Mimicking Fuji Velvia 50 Film with Digital?

[roadtripper]

Anybody have any tips on how to mimic Fuji Velvia 50 film with a digital camera?

I'm using a Rebel Xsi and I've already figured out that shooting the "Landscape" picture style is somewhat helpful in saturating the blues & greens. However, so far my Rebel Xsi is only about 80% as good as Fuji Velvia was on my Canon Rebel 2000 for capturing waterfalls, moving water, etc.

Anybody have any ideas? Some articles I've read online suggest that Velvia is so amazing that it just can't be duplicated. I'm starting to agree

 

[nartreb]

I've got the Xt, and I've been wondering if lower ISOs than 100 were possible with it. Might be some obscure menu in there, but it's not obvious. My back-up plan is to buy a polarizer and/or neutral density filter...

 

[DougPaul]

Ken Rockwell suggests increasing the saturation and avoiding overexposure to get a Velvia 50-like effect. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/color.htm

You should be able to set the saturation (and other processing parameters) manually on the XSi.

You may also be able to get some of the effect in postprocessing. (Or shoot raw and everthing except exposure and focus can be done in postprocessing.)

Doug

 

[DougPaul]

I've got the Xt, and I've been wondering if lower ISOs than 100 were possible with it. Might be some obscure menu in there, but it's not obvious. My back-up plan is to buy a polarizer and/or neutral density filter...

A sensor pixel can only hold some number electrons which imposes a lower limit on the available ISO values. (The amplifier gain for the lowest ISO is set so this number of electrons just saturates the A/D converter. The gain is set to higher values to give higher ISO values.)

If your goal is longer exposures, then small apertures and ND filters will reduce the intensity of the light reaching the sensor. (Small apertures will also have the side effects of increasing the depth-of-focus and reduce the resolution due to diffraction. (F/8--F/11 is often best for maximizing the resolution of consumer camera lenses--larger has more lens aberration and smaller has more diffraction.))

As I understand it, this is a separate issue from setting a digital camera to mimic Velvia film. (Except that increasing the color saturation may creat a color intensity value of >255 which is why Rockwell insists on the use of color histograms and carefully avoiding overexposure.)

A polarizing filter can increase the color saturation by reducing haze or reflections off smooth surfaces.

Doug

 

[MichaelJ]

(Or shoot raw and everthing except exposure and focus can be done in postprocessing.)
Doug

I don't want to let that get understated - you should *definitely* shoot raw and then adjust in post-processing. Use a tool that works with a >8 bits per channel (ie, don't use dcraw r the Gimp) such as Aperture or Photoshop and reads the raw directly. This is because for many digital cameras, including yours, the actual bit depth per channel in the raw file is much more, giving you much more latitude in adjustments than if you shoot in JPG (or convert to it prior to processing).

 

[DougPaul]

Use a tool that works with a >8 bits per channel (ie, don't use dcraw r the Gimp) such as Aperture or Photoshop and reads the raw directly.

Dcraw (one of the best raw converters around, http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw) can do 16-bits per channel. Gimp is the one with the 8 bit limitation (and no plans to go 16-bit). (Cinepaint is the 16-bit follow-on derived from gimp, but it isn't ready for users yet.)

UFRaw (http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/) can also do limited 16-bit processing on raw files and uses a built-in version of dcraw.

(Both dcraw and ufraw are free.)

Most DSLR raw files contain 12-14 bits per channel.

Doug

 

[Mark Schaefer]

Anybody have any tips on how to mimic Fuji Velvia 50 film with a digital camera?

I'm using a Rebel Xsi and I've already figured out that shooting the "Landscape" picture style is somewhat helpful in saturating the blues & greens. However, so far my Rebel Xsi is only about 80% as good as Fuji Velvia was on my Canon Rebel 2000 for capturing waterfalls, moving water, etc.

Anybody have any ideas? Some articles I've read online suggest that Velvia is so amazing that it just can't be duplicated. I'm starting to agree

I feel your pain. I am also suffering from Velvia withdrawal.

The general consensus amongst photographic professionals was that Velvia slide film provided the finest grain available with film, and it would yield impeccably sharp images. The enhanced and somewhat exaggerated color palate could also make many a mediocre subject pop with brilliant colors. And exceptional nature scenes could become absolutely surreal.

