PDA

View Full Version : Velvia 50 vs. Velvia 100



Marko
31-Oct-2007, 17:04
In a current For Sale thread, an interesting question was rasied about differences between Velvia 50 and Velvia 100. What peaked my curiosity was not the question itself, though, but the "how can you even ask" type of reply.

Out of principle, I'd rather avoid hijacking someone's For Sale thread, so I'm starting a new one here.


so let me get this straight - Velvia 50 is more expensive, slower, AND has higher granularity than Velvia 100? What's the point?


HUH?

It is quite obvious, you have NEVER shot VELIVIA 50!!!

Besides Kodachrome 25, Velvia has been one of the standards for almost 30 years now!

Geeze

Kids!



Don't forget the reciprocity benefit of the 100

[QUOTE=Dave Parker;287826]You have got to be kidding???????????????????????????????????

I can say, if I didn't have 10 boxes in the freezer, they would definitely have a new home!/QUOTE]

So, Dave, would you care to indulge someone who's closer to being a grandfather than a kid but who never shot either flavour of Velvia himself with a reasoned explanation?

:)

P.S.

I have omitted all the smiles from the quotes because of the forum limitation to four only.

:rolleyes:

Marko
31-Oct-2007, 17:11
To summarize, the comparison points raised so far are:

- Saturation
- Color pallete
- Speed
- Reciprocity
- Grain
- Stash in the freezer :D

Did I forget anything? :)

Dave Parker
31-Oct-2007, 17:14
So, Dave, would you care to indulge someone who's closer to being a grandfather than a kid but who never shot either flavour of Velvia himself with a reasoned explanation?

:)

P.S.

I have omitted all the smiles from the quotes because of the forum limitation to four only.

:rolleyes:

Well I am a grandfather twice over now..and I don't think I could explain either Kodachrome 25 or Velvia 50, those of use that learned photography learned working in the limitations of the medium and made it sing....

I do have a problem with someone who has never shot a particular type of film saying whats the point!!!

Photography is not about speed, it is about understanding, learning and knowing how to make the best image within the limitations of the medium available to you...

New is not always better..

And since when is photography suppose to be easy? Fast film, newer computers, bigger sensors, anyone that really wants to be a good photographer, should really take a look at the roots and progression of photography, before that condemn any part of it!

Dave

Marko
31-Oct-2007, 17:24
I do have a problem with someone who has never shot a particular type of film saying whats the point!!!

But why???

There's always a first time for anything, isn't there? It looks like a perfectly reasonable question for someone who hasn't done it yet.

I'm not a color film shooter myself and I never quite understood the religious fervor with which some folks who are approach the subject.

But I would really like to, if for no other reason then to make sure that I am not missing something important.

So, there, having just freely admitted my ignorance of the topic, I'd really appreciate being educated a bit.

Any takers?

:)

Dave Parker
31-Oct-2007, 17:46
Marko,

Why is it reasonable to say "Whats the point" if you have NO experience in the subject matter your talking about? You picked my post to start a new one, saying it was being derailed, but I did not post the first off topic post in that for sale thread.

I am not a B&W shooter and would never suppose to think I could question any B&W shooter on their choice of film.

But I do know a whole bunch about color, it has been my medium of choice for over 20 years now, and understand the subtle nuances of the various films and how to expose them for a particular look.

There is a warm almost animate look to the original Velvia when you hit the sweet spot in an exposure, it lends a air of hyper sensitivity, almost dreamy...but you have to learn how to use it, play with the exposure and not worry about the grain or the speed but understand what your trying to achieve and give to others, it, as was Kodachorme 25 was special, it allow us to see things beyond our normal vision when they were the mainstay..

I guess, it is like those who shoot only digital now, looking at the fantastic world they can create with the computer, but we did it on film with no manipulation...other than exposure and f/stops!

My best images have been exposed on film and I didn't have to "fix" it in the computer, actually, since I have been shooting digital, I find myself being lazy, knowing unless, I am soft, I can fix most anything even if I missed!

Dave

Marko
31-Oct-2007, 18:47
You picked my post to start a new one, saying it was being derailed, but I did not post the first off topic post in that for sale thread.

Dave,

I did not pick your post because it was off topic - I picked it because it made me curious. It was indeed someone else who started it, but it does not matter much.

It was a For Sale thread and I started a new thread rather than continue going off topic there. That decision had nothing to do with your post and everything to do with my very opinionated view that off topic posts in FS threads are extremely rude and inconsiderate toward the OP.

Part of it selfish, I admit - some day I will have something to sell and I'd hate to see my thread being hijacked by flamers. But a good part of it is still the good, old sense of decency and respect toward the fellow poster who is trying to sell something..

