Digital versus Velvia
Hi All,
As many of you know I have only moved to digital very recently (5DmkII Late Dec 2008) and up until then have shot mostly on Velvia50. Since I got my new camera I’ve been planning to do some side by side comparisons and finally here it is. So for your scrutineering pleasure…
Obviously you’ll draw your own conclusions from the comparisons so I think I’ll just post and enjoy discussing them with whoever comments. I believe each medium has slightly different strengths and weaknesses very interested to know what others opinions are.
The first seven examples are as is with no editing whatsoever. Resolution is in theory the same, approximately 18″×12″ at 300dpi or 5400×3600 pixels. The first Velvia shot was scanned with my $1200 Nikon Coolscan V film scanner the second shot is the same transperancy scanned with a $300,000 Linotype HELL3400 (courtesy of splitting image) the last with my 21 megapixel, Canon 5D mkII. The next four images are a detail from the shot, blowing up an area that covers approximately 1% of the image to compare resolution. The first two are from my coolscan V, with and without Digital ICE4, the third from the Linotype HELL3400 and the last from the 5D mkII. The digital was converted from RAW in PS4 with the white balance as shot, i.e. auto white balance.
Both shots were taken with an EF24-70mm f/2.8L USM at approximately 24mm, f/16, 0.4sec, with a circular polarizer (as I remember). Digital camera EOS 5DmkII, film camera EOS 30. Incidentally Velvia50 slide film is enormously superior to mass market print film (negative film) and this test should not be confused with this medium. Pro level neg film is a different story again.
Velvia (Scanned with a $1200 Nikon Coolscan V unedited)
Velvia (Scanned with a $300,000 Linotype HELL3400 unedited)
Digital (5D mkII unedited)
Velvia Detail (Scanned with a Coolscan V, approximately 1% of full size)
Velvia Detail no ICE (Scanned with a Coolscan V, approximately 1% of full size)
Velvia Detail (Scanned with a Linotype HELL3400, approximately 1% of full size).
Digital Detail (5DmkII, approximately 1% of full size).
Velvia (Coolscan V edited)
Velvia (Linotype HELL3400 edited)
Digital (Canon 5D mkII edited)
There’s no doubt the 21mega pixel 5DmkII wins the detail race against the Coolscan V but against the drum scan… gee its close (shame about the hair, or whatever it is). The 1% of full size test is pretty extreme and is well beyond the practical enlargement size that would normally be used. My original post did not include the drum scan samples and I’m absolutely amazed at the results this amazing bit of gear can pull from a tiny 24 × 36mm transperancy. As the guy in the lab said, “It’s simple to explain the difference to photographers because they understand what a good lens costs. Just think of the difference between your Coolscan and our Linotype as the difference between a $1200 lens and a $300,000 lens.” “Oh wow, yup that explains it”. At $44 for an 18″ × 12″ @ 300dpi scan, drum scans aren’t cheap (particularly if you do 80 in a hit like I just did for my soon to be released ‘The Prom’ book) but man the difference is amazing.
The shots were taken at Hunter Beach at Wilsons Promontory on the same rock this shot was taken from.
Looking forward to reading your comments.
Trav
Comments
The Velvia appears to give much warmer colours, but the digital perhaps a tad sharper image
Interesting, my thoughts were that the velvia gave much cooler colours, to me there is a distinct blue cast and certainly one of my bug bears with velvia that tends to get worse the longer the exposure. For waterfall shots it’s really full on and in the end I started using a warming filter to soften this effect. The digital is definitely sharper.
Thanks for the comment mate.
– Travis Easton
I can see why you love Velvia :) Nice work, Travis, and thanks for sharing this!
No prob’s Mel, interesting to see them side by side like this huh. Thanks for droppin’ by.
– Travis Easton
Interesting stuff Travis. Do you think the saturation of the 5Dmk2 gets close to Velvia? – your tests seem to say not.
