed (8X10 is enough). Take the same shot with the same
lighting with the digital. Print it out to your liking and place both
prints side by side in a place you can look at them several times a day.
Then choose. No one can make this decision for you. This test should cost
you about $25.00.

Jim

"Steve Lefevre" wrote in message
...
[Snip]

Steve,

My two cents worth below your questions.


1. I work on computers all day, and I don't want another reason to spend
hours in front of one. I like the mechanics of old cameras.

Nothing like fine mechanics and like you I sit in front of computers all day
(I'm an IT professional). Working in the digital world all day has made me
appreciate the analog world so much better that I also rejuvinated my
Reel-to-Reel tape deck and got out old vinyl albums and started listening to
them again. The same album sound so much better on vinyl than CD.

2. I can finance a digital camera through the store.

No comment. This is a personal thing for you.

3. A digital camera might be 'crummy' quality .

Today's digital camera will be "crummy quality" in short order. This is
just like in the PC world. What you buy brand new and bleeding edge today
is superceded tomorrow. Also, the best way to work on digital photo's and
to get the best quality will require a pretty powerfull PC or MAC (the
better choice), and the necessary software. This will add to your overall
cost unless you have them at hand right now. That is unless you wish to
print all your digital print at the Kodak kiosk...

3.5. It might not do the saturation the way that I like it.

Nothing in the digital photography rhelm is of a fixed quality. Like the
man said, "It's only a slider in Photoshop". You should be able to acheive
something close in both world. If you like moderately high contrast and
painfully saturated colors and a sharpness that makes your eyes bleed, try
taking a Provia MF slide to someone and have it enlarged to 11X14 or 16X20
on Ilfochrome (formerly Cibachrome) or learn to do it yourself.

4. A digital camera might be an expensive, long-lasting disposable camera.
By the time it breaks in 3 years (trust me, I've worked with computers
long
enough to know that the **** goes bad in *at most* that time) and it will
be
out of warranty, and buying a new one will be cheaper than repairing it.
So
I might be buying a new digital camera every 2-3 years. Which might not be
bad, since I will probably be getting more megapixels each time.

See my answer to no. 3. It's the dog chasing it's tail syndrome. Don't
forget the PC and software that will need to be upgraded at about the same
time...

5. I already have some canon lenses so I can just buy a canon digital body
(I think)

Canon auto focus lenses (EF not FD) will work on their digital bodies.

6. Medium format seems really retro and cool and I could be a total snob
about it.

It also put's you into another league. Yeah, looking down into the view
finder (with a waist level finder) is 'retro cool', but using a MF camera
has other more important advantages. When you start with more information
on the film, you have more possibilities.

7. I could save a lot of money on film if I go with digital.

Sorta. Digital media gets somewhat expensive. But then so does processing
(and I do my own). Digital is reusable, film isn't. Digital also has some
unanswered conservation and archival questions that the real answers won't
be known for say, 100 years (will someone still have a CD-ROM reader
available? ex.: who has a 5.25" floppy drive anymore? 8" floppy?, etc...)

8. With a film camera, I can get film like IR or really grainy B&W.

Also effects you can plug in with Photoshop (or other software).


I was thinking about trying to convince the cameraman into cutting me a
deal
on the medium format stuff if I finance a digital camera, b/c i'm pretty
sure he gets commission on the financing. I don't know about the used
equipment.

Gosh, I've almost sold myself on the digital? Anyone care to try to talk
me
into the medium format gear?

I went MF several years ago rather than digital for the reasons in 1, 3,
3.5, 4, and 6 above. The biggest reason was number 1. The magic of
developing my own prints can't be replaced with pressing the print icon!
It's a much more personal thing. I would imagine it's not unlike a true
carpenter creating a desk from boards. You may not do your own processing,
so that's something you need to consider. Can your local shop handle the
processing of MF films?

Try this before you make your decision. Talk to the camera shop owner and
tell him/her you want to try both cameras for a couple of hours (they'll
also earn some money from the rest of the test). Leave a deposit if they
want - you'll get it back. Take some slide film for the MF (Provia or Astia
would be my recommendation), have the slides processed and then select one
and have it printed (8X10 is enough). Take the same shot with the same
lighting with the digital. Print it out to your liking and place both
prints side by side in a place you can look at them several times a day.
Then choose. No one can make this decision for you. This test should cost
you about $25.00.