Now, that being said, back to this topic:


Marko,

Why is it reasonable to say "Whats the point" if you have NO experience in the subject matter your talking about?

Well, if I did have experience in the subject matter I wouldn't need to ask, now, would I?

I find it at least as reasonable to ask such a question as it is to call digital processing "manipulation" and traditional one "craftsmanship" or "artistry".

It is basically ignorance that stands behind both the question and the statement, but I find the question more reasonable because it implies a desire to hear an answer.


I guess, it is like those who shoot only digital now, looking at the fantastic world they can create with the computer, but we did it on film with no manipulation...other than exposure and f/stops!

Right... You carefully choose the film, filtering and the process in order to achieve a certain "look".

But isn't selecting emulsion based on its characteristics already a manipulation? You said it yourself - the difference between the two Velvias, not to mention other films, is so pronounced and obvious that even asking a question about it is utterly unreasonable.

Try as I may, I really can't see what's the principal difference between that and post processing raw images.



My best images have been exposed on film and I didn't have to "fix" it in the computer, actually, since I have been shooting digital, I find myself being lazy, knowing unless, I am soft, I can fix most anything even if I missed!

This is not necessarily the advantage of one medium and the shortcoming of the other, it sounds more like the user limitation. And besides, this is not entirely accurate either. You can adjust certain parameters post exposure, akin to push and pull development but you can fix it no more than you can fix errors on film. Those are two different toolsets, but their capabilities are rather comparable in the hands of similarly skilled practitioners.

Ted Harris
31-Oct-2007, 19:46
Marko,

Seeing tells the tale. Get a copy of the July issue of View Camera and read my article comparing the original Velvia 50, the new Velvia 50 and Velvia 100. The images in the article very clearly show the differences. The 100 is less vibrant, not quite as sharp and seems to have a slightly more compressed color palette. But, words without the pictures don't work well in this case so go look at the article.

SamReeves
31-Oct-2007, 20:18
Whether it's Velvia 50 or 100F, it can all be enhanced in Photoshop. Therefore no need to debate what is slowly becoming all oranges. ;)

Dave Parker
31-Oct-2007, 20:26
Well Marko,

For the life of you, you may not see any difference, but for the life of me, I do.

Dave

andrew vincent
31-Oct-2007, 21:01
Dave,

My original post was a bit flippant, but it was actually an honest question. As for this "I do have a problem with someone who has never shot a particular type of film saying whats the point!!!" I'm not a grandfather, nor even a father yet. I am a professor of modern and contemporary art, and I've dabbled in photography since about 1990 (when I was 16). I shot black and white then, quit, then moved on to color when I got back into it around 1998. Velvia was the reason I got back into photography, and yes, I loved it. With moving to a new job and buying a house and a million other things, I actually haven't bought any new film for over a year, and didn't realize that velvia 50 had come back. But honestly, I didn't see the point, since the 100 (NOT the 100F, which sucked) but the 100 seemed to be like the original, only better.

Now I see that I was wrong. Still haven't compared the two side by side, but looking at the tests posted by Ken Rockwell (http://www.kenrockwell.com/fuji/velvia-50.htm) I realize that the film I've been shooting WAS noticably cooler in tone, and has exhibited some problems with magenta casting. If the new 50 gets rid of those color problems, it would be worth it to be to switch, even though I often make multiple minute exposures and could really use the extra stop of latitude.

So this has been a very educational experience - thank you.

Marko
31-Oct-2007, 21:41
Well Marko,

For the life of you, you may not see any difference, but for the life of me, I do.

Dave

Dave, I understand that. That's probably because you're more vested in it than I am.

But - that's why I'm asking the question. There's no harm in that, and no need to get nervous or disdainful.

We all have our areas of interest, those of particular interest and those of, well, marginal interest. Our knowledge about each is likely to be proportionate to the level of intensity, so that's why we have this board - to exchange knowledge and experience, no?

:)

Dave Parker
31-Oct-2007, 22:25
Marko,

I told you my feelings on these films, not much more I can do, I have never chose film based on Scientific numbers, I have always tested and chose the one that is pleasing to me, Velvia 50 (the original) was very pleasing to me and I used it almost exclusively for most of my wildlife & Landscape career...No nerves or disdain..just didn't have much more to say. I don't feel the need to analyze it to death..

roteague
1-Nov-2007, 00:13
Whether it's Velvia 50 or 100F, it can all be enhanced in Photoshop. Therefore no need to debate what is slowly becoming all oranges. ;)

That is plain nonsense.

steve simmons
1-Nov-2007, 04:17
" and didn't realize that velvia 50 had come back."

