kaiyen
local man of mystery
Are you comparing transmissive viewing of slides (projection or light table/box) vs. prints from digital? That's like apples & oranges.
But I hear what you are saying. A well exposed slide is just so vibrant.
allan
But I hear what you are saying. A well exposed slide is just so vibrant.
allan
amateriat
We're all light!
Jaffa: you ramble rather interestingly. 
About Velvia: I once did some scanning work for a pro shooter who covered the British Open, and shot nothing but 35mm Velvia 50. Those images blew my socks off – perfect, gorgeous, almost scary in their MF-level detail. But he sweated the details, even though he had gorgeous weather (yes, I'm talking the UK here), but naturally you have to be more on-your-toes in good weather than bad when shooting 'chrome.
Photoshop and film: it depends on the film, of course, and climbing the PS learning curve, but for films like Portra (and Fuji Pro and Kodak's E200), the scanning process is almost drop-dead simple, which makes PS work all the easier; I tend to make only minor tweaks in terms of contrast and, occasionally, color. Again, I feel more can be done with a low-to-moderate-contrast film under most conditions, because I can always increase contrast where and when needed/wanted, whereas trying to tame a neg or 'chrome with too much contrast is a lot more trouble.
Sharpness: you're right – sometimes it can be fetishized to ridiculous ends. I've never had issues with sharpness for the rare times I shoot digital. It's the assorted other issues with digital capture that drive me up the wall (and for which I'm not willing to dedicate $5000+ for a single camera body that might address a few of them). With good gear (camera, lens, scanner, printer) and decent film, I don't fret about sharpness. I fret about getting most of what's in my minds eye onto that little chip of film.
And, looking at your work again, you'll have no problems whatsoever in that realm. Whatever you do, I (and, no doubt, others here) will be anxious to see the results!
- Barrett
About Velvia: I once did some scanning work for a pro shooter who covered the British Open, and shot nothing but 35mm Velvia 50. Those images blew my socks off – perfect, gorgeous, almost scary in their MF-level detail. But he sweated the details, even though he had gorgeous weather (yes, I'm talking the UK here), but naturally you have to be more on-your-toes in good weather than bad when shooting 'chrome.
Photoshop and film: it depends on the film, of course, and climbing the PS learning curve, but for films like Portra (and Fuji Pro and Kodak's E200), the scanning process is almost drop-dead simple, which makes PS work all the easier; I tend to make only minor tweaks in terms of contrast and, occasionally, color. Again, I feel more can be done with a low-to-moderate-contrast film under most conditions, because I can always increase contrast where and when needed/wanted, whereas trying to tame a neg or 'chrome with too much contrast is a lot more trouble.
Sharpness: you're right – sometimes it can be fetishized to ridiculous ends. I've never had issues with sharpness for the rare times I shoot digital. It's the assorted other issues with digital capture that drive me up the wall (and for which I'm not willing to dedicate $5000+ for a single camera body that might address a few of them). With good gear (camera, lens, scanner, printer) and decent film, I don't fret about sharpness. I fret about getting most of what's in my minds eye onto that little chip of film.
And, looking at your work again, you'll have no problems whatsoever in that realm. Whatever you do, I (and, no doubt, others here) will be anxious to see the results!
- Barrett
MCTuomey
Veteran
Jaffa, with great respect for your technical concern, and after touring your flickr site, I suggest that you just pick a film, shoot, process, and post, please. With your photographic strengths, I'm confident the details will not bedevil you.
Selfishly, I just want to see more ... your AIDS gallery leaves me wordless.
Selfishly, I just want to see more ... your AIDS gallery leaves me wordless.
jaffa_777
Established
Finally chosen some film
Finally chosen some film
Thanks for your comments on my photo's. Appreciate it.
Yes, after burning my eyes out on flickr for hours, I have chosen 3 films to try and take with me on my next trip.
Kodak e100g for good light and tripod.
Kodak e200 for my push film in not so good light/indoors. (Thanks to who recommended this)
and Fuji Neopan 400 for my black and white. (This film looks awesome in MF)
My other camera will be digital (d200) for all my documentary work and oppurtunistic shooting. Although I am scanning ebay and can't wait to get my Mamiya 7 and try out what it is like at street shooting. Does anyone use this like a leica? I have read it doesn't focus that close which may mean I will have to change how I shoot. And the hyperocal markings are quite optomistic. I have never used a rangefinder before but I am going to learn the tool to get the shots! At first I might walk around and get used to what the spotmeter on the camera reads in different light and reference it with my light meter.
Ok I am rambling again. Thanks all, heaps!
Finally chosen some film
Thanks for your comments on my photo's. Appreciate it.
Yes, after burning my eyes out on flickr for hours, I have chosen 3 films to try and take with me on my next trip.
Kodak e100g for good light and tripod.
Kodak e200 for my push film in not so good light/indoors. (Thanks to who recommended this)
and Fuji Neopan 400 for my black and white. (This film looks awesome in MF)
My other camera will be digital (d200) for all my documentary work and oppurtunistic shooting. Although I am scanning ebay and can't wait to get my Mamiya 7 and try out what it is like at street shooting. Does anyone use this like a leica? I have read it doesn't focus that close which may mean I will have to change how I shoot. And the hyperocal markings are quite optomistic. I have never used a rangefinder before but I am going to learn the tool to get the shots! At first I might walk around and get used to what the spotmeter on the camera reads in different light and reference it with my light meter.
Ok I am rambling again. Thanks all, heaps!
jalLee2001
jallee55
Would you still have choosen E200
Would you still have choosen E200
I notice that the this thread is several years old. I use both Provia 400 and E200. I am starting to lean towards E200. The saturated look of Provia is beginning to wear on me. Also I notice no difference in quality. What decision would you make, if you had to make one now?
Would you still have choosen E200
I notice that the this thread is several years old. I use both Provia 400 and E200. I am starting to lean towards E200. The saturated look of Provia is beginning to wear on me. Also I notice no difference in quality. What decision would you make, if you had to make one now?