RE: [Leica] velvia and Taj Mahal

["Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" <peterk@lucent.com>]

Alan,

Thanks for the reply.  I always rate Velvia at ISO 40, some rate it at 32.
If I was underexposed it may negligible, at most 1/2 stop.  But with Velvia
whites are gray even properly exposed. Let me expplain (so I don;t get
flamed).  If you hold a Velvia slide side by side with the white object you
photographed it will show a gray tint.  If you hold it next to an Agfa RSX
slide that photographed the same white object, you will be surprised that
the white object is white in the Agfa shot and a slight gray in the Velvia,
while Ektachrome will display a hint of yellow.  Velvia being the most color
saturated and highest contrast of the 3 may have formulated it that way to
bring out more contrast (just a thought).  I currently rate Velvia at ISO 32
on an ambient meter and 40 on a camera (TTL) meter.

Peter K


- -----Original Message-----
From: Alan Ball [mailto:AlanBall@csi.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 9:39 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Leica] velvia and Taj Mahal


Peter,

I do not agree with the statement that "Velvia does this to white making
them green/grayish".

I find velvia treats white pretty well, even if this film does sometimes
lead to oversaturated slides. The problem with Velvia is that it adds a
little 'punch' to reds even when this is not welcome, like when shooting
early morning or evening scenes with the warmer sun light, or shooting
portraits on a sunny day. On an overcast day, Velvia is a blessing.

As to your taj mahal pics: may I suggest you have maybe slightly
underexposed your slides ? It sounds like if you had exposed on the
whites, bringing them down to gray (what you call 'green/grayish'). You
have done this in bright sunshine, which also encourages underestimation
of the exposure. My guess is that you were at least one stop
underexposed. Intensive Velvia users advise to systematically overexpose
it by a 1/3 stop, which is exactly the opposite of what is advised with
the other slide emulsions. I've learned this here on the LUG, and it
does usually help. Negs get 'fixed' by the lab at print time. maybe the
technician just knew that the Taj Mahal was supposed to be white as he
previsualised the neg... 

I've shot plenty of images with velvia that brought the whites out as
they ought to be. Never tried RSX though...

Alan

Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) wrote:
> BTW, adding to your reference "who needs Velvia," last year when I was in
> India, I was shooting in Agra (city of the Taj Mahal) and I had Velvia
> loaded when I arrived at the Taj Mahal around 10 AM.  It was an overcast
day
> unfortunately, but as I was looking at the Taj someone was looking over me
> because the sun peaked out for only about 2 minutes illuminating the white
> Taj.  I had 2 cameras with me.  The Velvia shots came out beautiful except
> it reproduced the white Taj much warmer than it appeared (Velvia does this
> to white making them green/grayish) and looking as if it were dirty white.
> The other camera loaded with print film showed the Taj as it should look,
> beautifully white. Wish I had Agfa RSX loaded in the camera instead of
> Velvia that day.  I know for fact it produces whites as white not
off-white
> as with Fuji and Kodak Ektachrome.
> 
> Peter K
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert G. Stevens [mailto:robsteve@istar.ca]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 8:47 AM
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: [Leica] Leica zoom lens test
> 
> Peter:
> In regards to the Leica Telephoto zooms, you may have mistakenly looked up
> the older Leica 70-210 which was Minolta made.  It was a fine lens, but
the
> new design is much better.  The old 70-210 rated a score of 3.3, while the
> newer 80-200 rates at 4.2.  The 4.2 rating is better than Canon's 70-200
> 2.8 lens and on par with Canon's new 80-200L lens.  It also surpasses the
> Nikkors which only rated 4.0.  This would make the Leica a fine performer
> even though it is a pretty conservative F4 lens.  Even the older 70-210
> Minolta made lens rated pretty high amongst its peers if you exclude the
> 2.8 lenses.
> 
> If the Leica's lowly 80-200 F4 can best or match the best from the
> competition, I imagine the 70-180 would probably trounce them with a
rating
> in the 4.4 to 4.5 range.  If you read Leica's literature, they tend to
rate
> their lenses in the descriptions.  For example in Leica's latest
> literature, they make no mention of the optical qualities of the 28-70,
but
> say it is easy and pleasant to use.  The description of the 80-200 F4 says
> it offers good to very good imaging quality.  While they describe their
100
> APO macro as outstanding imaging performance.  This 100 APO macro rated
4.5
> at photodo.  All we need is the translation of these terms to a grading
> scale.
> 
> This all brings us back to the validity of ratings compared to use in the
> field.  I have seen a series of slides taken in China with the 28-70 that
> definately had the Leica look to them.  They were contrasty and sharp,
with
> great colours.  As I have said before, who needs Velvia, when you have
> Leica glass to provide the saturation and contrast?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Robert
> 
>  At 07:47 AM 3/2/99 -0800, you wrote:
> >I checked Photodo and it appears that the lens is the 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
> which
> >I believe is made by Sigma.  Interesting to note that this lens and the
> >70-200 F4 whicg I believe is a Kyocera made lens, both test below the
Leica
> >made lenses.  As Mr. Spock would say, "..Fascinating."
> >
> >Peter K
> >SD dujour
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Eric Welch [mailto:ewelch@ponyexpress.net]
> >Sent: Monday, March 01, 1999 8:23 PM
> >To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> >Subject: Re: [Leica] LUG, Leica culture, lens testing and No BS
> >
> >
> >At 07:29 PM 3/1/99 -0800, you wrote:
> >>Take a look at the latest
> >>Photodo.com test of the 28-70.
> >
> >Are you talking about the Leica 28-70 made by Sigma?
> >
> >Eric Welch
> >St. Joseph, MO
> >http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch
> >
> >Computers can never replace human stupidity
> >
> >
> >
> >