Velvia 50 vs Portra 160 (sorta...)

[marcookie]

A sort of comparison between Fuji Velvia 50 and Kodak Portra 160. The film are essentially the opposite, the first is a high contrast transparency film with 5 stops of dynamic range, while the second is a color negative film with an insanely large latitute---everything slooowly fades to white.
It is a sort of comparison because the two images were taken a few minutes apart and the light was very different: too much contrast for Velvia with the sun out. Both images were taken with a 3-stop soft edge graduated filter to control the sky.
Which one do you like most?

I prefer the velvia image. I find velvia to be very true to life when carefully exposed on low contrast scenes.
The two images were taken at Cape Cod; I think they captured many aspects of the northern part of the cape: the big dunes, the particular shrubby vegetation, the barely traveled sand roads, and the amazing light. However, I am not convinced by any of the two shots and I find them too much chaotic for my liking. Still, it was a fun morning and I think the images are worth sharing.

(Velvia on top, Portra below)

If you like more information I took an on-location video when taking those images (link below).

 

[Derrel]

I liked the lower shot, the Portra shot, more than the upper shot. Perhaps because the orange rays of sunrise lighted part of the scene? I think that warm,soft flush of light helps tremendously. These are as you mentioned, not particularly earth-shattering, yet they are lovely renderings of a Cape Cod scene. I've never been to Cape Cod, but this is indeed a beautiful scene. Comparing a pre-sunrise shot to one in which the sun is just coming up kind of throws the favor toward the shot with the sun rays, IMHO.

 

[marcookie]

I liked the lower shot, the Portra shot, more than the upper shot. Perhaps because the orange rays of sunrise lighted part of the scene? I think that warm,soft flush of light helps tremendously. These are as you mentioned, not particularly earth-shattering, yet they are lovely renderings of a Cape Cod scene. I've never been to Cape Cod, but this is indeed a beautiful scene. Comparing a pre-sunrise shot to one in which the sun is just coming up kind of throws the favor toward the shot with the sun rays, IMHO.

Thank you for the nice and detailed analysis, I really appreciate it and agree with all words. I wonder if the halo in front of the sun is due to some haze present in my lens. It's a 20 yo lens with a lot of haze on one side. Who knows. I have no plan to change it though since I find the effect very natural...

 

[AlanKlein]

I like Velvia 50 and use it a lot. There are so many variables on your two shots - sun in one not the other changes the softness of the greens on the one with the sun. Also, editing after the scans change colors as well. I find Velvia is easier to scan and adjust than negative color film. Also, you know immediately which shot is exposed correctly (I bracket MF). Negative film is a crap shoot. You might start working with the wrong bracketed exposure.

Regarding yours, I like the first one without the sun. The overall quietness gives a nice feeling.

 

[earthmanbuck]

I like the colours of the Portra shot more—the greens are warmer—so that's how I voted. However, film aside, I like the shot better without the sun in it.

 

[webestang64]

For sure like the Fuji shot better. Mainly for the fact that I prefer Fuji over Kodak most of the time with color. Kodak Portra 160 was the replacement for the old Kodak VPS (the wedding film of choice).....that was a film that LOVED pastels and hated bright strong colors. Maybe if the sun was not in that shot it would be a better image(?).
Only thing I would change in the shot would be to take a bit of the blue tone out of the shadows.

 

[marcookie]

Thanks for all the replies. I do not bracket on large format because I usually spend a lot of time metering. And bracketing would be very expensive. I often shoot doubles for safety, but with the same exposure. After 2-3 photography trips I am pretty confident in my exposures now. I find camera shake and focusing easier to mess up.

However I find interesting that light dominates over film stock, meaning that the portra shot, besides being a much less contrasty film, looks much more dynamic because of the sun was out. I think it makes sense!

 

[cooltouch]

I voted for Velvia because it narrowly beat out Portra in terms of sharpness. Velvia is an absolutely great slide film. And Portra 160 is the best C-41 film I've ever used. I was quite surprised to see just how well it did against Velvia. A very useful comparison.

I've always preferred shooting slides over C-41 because I've always felt slide film had an edge in sharpness. That's not so much the case anymore. But I should emphasize that it has been my experience with Portra 160 that has led to a -- well, let's say a softening of my preferences.

