Velvia 50 4x5 and 8x10 and Fujicolor 160NS Professional 120 discontinued [Archive]

Drew Wiley

15-Oct-2021, 17:25

Provia probably sells a lot better anyway, looking at it from their standpoint, not necessarily ours. But that's certainly no guarantee that Provia will survive long either. That would leave all the eggs in just one basket, Kodak E100, an excellent product, but "the last of its kind". I saw the handwriting on the wall and switched to Kodak color neg film quite awhile ago; but there are some applications where chrome film would still be hypothetically superior if it weren't just so damn expensive now, especially in 8x10. That's particularly the case for me, since I need to use at least one sheet of black and white film as a mask, and a sheet of 8x10 color neg as well, to generate a single RA4 printing dupe. But ohh the results!

Present spot shortages don't necessarily reflect what Fuji is thinking behind doors. But given this additional complication of how covid has disrupted global economies as well as distribution itself, the Provia sales critter might indeed be seriously crippled and nearing its own end. Hope Kodak plays its cards smart.

lassethomas

15-Oct-2021, 17:38

Well, well, can't say I'm surprised really
I'm all new to this game, I was planning a lot for 4x10, depending on 8x10 availability.
As Drew said, E100 is excellent or more. Hope Kodak is there for a while

Michael R

15-Oct-2021, 17:59

For me at least, even if there was still something like ciba around, the cost of LF transparency film plus masking would be totally unaffordable. Imagine the cost per image of shooting something like 8x10 Provia and making masks with say TMY-2. Yikes.

Provia probably sells a lot better anyway, looking at it from their standpoint, not necessarily ours. But that's certainly no guarantee that Provia will survive long either. That would leave all the eggs in just one basket, Kodak E100, an excellent product, but "the last of its kind". I saw the handwriting on the wall and switched to Kodak color neg film quite awhile ago; but there are some applications where chrome film would still be hypothetically superior if it weren't just so damn expensive now, especially in 8x10. That's particularly the case for me, since I need to use at least one sheet of black and white film as a mask, and a sheet of 8x10 color neg as well, to generate a single RA4 printing dupe. But ohh the results!

Present spot shortages don't necessarily reflect what Fuji is thinking behind doors. But given this additional complication of how covid has disrupted global economies as well as distribution itself, the Provia sales critter might indeed be seriously crippled and nearing its own end. Hope Kodak plays its cards smart.

Bernice Loui

15-Oct-2021, 18:04

Cost of a GOOD 30"x40" ciba print can exceed $500 1990's U$D. Been there done this more than a few times making ciba prints from 5x7 ( ~28" x 40" )or 8x10 (~30" x 40").
Few flinched or complained about the cost per print (Long as the ciba print was GOOD)... Why?

Been there, done this.
Bernice

For me at least, even if there was still something like ciba around, the cost of LF transparency film plus masking would be totally unaffordable. Imagine the cost per image of shooting something like 8x10 Provia and making masks with say TMY-2. Yikes.

r.e.

15-Oct-2021, 18:17

This chart shows current U.S. availability of Fuji and Kodak colour film for 4x5 and 8x10. I haven't updated the prices since August. The second price in each cell is the cost per photograph. Prices are from B&H.

220426

Drew Wiley

15-Oct-2021, 18:24

The print itself is the easy part, financially. The cost of mounting and framing supplies worthy of a big full gloss print are the real bear you gotta fight with. But I managed to fetch up to $2500 per 20X24 Ciba way back when I started out. Nowadays, I'd realistically have to charge at least a thousand for the framing alone of a 30X40 inch Supergloss print, that is, if I was selling it directly and not dealing with a gallery taking its cut. Then for the image itself? - you do the math. Making actual money on a 30X40 would mandate a five figure sum these days. Plenty of people can actually afford that. Whether I still have the energy left to enter that whirling hamster treadmill ever again is a whole different story. My heirs are discussing a Plan B marketing option, so I can concentrate on shooting and printing.

More down to earth, there are always RA4 RC prints made directly from color negs far more affordably. No, not quite as glamorous, but for the right subject, completely realistic, and generally less expensive to make than comparable sized FB black and white prints. And lots of people enjoy smaller prints anyway. I'm teetering on the edge right now whether to order a fresh roll of 30 inch Supergloss this year, or wait until next Spring, not even knowing how much of the product is available for rapid shipment.

