Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Velvia - was: 350mm f2.8

Subject: Re: [OM] Velvia - was: 350mm f2.8
From: "John A. Lind" <jlind@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 19:33:14 +0000
At 11:05 3/7/02, Daan wrote:
It allways striked me that most of serious nature phototgraphy (as shown in
nature photography magazines and nature photography contests) is done on
Velvia, some on other Fuji and Kodak is only used by very few nature
photographers. People who don't do nature photography seem to use far more
Kodak and tend to find Velvia unrealistic and flashy.

For my eye (I am a nature photographer and a Velvia enthousiast), Kodak
slides look dull/gray/yellow, not natural at all.

Depends on what "Kodak slides" you are using, the subject material and the lighting conditions. To assign this attribute to *all* of Kodak's transparency films for *all* applications of it is unfair. There's E100S, E100SW, E100VS, EPN-100, EPP-100, and that's just [most of] the E-6 ISO 100 daylight. There's also Kodachrome 64. Not that I personally care for any of them that much except Kodachrome, but they're all different in color accuracy, contrast and saturation. Caveat: the Kodachrome preference is a very personal one; others should use what fulfills their vision (see rant below).

I find Velvia and E100VS too saturated with very unrealistic color rendition and use Kodachrome for the majority of 35mm, and Provia 100F for the majority of medium format (no 120/200 Kodachrome). However, there are those who use films like Velvia and E100VS. You mention contests and I know some use them for contests specifically because they leap off of the wall and grab a juror's attention upon walking into the room if there are bright colors in the subject material that will super-saturate with these two films.

[Begin Ayn Rand Rant]
I will not work to juror/critic expectations. I visualize what I want first, then perform the technical work to achieve the visualization, jurors and critics be damned. My "art" is mine and I *won't* allow it to be driven by others' expectations. If I do [shoot to others' expectations], it's no longer *my* art, but becomes *their* art. If it starts with film selection, were does it end? Subject material? Composition? Time of day? Time of year? Lighting angles?

I hear Galen Rowel's name mentioned frequently. I also see what are essentially clones of his work submitted to photography competitions. IMHO that's not "original" work. I will not dispute that he's a superb photographer. He is, and has some outstanding, very original work. "Copying" it by making photographs that are home-grown versions of his compositions may demonstrate technical prowess, but it's *not* original work. [Don't confuse this with understanding and making use of some of his "first principles," e.g. using the "Zone System" does not by itself create copies of Ansel Adams' work.] The Great Photographers defined their own unique style; their originality is a large part of what made them Great Artists instead of being an Excellent Technician.

If I were creating photographs for a "stock" agency or doing commercial/industrial work for hire it would be different, but I'm not. I don't care that much what film National Geographic uses either; they can use what suits them for their vision and I'll do the same for mine.
[End Ayn Rand Rant]

Seems to me that photography "culture" pushes us in percieving the results
of specific films, techniques and tools as "normal". Granularity and
contrast figures don't tell the whole story.

You're right, they don't. There's a lot more to it, i.e. the entire process from light source, to subject material, to lens, to film, to print (or projection, web, publication, et cetera).

-- John


< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz