> Yes, if we define pro film as "Velvia and Provia F", I agree.
> These are IMHO the slide films with the smallest grain and
> - especially Velvia - best resolution.
Provia F also has excellent reciprocity response (up to 1 minute),
and pretty "accurate" colors. And it responds well to pushing.
For more subtle constrast and skin tones, Astia can be a better
choice.
> While I like Provia F,
> both in ISO 100 and 400, the Velvia colors are "too much"
> for my taste, so I rarely use it.
Velvia does work well e.g. for fall colors, the Southwest
and Asian and African skin. But I seem to remember that it
has a problem with colors fading over time during storage?
> But other consumer grade film,
> be it Fuji or Kodak, still project quite good and are sufficient
> for my needs - and probably for most professional applications
> as well, although people are kind of spoiled by the widespread use
> of Velvia and nowadays also Provia F. ;-) Still, other films
> project still better - and much cheaper - than any digital 3MP
> file. So, as long as I compare them to digital and not against the
> best films available, they are still quite good and much cheaper.
Before I started doing digital, I shot Provia F, Velvia, Astia,
100VS, Scala, Delta 100, ... So that's my cost basis I'm
comparing to. Most of my slides don't get projected, but
need to be scanned.
(I'm still waiting for a replacement emulsion for APX 25 - man I
love that stuff - still have 10 rolls in the fridge).
> [lenses]
> There is a difference, but it's not like coke bottle vs L glass.
> Also not like consumer glass vs L glass. Not even like 3MP vs 6MP.
> It's noticeable, though.
Oh, but it is very noticable.
Every once in a while I pull out a slide from my pre-"L", pre-
"Provia" area. Muddy colors, low contrast, it just doesn't
have any "punch". Perhaps the old slides look so bad because my
skills have improved since then (I certainling hope so (-:), but
I've also upgraded the camera gear (Canon A1 to Canon Elan IIe),
and the emulsions used (from Sensia to Provia & Velvia).
I figured if I take the effort of hauling 25 kilos of camera
gear and a heavy tripod with ballhead into the field,
elaborately set up tripod and camera with L glass, why
compromise image quality and waste time&effort by not using
the best film available for the job. That would be cutting
costs at the wrong end.
> I don't doubt that. Still, the focal length / angle of view
> problem persists, which is a BIG problem for me.
How many extreme super-wideangle photographs do you take?
In a lot of situations I shoot standard wideangle to normal,
sometimes even long telephoto for landscape. 25mm to 27mm
135-equivalent focal length with the D30 is plenty of
sufficient in most situations. And if not, I get the Elan
out (or shoot a 360 panorama) :-)
Lars
--
Lars Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED]
87GT http://www.citilink.com/~larry/gallery
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