I already have lots of 8x10 chrome and color neg originals on hand, plus enough frozen 8X10 film to last me till I'm 80.

interneg

15-Oct-2021, 18:51

The velvia 'look' really isn't fashionable these days, especially in sheet formats (and arguably hasn't been for some time) - and I think people grossly overestimate how much the disparity between 135 and sheet transparency is sales-wise. Kodak seems to have attempted to resolve the issue of building an ESTAR coating package for E100 by coating both sheet & 120 formats on polyester base (which seems to have turned out to be a good idea, given the issues reported of demand exceeding supply of triacetate base).

Drew Wiley

15-Oct-2021, 20:26

otto.f

15-Oct-2021, 23:27

So in U.S., the only remaining Fuji large format film is Provia F 100. As far as I know, Velvia 50 hasn't been available for some time, and Velvia 100 was discontinued on July 6, 2021.

Indeed in Europe too, Velvia 50 has already been unavailable for a long time in all formats. Lucky me I prefer both the returned Ektachrome 100 and Provia 100 above the purple madness of Velvia50

unityofsaints

19-Oct-2021, 07:27

Hardly unexpected, but still a sad day. It's a cruel joke the the press release states there is no replacement for 160NS yet offers up Velvia 100 as a replacement for Velvia 50 - these two emulsions are miles appart, almost to the point where claiming Provia as the replacement would've been less dishonest.

SergeyT

19-Oct-2021, 11:10

Velvia 50 in 120 format is not part of discontinuation and apparently will be kept in production for some time. Could never make myself like it enough in 4x5 to bother due to (in order of priority) lack of speed , price premium and hassle with purchasing it compared to other emulsions. In 120 I find it more suitable / appropriate in some circumstances, although I still use it not as often as color negative.
Portra 160 is as good as NS for most applications. If more vibrance is needed , there is Ektar 100.

unityofsaints

19-Oct-2021, 17:25

Portra 160 is as good as NS for most applications. If more vibrance is needed , there is Ektar 100.

Sorry but there is simply a Fuji "colour science" that is fundamentally different to Kodak and therefore Portra - while a fine film in its own right - will never replace Pro 400H or 160NS. Ektar is so different from Pro 160NS that comparing those two is largely meaningless, pretty much the only thing they have in common is the chemistry they're developed in.

Drew Wiley

19-Oct-2021, 18:39

They're all different flavors as far as I'm concerned. I can certainly work with what only Kodak now offers in terms of CN sheet films, which are in certain ways the best ever. But Fuji 160NS had its own special look which was especially appropriate for certain scenarios. I use a lot of Ektar, but more as a quasi-replacement for what chrome films used to do for me. It's certainly more straightforward to print onto RA4 substrates than chrome film was onto Ciba, though I sometimes mask it too. There is simply no magic silver bullet film that covers all the bases equally well.

SergeyT

19-Oct-2021, 18:49

There is a never-ending debate over Canon vs Nikon vs Sony vs Fuji vs Brand X color science in D-world.
Reading too much of that stuff sooner or later leads to a conclusion that there no D-camera that can produce decent images.
Same with emulsion X vs emulsion Y ?
Whatever manufacturer built into their products generally provides a baseline in image making process. The rest is mostly up to photog\printer.

https://www.cavinelizabeth.com/news/fuji-400h-vs-portra-400-vs-portra-800/
http://canadianfilmlab.com/2014/04/24/film-stock-and-exposure-comparisons-kodak-portra-and-fuji/

Drew Wiley

19-Oct-2021, 18:54

Oh there can be real cobweb tangles transitioning from one film signature to another, especially if one is as demanding of hue integrity as I am. And the notion that everything can be post-corrected using software afterwards is a marketing myth. Most color photographers don't even begin to see color itself acutely, at least in the way any decent painter would. But yes, alas, Sergey, a lot is simply stuck in the bottleneck of the printing process itself. You're only as good as your weakest link. And no color print media is perfect either. But we work with what we've got, and try to turn the idiosyncrasies into advantages.

I'm not routinely a portrait photographer, especially in color. But when I have done that, it covered quite a spectrum ethnically, with a full range of skintones cumulatively. And it certainly seemed that the Fuji product handled Asian skintones better than the then Kodak offering. But either were quite good overall. But any classic color neg portrait film came with the default that any other hue in the same family got smashed into a skintone instead. Older Vericolor films were infamous for that. Look at the landscape and city photography of Stephen Shore - nearly ever shot took creative
advantage of yellows to trend pumpkin, and earthtones to default into skintones, and greens to go cyan "poison green". One man's medicine really is another man's poison.

