velvia, saturation, medium format and digital

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

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

You can do both!!

I used to do darkroom stuff for 25 years but seldom do now,.
I have digital and it's fine and convenient, but I use 35 mm and MF and have
a very good film scanner with Digital Ice.
This gives you the ultimate digital.

"Steve Lefevre" wrote in message ...
"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?

Yes, of course.

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.

'Nature photographers'. Ah! There's the rub. They're the last people
on Earth I would ask. Photographers as a rule tend to follow one
another. They're very insecure, as a rule. Independence is at a
premium.

Same cameras, same films, same beards, same tripods, same shirts, same
photo vests, etc....


What film do you recommend?

Try a bunch and see what looks good...


In 35mm, I use Kodachrome exclusively.

"Steve Lefevre" wrote in message ...
"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?

Yes, of course.

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.

'Nature photographers'. Ah! There's the rub. They're the last people
on Earth I would ask. Photographers as a rule tend to follow one
another. They're very insecure, as a rule. Independence is at a
premium.

Same cameras, same films, same beards, same tripods, same shirts, same
photo vests, etc....


What film do you recommend?

Try a bunch and see what looks good...


In 35mm, I use Kodachrome exclusively.

What a twit you are Scarpitti.

In article ,
(Uranium Committee) wrote:


Same cameras, same films, same beards, same tripods, same shirts, same
photo vests, etc....


What film do you recommend?

Try a bunch and see what looks good...

In 35mm, I use Kodachrome exclusively.
--
?
?
?
?
LOL

What a twit you are Scarpitti.

In article ,
(Uranium Committee) wrote:


Same cameras, same films, same beards, same tripods, same shirts, same
photo vests, etc....


What film do you recommend?

Try a bunch and see what looks good...

In 35mm, I use Kodachrome exclusively.
--
?
?
?
?
LOL

What a twit you are Scarpitti.

In article ,
(Uranium Committee) wrote:


Same cameras, same films, same beards, same tripods, same shirts, same
photo vests, etc....


What film do you recommend?

Try a bunch and see what looks good...

In 35mm, I use Kodachrome exclusively.
--
?
?
?
?
LOL

Steve Lefevre wrote:

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).

There is more of a trend in the last several years towards very saturated
colours. While I am not a big fan of the more blue green of Velvia, I do use
quite a bit of Kodak E100VS (more red yellow bias).



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'.

Telling someone that something is 'just a slider in photoshop' is really
downplaying the importance of actual skills required to get good outputs from
PhotoShop. It also shows a great lack of understanding that what you see on a
monitor is rarely what you get on a printed item. Anyway, consider that even a
pinhole camera can give an image that prints nicely, and you soon realize that
there is more to a printed image than Mega Pixels. Oh well . . . on to the
questions . . . . . .



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.

If you want to do your own prints, then you will spend hours on the computer.
Of course, you could always drop off the memory card, and let a lab print the
image for you.

The mechanics of cameras is another issue, though if you went medium format
digital back instead, you could use digital and medium format at the same time.
Old mechanics meets new technology.


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

Scary . . . by the time you have it paid off, the resale will be quite low, a
newer 8 MP camera will be easily available at a lower cost, and people will
speak badly of the image quality of your (then) old 6 MP digital . . . unless
this is for a company, and there is some tax advantage, think carefully before
financing a camera . . . any camera.


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

Any camera can allow a photographer to acquire compelling images. It is more
important that a photographer have some creative vision than just owning some
equipment.


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

Okay, let us assume that you take your Velvia to a good lab, and they print and
make the print look like the transparency appears on a lightbox. Compare that
to a maybe calibrated monitor for your digital image, and what you see on your
monitor might be different than what the lab guy sees on his monitor, and it
might be luck, or many proof prints, and you still might not get the colour you
wanted.


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.

Many industry financial analysts point to 2008 being the year in which no
Japanese camera makers will make new film SLRs. By that time, only P&S digital,
compact ZLR digital, and digital SLRs are expected. Almost all digital SLRs by
2008 are expected to be full frame versions. You should see some huge changes
in four years.


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

Better to wait until 2008, or buy something used and full frame within the next
two years. Used digital SLR gear often sells at a huge discount.


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

Big camera = professional photographer . . . . . . . . . . maybe, but I suggest
you should get something because you like using it, and it allows you to
express your creative vision.


