New Velvia 100 - rated speed?

[Tim Myers]

I was wondering if anyone had wisdom about exposing for the new Velvia 100 (Not F!). A long-time Velvia 50 shooter (which I always rated at 40 or even 32), I've just got a box of RVP100 in quickload to shoot side-by-side with good ol' RVP.

Obvoiusly I'm going to have to make my own decisions about how I'm going to expose the film, but I was just wondering if there a peceived wisodm about getting the best from this film?

[Dave Rodenbaugh]

Hi Tim,

I've tried it at 100 and 80. 80 seemed closer to how I see Velvia 50 rated at 40. 100 was a bit hot, IMO.

-D

[Ben Diss]

I did some side-by-side shooting as well and thought that 100 was right. However, Dave is not the first to suggest 80 is better so I'm going to carefully bracket my next shoot until I'm convinced which is correct. FYI, I always rated Velvia 50 at 40.

-Ben

[Bernard Languillier]

I have been using some at 100 without obvious issues. I do tend to bracket most of the important shorts though.

I do however feel that the scanning of Velvia 100F on my Imacon gives better results that regular Velvia, which has led me to use mostly 100F recently. I didn't do any rigorous comparisons though, this could be just a wrong impression.

Regards,
Bernard

[buddy j]

I have run through a few rolls of 35mm and 1 roll of 120 which is all I could find locally. I found Velvia 100 OVER EXPOSED at 100. I did alot of bracketing and found it best about 2/3 stop to 1 stop under exposed. Now this was in two different cameras and both shoot Velvia 50, Velvia 100F, Ektachromes, etc right on.

I also thought it lacked the colors of classic Velvia. I really hope Fuji keeps making classic 50 because this stuff just does not cut it for outdoor work.

[Greg Miller]

" I do tend to bracket most of the important shorts though."

I do that too; howeverI find that looking for shorts with the elastic waistband helps eliminate the need for this...

[Bernard Languillier]

Greg,

Thanks for the tip, I bought some yesterday, they appear to solve the problem indeed. :-)

Cheers,
Bernard

[Scott Rosenberg]

tim, i would suggest running some tests on your own. the difference between 80 and 100 is 1/4 of a stop... it's very unlikely that when all the potential sources of variation are taken into account (meter, processing, operator, etc) your system will be within 1/4 of a stop of anyone elses. even if by some statistical miracle things did gel, your perfect tranny might look 'hot' to someone else. i personally shoot it right at 100... that seems to yield the most pleasing trannys to my eye given my system - my lab, my meter, and my biased metering technique.

good luck!
scott

[Paul Butzi]

A minor nitpick/correction: the difference between 80 and 100 is 1/3 stop, not 1/4 stop.

But, as Scott points out, I'd agree that when all is said and done, it's likely that you'd see that much variation between your meter and the next photographers, or your shutter and the next shutter (or even between two of your shutters).

So expose some, get it processed, and see what you think. Based on that, adjust the speed.

[Bob Collins]

Hi Tim!

I am Bob Collins from Chicago, an avid traveler & nature photographer who has spent many years using Velvia 40. I work primarily in the 35mm format, but I hope I can at least shed some light on the issue- having tested the new film back in July. My findings are based upon my Nikon EM's accurate, center-weighted metering.

For correct exposure, what settled the issue for me was a comparative article on slide films in a Canadian photography magazine from the summer of '98 ("Photo Life"). Its concluding line on Velvia hammered home the pragmatic truth for me:

"To be noted is a slight underexposure when set to ISO 50, which helps boost saturation. The true exposure setting is ISO 40, VERIFIED WITH A DENSITOMETER (emphasis mine)."

Ever since that time, I have basically shot it at 40, then had it developed normally or (at a great pro lab here in Chicago) deflected/held at -1/8. And it is DEAD ON in these cases.

For the new 100, I find the reverse to be true, i.e., it is more of a true 125. For colors, the 100 seems to do reds (believe it or not) and purples more rich; 40 seems to do oranges & yellows more rich. However, the differences are SLIGHT. And, also unbelievably, the resolution & grain are just about the same (with Fuji's claim of 100 even being slighty-less grainy. But with a difference of only 1 point, you can't really tell the difference).

In conclusion, I woud say that I like the OVERALL look of traditonal 40 better, even though slighty (I trust you will forgive my repeated use of that word, but it seems so applicable here!). I have always maintained that it is the best color film ever invented by man- a claim I still believe to be true. I will therefore freeze another press pack or two, but even when 40's demise comes about (perhaps by the end of this year), it won't be too bad; the new 100 is great also!

Thank you for your attention, and let me know more anytime; I always welcome commentary on this issue- on both the scientific and artistic levels.

Sincerely,
Bob Collins