All of my photographic training was geared toward the concept that a competent photographer should be able to use their talent in the field and come home with marketable images captured on film. Post processing images within a darkroom or slide duplication process should not be necessary to produce an acceptable image.

So it really irks me that post processing appears to be required with digital photography. The idea that one should collect RAW data in the field and then later manipulate that RAW data into an acceptable image runs counter to everything I was taught as a film photographer. I eagerly read Ken Rockwell's suggestions on capturing good colors directly in the digital camera. All of that may help. But I have noticed the following from my many attempts at shooting JPEGs with a Canon XTi. Those JPEG images captured using the same Canon L lenses and shot using a tripod and cable release do not have sufficient sharpness to match my prior Velvia slides. So I am at the point where I agree with Michael and Doug (and many others who have posted in other threads here) that it is necessary to shoot in RAW mode and post process later. Perhaps good field photography is possible with a full frame digital SLR, but I doubt it is with these "cropped" digital SLRs.

Matching the colors of Velvia is probably the easy part. I have noticed that with increases in saturation, brightness, and contrast I can generate vivid Velvia colors from any camera generated JPEG image. Some adjustments in color balance and hues might also be necessary depending on the initial image. The challenge is to keep the colors looking natural. While every color palate is possible, they may not all appear acceptable as reality to most people. I doubt that any single formula of adjustments will work for all images. Perhaps some day Canon will develop a Velvia picture style. Their current landscape style is a small step in the right direction, but it does not begin to approach Velvia colors.

I have not yet learned enough about post processing RAW data into Velvia equivalent sharpness. But I am convinced that you cannot get there from camera generated JPEGs (at least not from my XTi non-full frame digital SLR).

 

[sardog1]

I feel your pain. I am also suffering from Velvia withdrawal.

Have you tried Cheez-Whiz as an alternative?

 

[darren]

JPEG images captured using the same Canon L lenses and shot using a tripod and cable release do not have sufficient sharpness to match my prior Velvia slides.

How are you comparing sharpness? Equal size prints? Looking through a loop at a slide on a lightbox and then looking at a jpg on a monitor? Projecting the slide on a screen at the same size as a print of a digital shot or using a digital projector and comparing the same size projections?

My comparison is made by making equal size prints. I used to love velvia, but it was very difficult to make prints from slide film. It was expensive and I was rarely happy with the results. I can make bigger, sharper, and overall better prints from my " now old" 8MP digital Canon 20D than I could ever make from Velvia slide film. And Velvia was by far my favorite film to work with.

To me, pixel peeping isn't worth anything but pixel peeping. Some people might be into it from a technical standpoint, but to me it is all about the final product, which for me is prints.

Digital photography as it stands now is like shooting black and white print film back in the day. It is all about post processing. I haven't been able to use the new cameras like the 5D Mark II or anything that fancy, so maybe things have gotten better as far as jpg performance is concerned. But I dont think it is like shooting velvia and getting the shot you want straight out of the camera. But then a little mounted slide film is not what I want. A nice print is what I want. I find it much easier to post process just my best digital shots than the time I used to waste fussing with slides and trying to scan them or get prints made.

The money savings are another huge deal for me. I used to spend close to $20 a roll for velvia and processing. Out of 36 exposures I would often bracket the shots and get 12 images and end up with 2 or 3 real keepers. So that is almost $7 - $10 a shot. You can get a 1 TB external hard drive for $120. My RAW images are about 10MB each. So I can store 100,000 images for about 1/10 of cent each.

I feel your pain about having to shoot RAW and post process to get what Velvia used to look like right out of the camera. But the end game is what do you want to do with the image? If you want to make prints then learn to post process digital RAW files and you will be happier than you ever were with velvia. If you want to keep images in a tray and haul out the projector and screen once a month for family slide shows then go get some velvia (B&H sells it for less than $7 a roll now, which is less than it was back in the day) and shoot slides again. If you no longer have a film body, I will sell you mine. It is a Canon EOS Elan IIe, which was a great film body...but I have no use for it and will most likely never use it again.

 

[darren]

my Rebel Xsi is only about 80% as good as Fuji Velvia was on my Canon Rebel 2000 for capturing waterfalls, moving water, etc.

