Fujifilm Velvia 50 and an Aesthetic of Necessity

David Hume replied:

Comment posted: 19/08/2025

Cheers Thorsten!

David Hume replied:

Comment posted: 19/08/2025

Thanks Scott!

David Hume replied:

Comment posted: 19/08/2025

Thanks!

David Hume replied:

Comment posted: 19/08/2025

Hi Gary, thanks. The book is much on my mind, I'm taking it slowly and seriously. Maybe early next year? I'm heading off to Ballarat in the morning tomorrow for the opening of the group show, and as part of the BIFB I've signed up for a portfolio review from four industry people and I plan to show the concept to them for feedback. In that show my piece is a lenticular, so I can't show it here, but if you are on Insta you can get an idea of it here: https://www.instagram.com/p/DNP8LAQz1qV/

Bill Brown replied:

Comment posted: 19/08/2025

David, interesting you did this lenticular print. I have been investigating this method for some of my personal Dallas skyline archive. I've got shots from 1979 and 2024 taken from almost the same location. I've looked at doing a postcard size to start. What opinions do you have about the process?

David Hume replied:

Comment posted: 19/08/2025

Postcard size is a great idea I think. I'm a novice at it, and all I'd offer is that it's very tricky and a steep learning curve. I'd say buy a kit with some lenses, try the software and have a play. I was lucky that someone gave me a lens to play with as a start. I had these done professionally (in the States, actually) and I also had some business-card ones done for give-aways. Jump in and good luck.

Bill Brown replied:

Comment posted: 19/08/2025

Thanks. Some beautiful shots here. Will be anticipating your book.

David Hume replied:

Comment posted: 19/08/2025

Hi Jeffrey - No way I'd do it these days! But then I was younger, stronger and poorer. It was what I had... and I was confident with it I guess. But, I will say that all my camera gear on that trip fitted in to one shoulder bag, so it wasn't too bad. I just used to carry it with me without a bag on that trip though. I was wandering round with the express purpose of making photos with just one camera, one lens and a meter so it was not so bad (in hindsight)

David Hume replied:

Comment posted: 19/08/2025

Yes - similarly I guess for me when I went back to Venice in 2019 to make photos; for medium format I took an Agfa Isolette III 6x6 folder. Smaller than a 35mm SLR even.

David Hume replied:

Comment posted: 19/08/2025

Thanks! Yes in my town there was a dedicated E6 Pro lab that did one-hour processing five days a week. The price though? it used to be AUD $10 per roll and roughly that again for processing, so a bit under AUD $2 per frame $1.80 let's say. Adjusting that for inflation is a bit over $4 today. Today a roll of 120 E100 would cost me AUD $37 plus $22 for processing, which is about $6 per frame. So yes - 50% more adjusted for inflation, with the processing being about the same and the film being nearly double. Scanning though - that was astronomically dear in 1992! I can't remember but I had some ploaroids scanned from that trip and had to sell a kidney.

David Hume replied:

Comment posted: 20/08/2025

Yeah, it is a rant, isn't it Geoff? I can't say I agree with much of it, but because we're all friendly folk here who comment thoughtfully and respectfully, valuing a diversity of opinion, I'll reply to your points. The word I used is "aesthetic" not "ethic". Aesthetic is to do with how things look, whether they are nice, etc, while ethic is more to do with whether something is right or wrong. So an "ethic" of Velvia would be more to do with things like, "does shooting Velvia harm the environment?" or "Do the people who work in the Velvia factory get paid award wages?" So I'll rephrase what this post is about to clarify. The idea runs like this: Back in the days when I made these shots all we had was film. Looking at them now, with a degree of nostalgia, I ask myself, "Is this aesthetic (how they look) something I chose, or is it something that just happened because film was all we had?" Now, it does go a bit further than that - I chose to shoot Velvia, which even by the standards of the day was saturated and high contrast (I say this in my piece.) I have never viewed it as "the worst of all colour film." I saw it more like this: It was designed to be like that, particularly for landscapes and used alongside Fuji's other transparency films, particularly Provia, which was more neutral and better for portraits and the like. Personally, I used to shoot Sensia (like Provia but cheaper) for portraits and lifestyle, and I'd keep one body loaded with Velvia for shooting landscapes at dawn and dusk. I had to shoot transparency because this was for publication and transparency is what the magazine wanted. Let's now take this a little further still. Today, I could shoot digital, and then make it look like Velvia. Would I do this? Probably not, because it would look a little forced. I'm not saying I would never do it, but to my mind it's a bit like having a conversation with AI; even if it passes the Turing test (you can't tell from its answers whether it's a machine), but you KNOW it's a machine, then that changes things. So just last week I shot a roll of Ektachrome E100 and along side it I shot a Leica D Lux 8 and I made a Preset to make the D Lux look like E100. Then I changed the Preset to give me results BASED on the E100 but more to my modern tastes. Hope this helps and thanks for your compliments on the images!

Geoff Chaplin replied:

Comment posted: 20/08/2025

Typo on my part - I meant aesthetic and my comment is appropriate in that context. I don't think we fundamentally disagree - I'm saying I personally do not like the film though I can see situations where it might be appropriate (if one is seeking outlandish colours). I'm also saying many photographers choose Velvia because (years back) it was the trend or someone tells them its the best film rather than any conscious effort to appreciate what it does compared to other films and what the photographer is trying to achieve. I'm sorry if you read my comment as some sort of assault - it wasn't meant that way.

David Hume replied:

Comment posted: 20/08/2025

Thanks - Yes, I guess the only "new" transparency film is Ektachrome E100, which I've shot, but I can't really see the point of it. That is a much more forgiving, softer film than Velvia was.

David Hume replied:

Comment posted: 20/08/2025

Cheers Simon; I remember that post of yours, and looking back now, I think, "Gee I wish I'd shot more Kodachrome." I think I started shooting it purely for economics and archiving - it was a pretty bomb-proof solution for getting through airport Xray machines in the 80s/90s. Buy a four pack (three pack? I can't remember) send it off to get processed when you got home from Europe and you're done. And I'd noticed how my own family's photo history started to fall off when my grandfather stopped processing and printing B+W in his cellar darkroom. But because I was shooting Sensia for editorial stuff I got impatient, and I would shoot the kids on the end of work rolls etc and PKR fell by the wayside. I remember when I was shooting covers for Winestate magazine with the RB, it was all 120 and Velvia RVP was the ONLY thing that got shot. Going back to an earlier reply I made to Geoff above - the good thing is that I've invested an enormous (did someone say "unhealthy"?) amount of time in to looking at the aesthetics of it all, and I feel I'm developing the skills I need to make my own look from digital sensors. So I'd say the good thing is once you've seen the Velvia magic and know what you want, now it's possible to make it at home. (There's way more I could say about this - if you want a rabbit hole on what sensors can do now, look up the the Apple TV series "Disclaimer" and the ARRI S35 camera and its sensor.) Cheers.

David Hume replied:

Comment posted: 20/08/2025

Cheers Ibraar... I'm conflicted - I have these memories and I love Venice of course, but at the moment I'm happy just to play with these and am not thinking of going back any time soon. These are a bit like the Polaroids I also have - you can't get the film any more so what I now have is all I'll have. I'll think of something though, I'm sure.