I'm glad you and Velvia can make music together. The only thing I don't
forgive is the 1,000th misspelling of "cheap". Cheep, cheep is the
sound a little birdie makes. "Cheap" means it doesn't cost much or is
of low quality. :-)
Chuck Norcutt
Ken Norton wrote:
> Mark the date down. The Schnozz admits error! (also note, that Moose
> indicated his absence, so maybe I can get away with this without too much
> grief)
>
> Lately, I've been promoting film like it's going out of style. Oh, wait, it
> is. Anyway, I've worked hard this past year on settling in on a selection
> of decent color print films. For the record, here are my favorites and why I
> like them.
>
> 1. Fuji 160S - Extremely fine grain, and nearly identical to the Olympus
> E-1--enough so that the files are interchangeable. Probably the most
> "usable" film I've ever used.
>
> 2. Kodak 160NC - Skintones that can't be beat. Extremely fine grain.
>
> 3. Fuji Reala - Similar to 160S, but with a touch more punch.
>
> 4. Kodak 400VC - Punchy, fine-grain, and high speed. What's not to like?
>
> 5. Fuji Superia 400. A bit grainy in the scans, but highly usable, neutral
> with no bad habits. Oh, did I say cheep?
>
> 6. Fuji 400H - 160S at a higher speed and tight grain. Colors aren't quite
> a perfect match as 400H is kinda a cross between 160S and 160C. I like the
> shadows.
>
> I could live life very nicely shooting Fuji 160S as my mainline film. All of
> these films scan well enough and are so well behaved with no weird
> characteristics that I can recommend any of them without hesitation. So
> where am I wrong? Why the error of my ways? For all of my normal paying
> work (event, portrait, wedding, etc)., having a film and digital camera that
> matches each other is necessary and my selection of Fuji 160S is a perfect
> choice. I have no intentions of changing any time soon.
>
> But for the rest of my photography? Is it still the perfect choice? I have
> learned that it isn't. Not for me and my own specific filing methods and
> post-processing procedures. Let me explain how things have worked for me for
> years:
>
> 1. Shoot slide film of various subjects. A roll may last minutes, hours,
> days or weeks.
> 2. Have film processed and get the little box back.
> 3. Open box and quickly run through the stack on my portable light-table.
> Toss the obvious flubs so I never see them again.
> 4. File the individual slides in archival slide sheets. When the roll
> contains multiple subjects, place the slides in new sheets or add to
> existing sheets in the file-folders containing those subjects. Only toss
> out the "this will NEVER be used and I'll be embarrassed if anybody saw
> these shots after I'm dead".
> 5. Immediately scan a few images of interest, but otherwise let the slides
> rest.
> 6. Occasionally surf through the file-folders looking for gold, scan, print,
> etc., return slide to sheet/folder.
> 7. When searching for something else, find gem, scan, print etc., return
> slide to sheet/folder.
> 8. When a request for a photo of a certain subject comes along, I grab the
> appropriate file folder(s) and quickly find any and all appropriate images.
> Scan, print, etc., return slide to sheet/folder.
>
> The point is, my filing system and method of working is based on slides. I'm
> good with B&W negs, as those are easily "readable" but I've never been able
> to successfully ready a color negative. Nor, am I good with digging through
> on-screen thumbnails. Looking at a thumbnail is not the same as looking at
> a sheet of slides with a loupe standing by for critical analysis.
>
> I'm about to declare the mid-to-late '90s the "lost years". I've been
> losing my images not due to physical misplacement or hard-drive failure
> (although, I've lost some due to technology failures), but through shear
> organizational mismatchment to my way of operating.
>
> Is my filing system a problem? Obviously. But over the years I developed a
> system that works for me and my usual choice in film. It is actually very
> similar to how stock agencies files trannies for years. Am I hopelessly
> stuck in my ways? Possible, but the problem is my system if highly tuned to
> one specific type of "raw" image. Color negs don't mingle well for me. The
> digital files are organized in the same manner as the slides.
>
> Why not just scan the negs and place them in the same folders as the rest of
> the digital images? Time, effort and storage costs. Only a fraction of my
> non-event/portrait/wedding images ever get used. Why invest further time on
> something that may never be touched again? With my slides, they just take up
> space in the sheets, but every once in a while I'll come across one which in
> the digital world or in a scanned world, would have never made it--it would
> have been deleted or skipped. These images are lost forever. Either lost
> through deletion or lost through the fact that I'll never closely look at
> them in the archival sheets again. If they were "great" they would have been
> scanned immediately, right? Again, B&W negs aren't that much of a problem
> since I can "read" them.
>
> So, I was wrong. I thought I could convert entirely over to C41 for color
> film work. I can't. For event/portrait/wedding, there is no question that
> C41 rules, but for that my process-flow is entirely different than it is for
> speculation, stock and art photography.
>
> As a result of this soul-searching, I cancelled my film order in
> progress--nearly $400 worth for the remainder of 2009 and have been
> reevaluating things. I absolutely love Fuji Velvia. It sees the world the
> way I like to see the world. Why do I want to "match" digital with film?
> If I want the standard "look", I'll shoot digital or 160S. But I like the
> way Velvia renders my world. Is it more expensive than 160S? Yes, the cost
> per shot is about 75% more. But what is the final result worth to me? If I
> can be happy with the results and not think "I can fix this in post", it's
> worth some of that.
>
> But most importantly, the cost savings of C41 films isn't worth the altered
> filing system and time spent evaluating negs. Time is money and the
> additional cost of Velvia more than pays for itself.
>
> So, to wrap this treatise up, my new film order at B&H is for a ton of the
> new Velvia 100 (my new favorite, based on previous tests), mailers and
> enough 160S to get me through the year. (I will forever avoid Provia 100F
> like the plague as it has very poor resolution in comparison--only ignorant
> fools...oh, never mind)
>
> I was wrong, so very wrong to write off E-6 films. Cost per shot is always a
> concern, but I really don't shoot that much and I'm even more picky and
> "pre-edit" the sludge out before pressing the shutter-release.
>
> Will you forgive me for this transgression?
>
> AG-Schnozz
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|