As Ted Harris said, get a copy of the July 07 issue of View Camera to see side by side comparisons.

steve simmons

JPlomley
1-Nov-2007, 05:59
Copied from the FS thread:

Anyone who has shot RVP-100 and RVP-50 side by side would not claim they are similar. RVP-50 does not block up shadow detail nearly as bad as RVP-100, it does not exageratte reds to the point of smearing subtle tonalities, whites are neutral (not magenta) and despite the lower RMS of RVP-100, it does not have the resolution of Velvia 50. Take the same image on both emulsions and stick a 3x loupe on the chrome. Anyone with decent eyesight will see the resolution differences right away. If you cannot see it at 3x, then slap a 6x on those puppies and the difference is night and day. This will make a difference in a scan. Frankly, RVP-100 is the worse emulsion I've ever used. If it is so good, then why would Fuji bother to resurrect RVP-50? When I need a 100 speed film, E100VS is a much better choice. Even with an RMS of 11, it is still sharper than RVP-100, and in fact I would go so far to say that on the light table, E100VS colors "glow" a bit more than RVP-50. There is an element of "pop and sizzle" with E100VS that I have not observed in any other emulsion. Resolution wise though, RVP-50 is king. I might add that having shot well over a hundred sheets of the new emulsion, it is a true ISO 50 film.

Marko
1-Nov-2007, 08:04
That is plain nonsense.

And this is, of course, only your opinion. Other people may well have a very different opinion, and many indeed do. Everybody has one, as the saying goes.

Following your logic, your opinion would also be plain nonsense from their point of view. And who's to say who's right, if anybody? :rolleyes:

steve simmons
1-Nov-2007, 08:35
Whether it's Velvia 50 or 100F, it can all be enhanced in Photoshop. Therefore no need to debate what is slowly becoming all oranges.

If this is truly the case just use a small point and shoot and then fix it in Photoshop.

steve simmons

Ted Harris
1-Nov-2007, 09:31
Let's keep this from turning into yet another film v. digital argument. Let's also try not to throw too many stones at each other. No useful information gets exchanged that way.

I've been using Velvia for years, also E100VS since it came out and find the comments on the two films right on. What I'd like to hear is how those that have never used Velvia, or E100VS, feel about it after they have gone out and tried it. Disneychrome, or something that meets a specific need? Now, that could be an interesting discussion.

Dave Parker
1-Nov-2007, 09:40
I agree Ted,

Trying it is the key to understanding it...

Dave

Marko
1-Nov-2007, 10:19
I will certainly not disagree about the power of personal experience.

But if the difference is indeed so pronounced and significant as the reaction to the intial question indicates, then it surely could be put in words if not exactly ratinalized. At least enough so that some of us with only an academic interest would actually feel a desire to go out and try. Not to mention willingness to pay for the experiment.

This is a discussion board, after all, which also allows posting images. I don't see what's preventing a meaningful discussion. :)

SamReeves
1-Nov-2007, 10:50
This is a discussion board, after all, which also allows posting images. I don't see what's preventing a meaningful discussion. :)

Yup. Except the "I will die with film in my grave people" will call everything digital nonsense. Hell, I used to be one, but then saw the light. Film types aren't really that important anymore. Almost all transparencys can be made to look the same through the use of Photoshop. :eek:


Whether it's Velvia 50 or 100F, it can all be enhanced in Photoshop. Therefore no need to debate what is slowly becoming all oranges.

If this is truly the case just use a small point and shoot and then fix it in Photoshop.

steve simmons

What? Not going to sell me a View Camera article on how to get started with a small point and shoot and then fix it in Photoshop? I'm shocked! :rolleyes:

Dave Parker
1-Nov-2007, 10:58
I don't knock digital, heck it is pretty much what I use exclusively for my wedding work. I don't think going digital for some things is "Seeing the Light" it is called good business sense, depending on what your doing.

I still don't understand why every time a thread of this nature comes up it goes this way.

I have looked at virtually every action or filter on the market that claims to emulate Velvia and still have not found one that capture all of what that film has to offer. If PS could make all things look the same, then I don't understand why many of my clients specifically ask for chromes for several of the jobs I get hired for? Or why, the film companies are still introducing new emulsions?

Again, I fail to see why this has to become digital vs. film again?

Dave

Dave Jeffery
1-Nov-2007, 11:28
I threw a few chromes that had just arrived on the light table and I was in shock at the color. I was wondering what I had done and how the pinks and oranges were so vibrant and when I looked at the film it was the new Velvia 50! I picked up a box of it before my last trip to Zion and was not expecting it to be a lot different than the old Velvia 50 so I wasn't expecting much.