 

[marcookie]

I voted for Velvia because it narrowly beat out Portra in terms of sharpness. Velvia is an absolutely great slide film. And Portra 160 is the best C-41 film I've ever used. I was quite surprised to see just how well it did against Velvia. A very useful comparison.

I've always preferred shooting slides over C-41 because I've always felt slide film had an edge in sharpness. That's not so much the case anymore. But I should emphasize that it has been my experience with Portra 160 that has led to a -- well, let's say a softening of my preferences.

With the flatbed scanning I doubt I reach the limit of sharpness of any of these two films... If I would be drum scanning it would be another story. Moreover I shoot at f32 generally, so diffraction may even out these two films. Again, if you would be scanning at real 4000 dpi a 35mm negative than I suppose the difference in sharpness between the two film stocks would be quite apparent.

I mean this is one of the advantages of large format, the real estate of film surface is so large that (minor) lens weakness, diffraction, film grain... they don't really show up.

 

[cooltouch]

I don't use my Epson 4990 flatbed scanner for 35mm anymore. It does a fine job for posting shots on the 'net, but my goal has been to capture all the information in a slide or negative that I possibly can. The closest I've been able to get to this is to use my Sony NEX 7, with its 24.3 mp sensor, combined with a Nikon 55mm f/2.8 AIs Micro-Nikkor and some extensions, for duping the slides and negatives. The NEX generates images that are a maximum of 4000 x 6000 pixels. This provides me with a resolution that will resolve grain in most all emulsions.

Incidentally, to pick nits, 4000 x 6000 pixels, when duping a slide or negative, actually translates to 4233 pixels per inch. This is because a 35mm film frame's dimensions are 24mm x 36mm. So the 4000 pixels is for 24mm. The math: 4000 pixels per 24mm multiplied by 25.4 pixels per inch, and you get 4,233 pixels per inch. On the long side of the image, it works out to 6350 pixels.

Here's a dupe of a Kodachrome 64 slide, taken some time during the mid-1980s. Image is that of one of the A4 Skyhawks the Blue Angels flew back in the 80s before they were replaced with F-18 Hornets. The camera was a Canon F-1, and the lens was a Sigma 600mm f/8 mirror. I don't recall anymore, but I'm relatively certain that I was using a monopod for this shot.

 

[marcookie]

I don't use my Epson 4990 flatbed scanner for 35mm anymore. It does a fine job for posting shots on the 'net, but my goal has been to capture all the information in a slide or negative that I possibly can. The closest I've been able to get to this is to use my Sony NEX 7, with its 24.3 mp sensor, combined with a Nikon 55mm f/2.8 AIs Micro-Nikkor and some extensions, for duping the slides and negatives. The NEX generates images that are a maximum of 4000 x 6000 pixels. This provides me with a resolution that will resolve grain in most all emulsions.

Incidentally, to pick nits, 4000 x 6000 pixels, when duping a slide or negative, actually translates to 4233 pixels per inch. This is because a 35mm film frame's dimensions are 24mm x 36mm. So the 4000 pixels is for 24mm. The math: 4000 pixels per 24mm multiplied by 25.4 pixels per inch, and you get 4,233 pixels per inch. On the long side of the image, it works out to 6350 pixels.

Here's a dupe of a Kodachrome 64 slide, taken some time during the mid-1980s. Image is that of one of the A4 Skyhawks the Blue Angels flew back in the 80s before they were replaced with F-18 Hornets. The camera was a Canon F-1, and the lens was a Sigma 600mm f/8 mirror. I don't recall anymore, but I'm relatively certain that I was using a monopod for this shot.

Thank you for the interesting details. I had forgotten about that type of digital scanning but it looks like a great option.

That plane definitely looks better than its replacement!!

 

[cooltouch]

That plane definitely looks better than its replacement!!

I dunno . . . those FA-18s look pretty snappy, I think. Seems they're flying closer these days than they used to -- or maybe it's just the angle of view.

Interesting. I just noticed this. In both photos, Angels number 1 and 4 are inverted -- but their positions are different.

The top photo of the FA-18s was shot with a 10.1mp Canon EOS XS DSLR, whereas the bottom photo was shot with a Canon F-1 with Fujichrome 100. The lens used with the EOS was a Canon EF 75-300. I think, but I'm not sure anymore, that the lens used to shoot the A4s was a Tamron SP 60-300.