Since you refer to moving water, I am assuming that you mean you are trying to blur it and you are running into problems since Velvia was ISO 50 and your camera might only go down to ISO 100. Your resultant shutter speeds are twice as fast as they used to be for a given F stop so the water does blur as well. If that is what you mean, then you can use a polarizing filer which will enhance color saturation, reduce glare off water, and slow shutter speed to do to the loss of light. If you used a polarizing filter with velvia and also now with your digital body then the effect is the same and your shutter speed is still twice as fast as it used to be. You can add a neutral density filter to reduce the light and slow your shutter speed. People often use a graduated neutral density filter to balance the light in the sky and land, but a neutral density (not graduated) blocks the same amount of light across the whole filter. It will allow you to get a slower shutter speed at the same f stop and allow you to blur the water better.

You can get a cokin holder, but buy a better filter than cokin as the cokin "neutral" density filters are not neutral and impart a grey color cast to the shot. There are other threads on GND and ND filters and holders.

If this is not you are asking about, then sorry about the long answer.

- darren

 

[Mark Schaefer]

How are you comparing sharpness? Equal size prints? Looking through a loop at a slide on a lightbox and then looking at a jpg on a monitor? Projecting the slide on a screen at the same size as a print of a digital shot or using a digital projector and comparing the same size projections?

For the most part I have tried to compare equal size slide projections to my computer monitor. I have also tried to compare digital enlargements with my monitor to what I see with a loupe on a light table. It is admittedly an apples and oranges comparison.

I agree with all of your further, cited advantages regarding the digital photo process. Obtaining good prints from slides is a very difficult process. Ultimately we can produce far superior images digitally and at a fraction of the cost of film. There is no real need for endless in-camera bracketing, etc. You can also rescue what might have been many missed or failed slide images. So it is all good. I would never consider going back to film now.

 

[Mark Schaefer]

Have you tried Cheez-Whiz as an alternative?

Funny you should say that. One of my photography mentor's pet name for Velvia is Velveeta. It is a very cheesy film.

While photographing with Velvia I would often break out in this rousing chorus sung to the tune of Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious:

Supercolorsaturated Fujichrome Velvia,
Even though the look of it is sometimes quite atrocious,
If you use it long enough you will become precocious,
Supercolorsaturated Fujichrome Velvia!

 

[DougPaul]

So it really irks me that post processing appears to be required with digital photography. The idea that one should collect RAW data in the field and then later manipulate that RAW data into an acceptable image runs counter to everything I was taught as a film photographer. I eagerly read Ken Rockwell's suggestions on capturing good colors directly in the digital camera. All of that may help. But I have noticed the following from my many attempts at shooting JPEGs with a Canon XTi. Those JPEG images captured using the same Canon L lenses and shot using a tripod and cable release do not have sufficient sharpness to match my prior Velvia slides. So I am at the point where I agree with Michael and Doug (and many others who have posted in other threads here) that it is necessary to shoot in RAW mode and post process later.

One should note that the camera also starts with a raw image and processes it to generate the in-camera JPEG. So saving the image in RAW format and postprocessing is just performing similar processing steps in one's computer instead of inside the camera. Postprocessing on the computer gives the photographer an interactive environment with more control at the cost of more effort. (Presumably a camera could be designed that could perform multiple processings (with different settings) of the raw image to create multiple JPEGs, but I am not aware of any such beast.)

So there is no fundamental difference between in-camera processing and postprocessing--the difference is in the details.

FWIW, I often shoot RAW+JPEG and only postprocess the RAW images if I'm not happy with the camera JPEG.


Shooting RAW+JPEG is a bit like sending in print film to be developed and getting back prints plus the negatives. If you don't like a particular print, you can reprint from the negative in the hope of getting a better print.

Doug

 

[Tim Seaver]

Those were the days...

I haven't been able to use the new cameras like the 5D Mark II or anything that fancy, so maybe things have gotten better as far as jpg performance is concerned. But I dont think it is like shooting velvia and getting the shot you want straight out of the camera.

I am definitely doing way less post processing with the Mk II, which is really nice. Huge time saver. (I have been shooting only raw, so I don't know much about the .jpg performance). The best part is the satisfaction of not having to mess with the image too much in most cases - I definitely agree with Mark on the irritation that goes along with a ton of post-pro.

I miss Velvia too. Still a few 120 rolls in the fridge. What a great film. No post-pro there, just click and you are done! Send it off to the editors and let them worry about the expense of scanning and color corrections and all that. That is what nature photography for publication used to be about!

The are lots of Photoshop "actions" for mimicking the look of Velvia floating around the web that can work pretty well, a bit of The Google may reveal a gem.