Ektar has made a giant improvement over that era, and even with respect to current Portra films, but has a distinct cyan-blue error of its own, for a different crossover reason. But portraiture is not its intended target zone anyway. But where there's a will, there's a way. Most of my own color portraits were actually taken on chrome film and printed on Ciba!

willwilson

19-Oct-2021, 19:06

Props to you color folks, but does this make anyone want to freeze a bunch of Delta 100? Is that crazy?

unityofsaints

20-Oct-2021, 11:12

There is a never-ending debate over Canon vs Nikon vs Sony vs Fuji vs Brand X color science in D-world.
Reading too much of that stuff sooner or later leads to a conclusion that there no D-camera that can produce decent images.
Same with emulsion X vs emulsion Y ?
Whatever manufacturer built into their products generally provides a baseline in image making process. The rest is mostly up to photog\printer.

The crucial difference here is that on the D-side people are trying to find the better image science because once you buy a camera, you're stuck with it. On analog you can switch between them from roll to roll or even frame to frame so there's variety instead of competition. Depending on your workflow, it's not just a baseline: when printing RA-4 it's pretty much baked in.

Drew Wiley

20-Oct-2021, 11:15

Why would I freeze Delta 100 when I've already got a stash of the REAL deal in the freezer? - both speeds of TMax in 8x10. And why would I want to freeze any black and white film? - well, acquiring it at one third the going rate today, and riding on that, does make a lot of sense. Even more so with color film.

SergeyT

20-Oct-2021, 17:49

The crucial difference here is that on the D-side people are trying to find the better image science because once you buy a camera, you're stuck with it. On analog you can switch between them from roll to roll or even frame to frame so there's variety instead of competition. Depending on your workflow, it's not just a baseline: when printing RA-4 it's pretty much baked in.
The reality is that all modern sensors are capable of producing equally good images with very similar color rendition. When saving in RAW manufactures' differences between brands become mostly irrelevant. And choosing one brand over another because of so called color science is mostly a nonsense. Plus, if much needed, every camera can be profiled for particular lighting situation. In uncontrolled environment (typical landscape) even that becomes irrelevant as nobody can predict the tint and usually it goes by - the wilder the better... I bet that on a blind test an average viewer (intended consumer of images) won't be able to tell which band of camera an image was taken with.

Now, back to where we started. I never said that Portra 160 is an exact equivalent of NS. But rather it is as good as NS for most applications. It allows to use the same photo equipment at the same settings to capture and print images using the same photographic materials and processes and the resulting images will be quite close in terms of overall rendering, tonality, sharpness, grain and saturation.
Not everyone takes portraits.
Not everyone follows manufactures recs up to a letter.
Not everyone is interested in precise reproduction of color scheme embedded by R&D (mostly engineers) into emulsion X
Not everyone is interested in RA-4 printing.
But anyone who used the NS and is still interested in continuing taking pictures after it is gone can easily switch onto using Portra 160 without changing the habits or compromising on quality.

Do I appreciate that the NS will no longer be made ? Not at all.
Is it worth crying over it - No, as there is equally good option still available.

r.e.

20-Oct-2021, 18:10

The reality is that all modern sensors are capable of producing equally good images with very similar color rendition. When saving in RAW manufactures' differences between brands become mostly irrelevant. And choosing one brand over another because of so called color science is mostly a nonsense.

I'm inclined to think that the makers of hybrid cameras are fairly focused on colour science and know that people who shoot video, in particular, believe, correctly in my view, that the various camera brands have different colour baked in. This becomes particularly important to someone shooting video because the word RAW in Apple ProRes RAW and Blackmagic RAW doesn't mean what it does in still photography, and is unlikely to do so for the foreseeable future. I think that you'd hard pressed to find someone who shoots video who thinks that differentiating between the brands on colour is "a nonsense". There are also people who make still photographs who prefer to minimise the time that they spend mucking about in Photoshop or Capture One. For them, I don't think that Camera RAW makes a camera's built-in colour science "mostly irrelevant".

Alan Klein

20-Oct-2021, 18:32

I don't know if that's the case, especially when people can shoot almost anything and these days and saturate it to hell after the fact in PS or some equivalent program, more loudly than ever it seems. Velvia can be a wonderfully nuanced film if used thoughtfully within a more limited scene contrast range. It doesn't necessarily have to be loud.

As far as sheet film base is concerned, triacetate is hell to work with in anything I do because it's not dimensionally stable and won't hold registration for long. Far more headaches. Estar is a blessing.