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

Do you shoot lots of film now?

With medium format, you only get half or a third of the images you would with
35 mm. The usual approach is to think more carefully about each shot, meaning
that you would shoot less frames of medium format at a location, than one would
normally use for 35 mm. Medium format roll films are often cheaper per roll,
and sometimes less money for developing. You could actually save some money
over 35 mm by going medium format.


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

You can also have different films loaded into different film backs on quite a
few medium format cameras. Also, medium format digital backs of about 36 mm by
36 mm are now showing up in the used market (like EBAY), with many going for
under $2000. You could buy into used medium format digital backs in the future,
and get digital on your medium format gear.



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.

Most camera stores sell used gear at a fixed commission. Newer gear can get the
sales guy more commission, or result in more sales of accessories. Hey, he's a
salesman . . . that is how he makes his living.



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

Buy the medium format now, but compare pricing at KEH http://www.keh.com. Do
a quick search on EBAY for medium format digital back, and see what is out
there now. Consider getting a medium format digital back in the future, perhaps
when you want to spend more time on a computer.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com Updated!

Steve Lefevre wrote:

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).

There is more of a trend in the last several years towards very saturated
colours. While I am not a big fan of the more blue green of Velvia, I do use
quite a bit of Kodak E100VS (more red yellow bias).



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'.

Telling someone that something is 'just a slider in photoshop' is really
downplaying the importance of actual skills required to get good outputs from
PhotoShop. It also shows a great lack of understanding that what you see on a
monitor is rarely what you get on a printed item. Anyway, consider that even a
pinhole camera can give an image that prints nicely, and you soon realize that
there is more to a printed image than Mega Pixels. Oh well . . . on to the
questions . . . . . .



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.

If you want to do your own prints, then you will spend hours on the computer.
Of course, you could always drop off the memory card, and let a lab print the
image for you.

The mechanics of cameras is another issue, though if you went medium format
digital back instead, you could use digital and medium format at the same time.
Old mechanics meets new technology.


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

Scary . . . by the time you have it paid off, the resale will be quite low, a
newer 8 MP camera will be easily available at a lower cost, and people will
speak badly of the image quality of your (then) old 6 MP digital . . . unless
this is for a company, and there is some tax advantage, think carefully before
financing a camera . . . any camera.


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

Any camera can allow a photographer to acquire compelling images. It is more
important that a photographer have some creative vision than just owning some
equipment.


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

Okay, let us assume that you take your Velvia to a good lab, and they print and
make the print look like the transparency appears on a lightbox. Compare that
to a maybe calibrated monitor for your digital image, and what you see on your
monitor might be different than what the lab guy sees on his monitor, and it
might be luck, or many proof prints, and you still might not get the colour you
wanted.


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.

Many industry financial analysts point to 2008 being the year in which no
Japanese camera makers will make new film SLRs. By that time, only P&S digital,
compact ZLR digital, and digital SLRs are expected. Almost all digital SLRs by
2008 are expected to be full frame versions. You should see some huge changes
in four years.


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

Better to wait until 2008, or buy something used and full frame within the next
two years. Used digital SLR gear often sells at a huge discount.


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

Big camera = professional photographer . . . . . . . . . . maybe, but I suggest
you should get something because you like using it, and it allows you to
express your creative vision.


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

Do you shoot lots of film now?

With medium format, you only get half or a third of the images you would with
35 mm. The usual approach is to think more carefully about each shot, meaning
that you would shoot less frames of medium format at a location, than one would
normally use for 35 mm. Medium format roll films are often cheaper per roll,
and sometimes less money for developing. You could actually save some money
over 35 mm by going medium format.


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

You can also have different films loaded into different film backs on quite a
few medium format cameras. Also, medium format digital backs of about 36 mm by
36 mm are now showing up in the used market (like EBAY), with many going for
under $2000. You could buy into used medium format digital backs in the future,
and get digital on your medium format gear.



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.

Most camera stores sell used gear at a fixed commission. Newer gear can get the
sales guy more commission, or result in more sales of accessories. Hey, he's a
salesman . . . that is how he makes his living.



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

Buy the medium format now, but compare pricing at KEH http://www.keh.com. Do
a quick search on EBAY for medium format digital back, and see what is out
there now. Consider getting a medium format digital back in the future, perhaps
when you want to spend more time on a computer.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com Updated!