Wow, for the colors at Zion this film is amazing especially in the pinks and oranges. The yellows seemed to have more saturation as well. The colors are not true to life which is why I also shoot Astia, but the visual impact is incredible. I was shocked.

As a previous poster mentioned you can just jack up the colors in Photoshop, but with this film there will be a lot less time needed, if that is the style you enjoy.

I shot the new V50 at 50 and the results were perfect while I used to shoot the old V50 at 40.

I'm looking forward to reading Ted's article.

Fuji did a great job IMHO.

roteague
1-Nov-2007, 11:30
And this is, of course, only your opinion. Other people may well have a very different opinion, and many indeed do. Everybody has one, as the saying goes.

Following your logic, your opinion would also be plain nonsense from their point of view. And who's to say who's right, if anybody? :rolleyes:

Quite obviously you don't understand the nature of Velvia. Contrary to what you and the PS gurus seem to think, it isn't only about saturation. Saturating an image WILL NOT give you a Velvia look.

The statement was pure nonsense.

roteague
1-Nov-2007, 11:32
Almost all transparencys can be made to look the same through the use of Photoshop.

That is absolute and pure nonsense.

JPlomley
1-Nov-2007, 11:45
Dave (Jeffery),

This is great news! I'm boarding the plane tomorrow evening at 8:00 pm heading for Vegas and then driving to Zion first thing Saturday morning. I'm taking 100 sheets each of RVP-50 and E100VS, so your feedback on the performance of RVP-50 in the Southwest is timely (so far all my shooting with the emulsion has been in the East). As an aside, where did you get the film processed? I'm thinking of sending mine to Photo Craft in Boulder CO since they have no problem shipping the processed film back to Canada. They're also a bargain at $1.40/sheet!

Cheers,
Jeff

Marko
1-Nov-2007, 12:14
Quite obviously you don't understand the nature of Velvia. Contrary to what you and the PS gurus seem to think, it isn't only about saturation. Saturating an image WILL NOT give you a Velvia look.

The statement was pure nonsense.

Well, I am at least aware of my deficiencies and willing to ask those who know better. I found that to be a very healthy practice, you should try it some day.

My point was not about the abilities of digital processing, it was about the common courtesy, or rather lack of on your part.

To repeat, what I said was that we are all just stating our personal opinions here and that your opinion about something could as well be considered nonsense by the other party. Considering how you tend to imply, simplify and distort things, they may well be onto something.

In other words, you only get as much respect as you are willing to afford to others.

Dave Jeffery
1-Nov-2007, 12:15
I think you will love the results of the new Velvia 50.

It is especially nice in Zion where the massive slabs of rock have sheared of the walls leaving the clean pinkish orange sandstone that contrasts with the weathered sandstone with the greyish desert varnish. I almost wonder if the older Velvia images will look dated given the pop of this new film.

I use Calypso Imaging ( http://www.calypsoinc.com ) as recommended by Robert Teague and I'm very happy with the results and service. Photo Craft also gets great reviews so I don't think you can go wrong with either service.
I have a vested interest in sending as many people to Calypso as possible in order to help keep the chemicals there as fresh as possible, so although I'm not affiliated with them........

If you need more info send me a PM if needed and if I don't talk to you have a great trip! The leaves are supposed to be perfect right now in the main part of the canyon.

Ted Harris
1-Nov-2007, 12:45
Note that the ONLY difference I saw in my tests between the old Velvia and the new Velvia was in the magentas at shortly after sunrise. In that situation alone the new film appears to have slightly more magenta saturation/cast than the original. It is enough of a difference that it is even apparent in the printed images.

steve simmons
1-Nov-2007, 14:54
Almost all transparencys can be made to look the same through the use of Photoshop.

The only way to really do this is to study the spectral sensitivity of each of the layers in each film and then to build curves in Photoshop to adust one film to match another.If you are not willing or able to do this then you can't make one film look like another.

To me, this would be a painfully tedious process. I would prefer to pick the film I like, learn how to expose it correctly, and then shoot.


steve simmons

roteague
1-Nov-2007, 16:01
Almost all transparencys can be made to look the same through the use of Photoshop.

The only way to really do this is to study the spectral sensitivity of each of the layers in each film and then to build curves in Photoshop to adust one film to match another.If you are not willing or able to do this then you can't make one film look like another.