I don't think these Velvia 50s in 4x5 are "loud". What do you think? Right now I have one box of 20 sheets in the freezer. So I'll have to be selective in shooting or stock up before they end in 2023.
https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort=date-taken-desc&safe_search=1&tags=velvia504x5&user_id=55760757%40N05&view_all=1

SergeyT

20-Oct-2021, 18:57

I'm inclined to think that the makers of hybrid cameras are fairly focused on colour science and know that people who shoot video, in particular, believe, correctly in my view, that the various camera brands have different colour baked in. This becomes particularly important to someone shooting video because the word RAW in Apple ProRes RAW and Blackmagic RAW doesn't mean what it does in still photography, and is unlikely to do so for the foreseeable future. I think that you'd hard pressed to find someone who shoots video who thinks that differentiating between the brands on colour is "a nonsense". There are also people who make still photographs who prefer to minimise the time that they spend mucking about in Photoshop or Capture One. For them, I don't think that Camera RAW makes a camera's built-in colour science "mostly irrelevant".
I used that as an analogy and since this is a photo forum it was in context of taking still images only.
People who use digital for more or less professional work are interested in flexibility, consistency and quantity, and usually care about delivering a set of images looking in a certain way ( as a set). Out of camera JPEGs is not the best material for such work. The point was - any modern pro D-cam is capable of delivering quality results and accurate colors for those who so desire. There always borderline special cases when model X has an advantage over model Y for a particular use.

r.e.

20-Oct-2021, 19:20

I used that as an analogy and since this is a photo forum it was in context of taking still images only.

That's why I commented. The camera makers are not just focused on still images. Indeed, I suspect that the growth market is video. One of Panasonic's hybrid cameras is now approved for Netflix production. That is a big deal.

Drew Wiley

21-Oct-2021, 19:22

Sergey - If I was young today and could afford it (which I certainly couldn't have when I was actually young), I would have jumped at the opportunity now available to cross back and forth over the line between still and video using the same portable equipment. The line is blurring. But I am grateful in another way that it never happened. I enjoy the challenge of being corralled within a single frame, which sure doesn't stop me from admiring some of the things being done with the democratization of moving images these days, but which I tend to look at as a completely different family of art genre. I'm also grateful to have restricted myself to actual film and darkroom printing.

Whether or not digital capture does a good job with color objectivity is almost a moot point. The bottleneck is trying to deliver equal quality in the print. So by "images" what do you mean? Some halfway point where you've just got an ethereal cyber image, or something on a screen? Inkjet?? - now that's hardly a satisfying media if one expects good reproduction of subtle hues, even if it is convenient for many. "Accurate" colors that manner? - who ya kidding? I'd rather be dealing with the idiosyncrasies of specific film signatures, and at least have the opportunity to still print them directly, optically. Yes, I'm aware of certain alternate paths, if one has enough budget and is willing to jump through enough hoops; but I'm running out of time for the learning curve of any more wild goose chases. To each his own.

Drew Wiley

21-Oct-2021, 19:25

Alan - It's hard to compare printable chromes from just web effective ones. Hopefully you'll start whittling on that stick soon. But it does appear you are getting comfortable with the restricted high-contrast scale of Velvia, which means you'll probably do fine with the slightly wider latitude of E100 Ektachrome if Velvia has the rug pulled out from under it completely. Enjoy it while you can.

SergeyT

21-Oct-2021, 19:43

Drew, I have nothing against video, other than , despite many similarities, it is in a different realm from still.
You can find many examples of "quality video" produced by photographers (vlogs of their photographic adventures) to only notice over time that it becomes more about video than photography and then the point of making video becomes to make the video [on time to keep the crowd visiting ?]. I am not looking to make a diversions at this point. Ever tried to work with 2 cameras at the same time, especially in changing light or circumstances?

unityofsaints

21-Oct-2021, 22:43

I wonder if this guy will do another big buy? :)
https://petapixel.com/2013/07/04/this-massive-batch-of-fuji-velvia-50-8x10-film-cost-a-photographer-100000/

SergeyT

22-Oct-2021, 10:55

Do you want to guess his name ?
Drew probably knows him...
My take - his initials are likely CB.

Drew Wiley

22-Oct-2021, 12:32

I don't think he'd be the one. He's getting old, no doubt is having difficulty with bigger cameras like 8x10, and either unable or unwilling to transfer from Ciba once his remaining inventories of that inevitably either soon run out or are outright outdated in terms of reliability. And Velvia is NOT a very friendly film for Ciba at all, due to its already excessively high contrast, though I have certainly printed my own share of Velvia onto Ciba - sometimes requiring a whopping .90 max density contrast mask! Velvia really had to be beaten into submission, and that required an especially powerful colorhead too. I suspect CB learned way back that other chrome films are a lot more cooperative, though I never personally met him. His specific set of masking protocols is quite a bit different than mine anyway, and now Ciba is a moot point anyway; it's almost totally extinct.

