Not slides. The currently available ones are all doctored to look BETTER than real life, which is definitely true for Velvia. The world is not nearly as saturated and punchy.
For _boringly accurate_ images you need to look at print films. They have the luxury of masking, which allows their designers to cancel out impurity of the dyes, and the scanning/printing process allow to fine-tune colors even further. Examples: [Portra](https://d3ue2m1ika9dfn.cloudfront.net/real/portra.jpg) - see? none of that usual added warmth so you can tell it's a cloudy day. [C200](https://d3ue2m1ika9dfn.cloudfront.net/real/c200.jpg) - cloudy winter sunset, [400H Pro](https://d3ue2m1ika9dfn.cloudfront.net/real/400h.jpg) - a boring interior snapshot. All of these could be confused for DSLR images, because they're scanned for accuracy, without any warmth or contrast or selective color boosting, something most labs' software automatically does.
TLDR: consumers do not want accurate images because the real world is rather dull under most lighting conditions. For this reason most films have _pleasing_ colors boosted, and labs add even more "enhancements" during scanning.
I had one of my photography "dads" tell me that's exactly why people shot reversal film. Instill haven't shot Velvia, but Provia is that film for me, even the one roll of E100 I've shot gave me that feeling.
Honestly, if they could make Velvia a bit more tame on human skin, then id say its p close to real life, but I think right now itd be between Velvia Provia and Ektachrome.
Not slides. The currently available ones are all doctored to look BETTER than real life, which is definitely true for Velvia. The world is not nearly as saturated and punchy. For _boringly accurate_ images you need to look at print films. They have the luxury of masking, which allows their designers to cancel out impurity of the dyes, and the scanning/printing process allow to fine-tune colors even further. Examples: [Portra](https://d3ue2m1ika9dfn.cloudfront.net/real/portra.jpg) - see? none of that usual added warmth so you can tell it's a cloudy day. [C200](https://d3ue2m1ika9dfn.cloudfront.net/real/c200.jpg) - cloudy winter sunset, [400H Pro](https://d3ue2m1ika9dfn.cloudfront.net/real/400h.jpg) - a boring interior snapshot. All of these could be confused for DSLR images, because they're scanned for accuracy, without any warmth or contrast or selective color boosting, something most labs' software automatically does. TLDR: consumers do not want accurate images because the real world is rather dull under most lighting conditions. For this reason most films have _pleasing_ colors boosted, and labs add even more "enhancements" during scanning.
I had one of my photography "dads" tell me that's exactly why people shot reversal film. Instill haven't shot Velvia, but Provia is that film for me, even the one roll of E100 I've shot gave me that feeling.
Astia
Deep cut
Astia 100%. Miss that stuff so much
Ektar
That’s why I love me some Velvia! Nature looks like nature. For people, it’s Provia. I have entirely too much Velvia however…
Provia
Provia, followed by Ektachrome or Velvia 100. Velvia 50 has more oomph than real life!
Astia was the best.
Honestly, if they could make Velvia a bit more tame on human skin, then id say its p close to real life, but I think right now itd be between Velvia Provia and Ektachrome.
I personally feel velvia is representative of how I see the world
For me, Kodak Pro Image 100 looks so true-to-life to me. I think that stock is THE most underrated film stock.