Tom wrote:
OK... Jack... now show us a shot that's in focus or where there's not a
breeze... I think the colors of the leaves and such are just fine...
obviously shot in low light with a lot of contrast, hence the very dark
almost silhouette... but I don't find the colors, which are supposed to be
bright and vibrant based on the subject, unnatural or unappealing.
The fact that Velvia has been by far and away the leading landscape nature
film for just about the last 15 years says that many people, including those
making a living, and 'pros' don't agree.
I was expecting you'd show us a picture where the colors are grossly
distorted. This doesn't look that way to me.
I've been using Velvia since it came out and can display quite a number of
shots that have had widespead appeal (from those who have viewed them).
REPLY:
Right. One of the reason Velvia became the benchmark for outdoor use is that
it actually convey the concept or green or yellow for that matter, something
that is not always true for other films. There are no film known to man that
copy the world as it "is". Our brain doesn't see the world as it is either.
We do heavy processing of the image in the brain.
Velvia is saturated, true, but it isn't off (like many other "realistic"
films - eg Provia whose skies can be found nowhere on Earth!). And if
saturated colors are so bad, what do we make out of black and white? It is
certanly not real!
Photography is such an artifical input that you cannot make an sucessful
image by just "copying" reality...
Pål
- RE: PESO: Velvia example for Kostas Pål Jensen
-