A year ago when I exclusively shot with Velvia I thought digital looked very flat and colourless. But I have been double shooting a fair proportion of my work with a cheap point and shoot for a while now and have come to prefer the flatter more realistic rendering of digital. Basically I really hate some of the ridiculous over saturated editing that seems so popular now. Nothing against subtle use but ramping it up to blazes in an attempt to somehow make a crap shot good through over the top saturation gets on my goat. I’ll probably offend some saying that but if it is any consolation I place some of my older work firmly in that category.
Does 5DmkII get close to Velvia? Not at my settings which are the conservative out of the box ones but as I say I prefer it. With editing it could be closure but I think the narrower contrast recordability fundamentally effects the way the colours are rendered too. It’s a very different feeling colour space. For me I now prefer the more natural white balance characteristics of digital which due to the relative colour perception of the brain is probably closer to reality.
Thanks for droppin’ by and adding your 2 cents John.
– Travis Easton
Interesting indeed, Travis. In over 25 years of film photography I could never love Velvia – in my hands it always gave seriously weird colours; I agree that it’s often rather cool. I’m over film now – no more toxic chemistry, pouring money down the sink, repeatedly trying effects literally in the dark, etc. One of the many great things about digital is that you get so much more choice about the colour scheme you use – not just what Mr Fuji or Mr Eastman give you. And unless you’re using medium or large format film cameras the resolution from digital is excellent. Sorry if I’ve gone on rather, but you did ask for comments! Thanks.
Thanks Bevan that’s why I posted this to read interesting long comments like yours. In good strong early morning or late afternoon light from behind I totally love velvia but in many other scenario’s my love affair has cooled (particularly waterfalls). Certainly the past popularity of using warm up filters with Velvia is understandable.
My work flow with Velvia was quite different to yours as I’ve never been in a darkroom. Scanned and straight to the digital darkroom has been my practice. In the end I was starting to look for more literal emulsions but was so close to going digital I didn’t bother because I didn’t want to relearn how another film would see when I knew Velvia50 so well.
I’m still playing with the idea of trying large format sometime in the future as all many of my favorite photographers still seem to shoot in this medium. (speaking of medium format I think 20mp+ full frame has probably eclipsed this already). The quality of large format is just so incredible but it will be a hideously expensive foray so will depend greatly on how the finances find themselves down the road.
Cheers
trav
– Travis Easton
Travis, you dont say what settings you are using on the digital.
These should be tweaked to give a look that you like.
Everyone chose the velvia because it was “chemically tweaked” to give the look they liked.
In my opinion, if you just use digital as “bog standard” you are not being fair to the medium.
I dont view velvia as “bog standard”. It has a look that is influenced by the chemicals used.
I find your comparison interesting and informative.
I just have a bit of an issue with the viewpoint that we see expressed quite often that unless an image is used exactly as it came from the camera then it is not as pure as “in the good old days of negatives and slides”.
And just to seemingly contradict myself – I generally dont like doctored and overprocessed shots much either!
regards
Garth
I realized that I neglected to state the digital white balance settings as soon as I posted but haven’t amended this oversight till now from your pertinent reminder as I got bogged down responding to comments. Thanks for your perspective.
– Travis Easton
Hate to say it Travis (or admit it to myself), but Velvia for me is still the go (as evidenced by these photos). Haven’t used slide film for years now but what Velvia seems to do is some enhancement, perhaps quite rich, that everyone (including myself) seems incapable of not doing with digital, but in the case of Velvia with a delicacy that we generally don’t seem able to replicate.
Fascinating reading peoples different perceptions. At the moment I’m loving the digital but it wouldn’t surprise me at all if this view changes again tomorrow, as indeed it has as you can read here . Varies greatly from shot to shot and situation to situation. I’m still working out where Velvia will sit in my arsenal, time will tell.
– Travis Easton
From your comparison it is quite obvious why many landscape photographers are in love with Velvia :) The colors of Velvia are simply stunning, and it is considered by many as the best ever film specially for green landscapes :) (I can’t tell from my experience, never used it myself because of problems I had with slides development and subsequent prints in labs I could use…).