To me, this would be a painfully tedious process. I would prefer to pick the film I like, learn how to expose it correctly, and then shoot.


steve simmons


Thank you Steve. So many people think Velvia is only about saturation. The spectural sensitivity differences are why people used to argue about Velvia vs Ektachrome back in the old days. So many of the young digi-photographers want the look without the work, without really understanding what makes the film work.

Dave Jeffery
1-Nov-2007, 17:55
Note that the ONLY difference I saw in my tests between the old Velvia and the new Velvia was in the magentas at shortly after sunrise. In that situation alone the new film appears to have slightly more magenta saturation/cast than the original. It is enough of a difference that it is even apparent in the printed images.

Thanks Ted for letting people know right away that it is only that one area of color that has changed. Given that the color improvement is only in this one color range the new emulsion may not provide much benefit for shooting a lot of areas or subject matter, and many areas in Zion are not that color as well.

I appologise to those of you that may have become overly excited about the film.

It would be my luck that I did catch that slight change in a big way. I was shooting at sunrise and a light magenta would be very close to the color in the shots, and since there is so much of it in the images, and also because that is one of the areas where I primarily shoot, the change in emulsion made a big difference to my eyes. It really was a shock to see the chromes. It's great to hear the color will be noticable in prints as well.

Once again the shots were made very early and the canyon walls do wash out quickly.

It will be interesting to see the results from other areas in the desert that have a lot of color near that spectrum.

Ted Harris
1-Nov-2007, 18:54
It's not just the color saturation it is the interaction of the color with sharply angled natural natural light and it's reflections ... it was cloud reflections in the water that showed the effect. Similar shots two hours later did not show it.

gregstidham
1-Nov-2007, 19:39
I would like to mention that differences are also noticeable in the details captured within shadows. Color saturation is only one of many factors I consider when choosing a film. Velvia 100, Astia, Provia, and new Velvia 50 all had subtle differences in the tests I did.

IMO, it is very helpful for magazines like View Camera and some online sources to do film tests, but I feel every photographer should do their own tests to better understand new emulsions and then decide whether or not the new emulsion will communicate their vision of the subject to be photographed.

Dave Jeffery
1-Nov-2007, 20:15
I'll also add that I was shooting in a somewhat narrow canyon, again very early, where the low light is bouncing off redish- pink walls which is also different that a subject shot in direct light? The color changes quickly as the sun rises.

I'm glad someone posted the link to the color illusions page that shows how our minds can see the same color differently based on the surrounding colors. I am not immune to a potentially distorted perspective.

I wonder about the results of this film when shot in places like Antelope Canyon, The Coral Pink Sand Dunes, Red Canyon etc.

JPlomley
2-Nov-2007, 07:06
Dave,

I'll be able to report back on the Coral Pink Sand Dunes and RVP-50 as this is on our itinary.

Jeff

Dave Jeffery
4-Nov-2007, 02:29
Hi Jeff,

Hope you're having a great trip!

As far as the new Velvia 50 I wish I could get the chance to read Ted's article so I had a better idea of whats up with the new immulsion.

I finally had a chance to put the chromes back on the light table and was still amazed. After looking at a lot of images shot with Provia, Astia and Velvia 100 the Velvia 50 jumps out.
I isolated one scene was shot within a matter of minutes with Astia 100 @100, Velvia 100@125 and the new Velvia 50 @50 asa. Only a UV filter was used and this was just slightly after sunrise in a narrow canyon where a lot of light bounces off the pinkish orange walls. The walls of the canyon are pinkish red with grey desert varnish and the leaves on the trees were yellow, red and orange FWIW.
The Astia was, as always, very realistic and as always seems muted beside Velveeta. The Velvia 100 had a magenta cast, the pinkish rock was magenta, and some of the darker areas that were dark grey had a little magenta in them and I only noticed how much when comparing the 100 to the 50.
The Velvia 50 seems so dramatic to me because it handles the pinkish-redish rock just as it should with a little boost of color, the yellows were over the top a little too much but had a lot of impact, and the oranges were slightly golden. In a couple of areas where the rock had a lot of light orange the rock looks like just like shiney gold which is stunning at first, but is also not realistic. I have never seen orange yellow rocks turned to gold yet on film.
When I initially looked at the images they jumped out, as the yellows were popping, the reds were boosted, the pinkish red that I am most familliar with and love was perfect and enhanced, and the rocks were gold! Not true to life but very enjoyable.

I have to back through my old V50 images and do more comparisons with the 50 vs. the 100 but the 50 will be the film of choice for now for areas with the pinkish red colors where a color boost is desired.

Well that's a newbies take on things and it will be interesting to hear about others results.

Have Fun!