Jim

"Steve Lefevre" wrote in message ...
Hey folks -

For about 5 years now, I've been attempting photography off and on, with
dissapointing results. Finally I discovered Fuji velvia. This is what I've
been missing. I always thought colors were too dull on my prints, or
something must be wrong with my eyes. But, it turns out, regular film is
just dull

Now I know some of you think velvia is too bright, but for me, it's spot on,
especially for sunset clouds. (I don't do hardly any people photography).

Velvia is very contrasty and the color is nowhere near accurate. I
hate it, frankly. Most color films are too saturated, and Velvia is by
far the worst.
What many people don't realize is that lens quality has a lot to do
with saturation. They buy cheap lenses with poor color characteristics
and then try to compensate by using Velvia. That's bass-ackwards. Get
one of the better systems (Hasselblad/Rollei with Zeiss or Schneider
lenses) and the color will take care of itself.


Anyway, I was looking at getting some medium format equipment. The local
camera store had some used equipment that was cheap.


As I said above, 'cheap' is the problem. Get 'good'. Hasselblad or
Rollei, nothing less. And be sure to get the lenses that are
multicoated (T*).

"Steve Lefevre" wrote in message ...
Hey folks -

For about 5 years now, I've been attempting photography off and on, with
dissapointing results. Finally I discovered Fuji velvia. This is what I've
been missing. I always thought colors were too dull on my prints, or
something must be wrong with my eyes. But, it turns out, regular film is
just dull

Now I know some of you think velvia is too bright, but for me, it's spot on,
especially for sunset clouds. (I don't do hardly any people photography).

Velvia is very contrasty and the color is nowhere near accurate. I
hate it, frankly. Most color films are too saturated, and Velvia is by
far the worst.
What many people don't realize is that lens quality has a lot to do
with saturation. They buy cheap lenses with poor color characteristics
and then try to compensate by using Velvia. That's bass-ackwards. Get
one of the better systems (Hasselblad/Rollei with Zeiss or Schneider
lenses) and the color will take care of itself.


Anyway, I was looking at getting some medium format equipment. The local
camera store had some used equipment that was cheap.


As I said above, 'cheap' is the problem. Get 'good'. Hasselblad or
Rollei, nothing less. And be sure to get the lenses that are
multicoated (T*).

In article , lefevre.10
@osu.edu says...
Hey folks -


Gosh, I've almost sold myself on the digital? Anyone care to try to talk me
into the medium format gear?

Steve
What are you going to do with your exposed film? Are you going to make
prints? Are you going to project the slides? or are you going to scan
the film and make prints via inkjet?
If you are not going to stay with traditional image processing like
slide - prints on reversal paper, then you are going to have to
post-process the images somehow.
If you are going to scan the film you will need a high quality scanner,
computer for editing and high quality printer.
If you are going to scrimp on any of the digital processing then the
differences from medium format film will be lost.
If you are going to take the scanned route than you can make any film
look pretty much the way you want it to by adjustments in photoshop.

Rent the used camera for a week and try it out, do what you plan to
do with images and see if it's worth it. A friendly dealer will allow
you to apply most of the rental price to the purchase.

Medium format is slightly better than the best digital cameras at this
point and you can expect the difference to decrease of the next few
years. Color negative film has a much greater dynamic range than either
slides or digital and is a very good choice for film to be scanned.

I've got lots of tips on these issues on my web site, if you wish to
read them.
--
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail:

In article , lefevre.10
@osu.edu says...
Hey folks -


Gosh, I've almost sold myself on the digital? Anyone care to try to talk me
into the medium format gear?

Steve
What are you going to do with your exposed film? Are you going to make
prints? Are you going to project the slides? or are you going to scan
the film and make prints via inkjet?
If you are not going to stay with traditional image processing like
slide - prints on reversal paper, then you are going to have to
post-process the images somehow.
If you are going to scan the film you will need a high quality scanner,
computer for editing and high quality printer.
If you are going to scrimp on any of the digital processing then the
differences from medium format film will be lost.
If you are going to take the scanned route than you can make any film
look pretty much the way you want it to by adjustments in photoshop.

Rent the used camera for a week and try it out, do what you plan to
do with images and see if it's worth it. A friendly dealer will allow
you to apply most of the rental price to the purchase.

Medium format is slightly better than the best digital cameras at this
point and you can expect the difference to decrease of the next few
years. Color negative film has a much greater dynamic range than either
slides or digital and is a very good choice for film to be scanned.

I've got lots of tips on these issues on my web site, if you wish to
read them.
--
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail:

"Uranium Committee" wrote in message
om...