It is also obvious that digital gives here more detail, but among other factors, it is also dependent on the method of scanning (e.g. using ICE mostly makes the scanned image softer, not speaking about GEM; shown in some tests as well as my own experience with the same scanner as you’re using).
Velvia also seems to give pleasant contrast in details whereas digital looks more flat; it can be partially influenced by the difference in exposure – digital capture is apparently brighter – but not completely. This is the same what I’ve seen compared on big prints in Prague, showing flower close-ups: color range in details was much better from film than from digital.
Some time ago, I’ve read interesting article in PhotoLife (Czech photography magazine) dealing with making colors achieved by digital cameras better, because they tend to be more flat, specially in red part of spectrum, and with green coming often quite muddy. There suggestion was to use redhancer/didymium filters (made e.g. by Hoya and B+W), that make both reds and greens captured better. There were some illustrative photographs that looked really well (and I have seen some original prints in their shop in Prague), sorry I can’t show you here… Again, no experience myself because I still don’t have any digital camera, being happy with film :)
Will you show us more pictures for comparison when you have some? Always interesting… :)
Thanks for your fascinating points Lenka. By the end I was thoroughly intrigued to know what gear and film you shoot with? In response to your ice point I rescanned the detail shot without using ice but I can barely tell the difference. Still nice to know all those years I shot with Velvia while the rest of the world had already gone digital weren’t wasted. All the best.
– Travis Easton
Yep the Velvia gets the first look vote and that’s 99% of it… forget about the pixel peeping.
But when you consider the flexibility of the RAW Digital format Vs the you got it or you didn’t film its hard to keep with film… tho I was never in the film camp. For the detail argument you would easily have to think that it would come down to the scanner more than anything.
As I understand it Velvia is known for its saturated or vibrant colours which I must say look a treat, but how much different is digital editing in photoshop to chemical formulas (producing more saturated colours in the case of Velvia for example) and darkroom retouching. Other than the fact that digital is cheaper, faster, more accurate and some might say better for the environment (but look at a computer thats some serious planet munching stuff you use to type with) what’s it really got over film. Film uses chemicals to manipulate colour/contrast and so on while digital uses pixel editors to change colours/contrast and so on.. there is FA difference.
I’ve got a roll of Velvia 50 sitting right there waiting to get used, I’d love to see what it would do to an crispy Uluru sunset or a nicely lit Ormiston Gorge but I’m scared to use it. Aghhh what if its not exposed correctly or something as common but just as detrimental to the final print.
I think that the film Vs digital debate will go on forever, at least in relation to the tradition of fine art photography, while the rest of us listen expectantly for a final outcome making/editing/manipulating/sharing/learning digital PHOTOGRAPHY as we do .
Its all about the final print the road that gets you there is yours to find or make.
Thanks Travis for doing the work and posting the info… please tell me that you took the photos on the same morning it would do my head in if they weren’t.
S
Pictures were taken a minute apart, same tripod position and lens although I slightly moved the focal length. After using Velvia so long I find your fear of using a roll in case you or others mess it up hilarious, just do it man. I think in 35mm vs full frame it pretty much dead for film, but I think there’s a place for film in large format for the forseeable future (if they continue to make it that long). ta for your comments.
– Travis Easton
I like the saturated colors of the Velvia but could use some color correcting for the purple cast. The crop is interesting because I’ve seen comparison crops between Velvia 50 and Nikon D3 and it showed the slide being more superior in detail and sharpness.
Interesting re the detail and sharpness, the focal length/ crop thing was just a mistake in framing, thanks for the 2 cents
– Travis Easton
I think if you are just moving into the digital world it will take you some time to understand the tools you now have available. All digital cameras especially a high end one like you have, can set the feature options to give you the pictures you want in the end but it’s a learning process about how your camera’s software is set. Also, in the digital world it’s not just your camera that matters but also how you post process the images. Learning all the tools can be a challenge when you 1st transition from film, but once you do I think you will be amazed at the options you have to pre-visualize a picture and then create the picture you want.