The biggest problem with any kind of color sheet film when masks are involved is keeping them in register, which ideally needs a polyester-based film and not triacetate, which is miserable in that respect, being dimensionally unstable. Fortunately for me, Kodak's color sheet films are now finally on superior Estar base, including Ektar, which along with Fujiflex Supergloss, is the "new Ciba" for me, and even distinctly easier to print.

But I wonder if that stash of film is all actually for personal use. Seems doubtful. There are way more sheets in that pile than I've ever shot in my entire life. 8x10 cameras don't come with illegal long clips and bump-stocks, ala Al Capone Tommy gun shooting style.

Michael R

22-Oct-2021, 12:42

If I remember correctly “CB” said he was done when his Ciba stock fails. It has already shifted enough that there are certain images he will no longer print.

Did he even use Velvia? I’d be surprised. Granted he’s as good as it gets with masking, but still.

Or maybe he has a new plan.

I don't think he'd be the one. He's getting old, no doubt is having difficulty with bigger cameras like 8x10, and either unable or unwilling to transfer from Ciba once his remaining inventories of that inevitably either soon run out or are outright outdated in terms of reliability. And Velvia is NOT a very friendly film for Ciba at all, due to its already excessively high contrast, though I have certainly printed my own share of Velvia onto Ciba - sometimes requiring a whopping .90 max density contrast mask! Velvia really had to be beaten into submission, and that required an especially powerful colorhead too. I suspect CB learned way back that other chrome films are a lot more cooperative, though I never personally met him. His specific set of masking protocols is quite a bit different than mine anyway, and now Ciba is a moot point anyway; it's almost totally extinct.

The biggest problem with any kind of color sheet film when masks are involved is keeping them in register, which ideally needs a polyester-based film and not triacetate, which is miserable in that respect, being dimensionally unstable. Fortunately for me, Kodak's color sheet films are now finally on superior Estar base, including Ektar, which along with Fujiflex Supergloss, is the "new Ciba" for me, and even distinctly easier to print.

But I wonder if that stash of film is all actually for personal use. Seems doubtful. There are way more sheets in that pile than I've ever shot in my entire life. 8x10 cameras don't come with illegal long clips and bump-stocks, ala Al Capone Tommy gun shooting style.

Drew Wiley

22-Oct-2021, 12:51

I suspect he'll retire. Where he came up with all his money to begin with, I don't know, and would never ask anyway. But not everyone starts out with a 90K enlarger and 11K lens - in fact it doesn't make a whit of difference in terms of actual print quality over something say, in the 20K Durst range at the same period. But I could afford neither, and improvised, quite well, in fact. The sheer irony is that usual suspect who actually equipped to CB to begin with, but ripped me off, did sell a lot of big Durst equip to someone locally, and I got some of that for free once once the lab owner partially retired! Full circle.

Michael R

22-Oct-2021, 12:58

CB got his Durst stuff from that guy?

Drew Wiley

22-Oct-2021, 15:32

Yep. Jens needed a few legit artist endorsements in order to fleece the rest, as CB lived just a short distance away, maybe 5mi. What Jens really was after was mandatory equip maintenance contracts with each sale, which meant really only honoring those big commercial customers which paid his travel expenses too, every six months in the case of his Govt customers. He couldn't make it on sales alone, but did have quite a run at that until he just couldn't get components anymore, and started taking deposits on orders he couldn't fulfill. It became a shell game of diminishing returns.

Anyway, the most likely candidate for that big volume Velvia order would be a certain 8x10 individual with enough cash, assistants, and reckless bad taste to warrant machine-gunning film that size. But for every sheet of film he buys, he also seemingly orders of a case of Krylon fluorescent spray paint, because he's already maxed out all his PS saturation sliders. No further comment needed.

interneg

23-Oct-2021, 14:25

But not everyone starts out with a 90K enlarger and 11K lens

Given that the person in question earned a living in the colour separation/ printing trade, it might not have been as difficult as you think (depreciated kit that management wanted out the door & didn't care about any longer - same deal with your lab guy wanting stuff out the door) - he will have known if someone was clearing out interesting bits of equipment - news about these sort of things travels pretty quickly in the trade amongst those who know that there might be someone interested.

Drew Wiley

23-Oct-2021, 15:35

Nope. He paid top dollar for new stuff from the dealer himself, who didn't give deals of things he had a monopoly on to anyone, because back then there were still plenty of interested customers worldwide. Every single big Durst enlarger in his inventory sold to someone who could afford it. It was accessories which ran dry and got him overextended scheming what to do about it (the dealer). I got my stuff from someone who could easily dispense with a couple million of older though still excellent lab gear, in order to offset it with fresh equipment amortization investment, and could easily leverage 200 million dollar commercial property deals - big big difference.