Velvia is very contrasty and the color is nowhere near accurate. I
hate it, frankly. Most color films are too saturated, and Velvia is by
far the worst.
What many people don't realize is that lens quality has a lot to do
with saturation. They buy cheap lenses with poor color characteristics
and then try to compensate by using Velvia. That's bass-ackwards. Get
one of the better systems (Hasselblad/Rollei with Zeiss or Schneider
lenses) and the color will take care of itself.

I guess this is a dumb question. How do you measure color accuracy? Is there
a subjective element to a person's experience of the color when they view a
photograph?

What happened was I went to a large art show. I asked all the people at the
photography booths what filmed they used. All the nature photographers said
they used velvia, and it was all on medium format equipment, so I assume
it's halfway decent. And those looked the most accurate to me, anyway.

What film do you recommend?

"Uranium Committee" wrote in message
om...

Velvia is very contrasty and the color is nowhere near accurate. I
hate it, frankly. Most color films are too saturated, and Velvia is by
far the worst.
What many people don't realize is that lens quality has a lot to do
with saturation. They buy cheap lenses with poor color characteristics
and then try to compensate by using Velvia. That's bass-ackwards. Get
one of the better systems (Hasselblad/Rollei with Zeiss or Schneider
lenses) and the color will take care of itself.

I guess this is a dumb question. How do you measure color accuracy? Is there
a subjective element to a person's experience of the color when they view a
photograph?

What happened was I went to a large art show. I asked all the people at the
photography booths what filmed they used. All the nature photographers said
they used velvia, and it was all on medium format equipment, so I assume
it's halfway decent. And those looked the most accurate to me, anyway.

What film do you recommend?

See replies below...

"Steve Lefevre" wrote in message
...
Hey folks -

For about 5 years now, I've been attempting photography off and on, with
dissapointing results. Finally I discovered Fuji velvia. This is what
I've
been missing. I always thought colors were too dull on my prints, or
something must be wrong with my eyes. But, it turns out, regular film is
just dull

Now I know some of you think velvia is too bright, but for me, it's spot
on,
especially for sunset clouds. (I don't do hardly any people photography).

Anyway, I was looking at getting some medium format equipment. The local
camera store had some used equipment that was cheap. The sales guy said it
was cheap due to everyone switching to digital. He showed me an 18" x 20"
blow-up from a 6MP pro-sumer canon (or something like that), and I was
really impressed. Not as good as medium format, but still surprising! I
asked him about saturation, noting that I liked velvia, and he said that
was
'just a slider in photoshop'.

So I'm trying to decide whether to finance one of these 6+ MP prosumer
cameras, or get some medium format equipment. Here's the factors, with no
relevance in their order

1. I work on computers all day, and I don't want another reason to spend
hours in front of one. I like the mechanics of old cameras.
Analog may put you in front of a PC, digital WILL put you in front of a PC.

2. I can finance a digital camera through the store.
3. A digital camera might be 'crummy' quality .
Not at all. NOt the equal of film, but certainly not bad.
3.5. It might not do the saturation the way that I like it.
Photoshop can work wonders.
4. A digital camera might be an expensive, long-lasting disposable camera.
So will film...
By the time it breaks in 3 years (trust me, I've worked with computers
long
enough to know that the **** goes bad in *at most* that time) and it will
be
out of warranty, and buying a new one will be cheaper than repairing it.
So
I might be buying a new digital camera every 2-3 years. Which might not be
bad, since I will probably be getting more megapixels each time.
True. Even if it lasts, digicams have horrible resale value.
5. I already have some canon lenses so I can just buy a canon digital body
(I think)
Make sure they're EOS compatible lenses. FD lenses won't work.
6. Medium format seems really retro and cool and I could be a total snob
about it.
Hardly the reason to use it. Quality is the reason, not snobbery. If you
want snobbery, buy a Leica.
7. I could save a lot of money on film if I go with digital.
On film, yes. But you'll spend it on ink and paper.
8. With a film camera, I can get film like IR or really grainy B&W.
You can get it with digital, as well. With a little effort in Photoshop

I was thinking about trying to convince the cameraman into cutting me a
deal
on the medium format stuff if I finance a digital camera, b/c i'm pretty
sure he gets commission on the financing. I don't know about the used
equipment.

Gosh, I've almost sold myself on the digital? Anyone care to try to talk
me
into the medium format gear?
If you want a toy to play with, go digital, and spend even more time in
front of a PC. If you want to take you time, and produce quality images, go
medium format, although this isn't even close to an apples to apples
comparison.


Steve