For once I agree with Pal...
It's always been my contention that Velvia looks closer to the way I
remember the scene than other films (I'm talking about nature/landscape).
It's not a good skin-tone film from what I've experienced. People seem to
universally comment 'but the picture doesn't do it justice'. I think Velvia
puts that punch back in that makes up for the difference between what my
eyes saw and what the phototgraphic rendition is.
In addition, I think many times the comparisons between Velvia and other
films are made w/o the benefit of viewing the exact same image on the films
in question, and w/o the benefit of having witnessed the original scene.
Tom C.
Tom C.
From: Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 22:23:44 +0100
----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I agree, and add to that the inane use of polarizers and graduated tobacco
filters and the hideous picture is complete. There is a solution though,
don't
use Velvia and educate those you can. I know it's depressing to witness
all the
non-photogs that ooh and ahh over these departures from reality but hyper-
reality tends to sell unfortunately.
I disagree. I find Velvia to be close to reality. In fact, the standard
film in the pre-Velvia days, Kodachrome, is far weirder and further from
reality than Velvia but people become so used to it that they actually
believed that was how reality looks. I tried once. I took one Kodachrome 25
and one Velvia 50 shot of the same scene (forest interior) and went back in
the field at the same place with the slides and compared it to reality. The
Velvia was far closer to the real thing....
Pål
