Is velvia back? [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

Robert Brummitt

31-Jul-2007, 16:06

Now, its a matter of how many E-6 labs are still around? There's plenty of film around but now where to go get it processed. That should be the next article from View Camera. Labs that are hanging tough against the digital demans. The article can run test rolls, ask to see the test strips and how the line is fairing. Both Kodak and Fuji/Hunt had quaility checks on professional labs. Do they still? Does the line get use or does it stall for a day or two while film is gathered? Does the lab process C-41. Is it a dip and dunk or roller transport line? Whats the turn around time? Maybe divide the nation up into East, central and west coast labs.
As a color photographer, I would be interested in this article as I have had two labs close down on me and now, I hear skuttlebutt that a lab near me is thinking of closing its line down. That would mean I have two labs left and one of those I would never touch as I have seen the results from it. The line is so dirty. Film comes out with streeks and gunk on it.
Before someone says, Try Calypso color. I have. Long ago. They are a good lab but what about the Pacific Northwest?

Dave Parker

31-Jul-2007, 16:29

I guess, I am very lucky, the local lab that I used to work at is still plugging away and doing over 100 rolls of E-6 a day, and I am in a small town, I talk to the owner just about everyday when I am in town, and he has strongly stated, he will not stop his E-6 and is still maintaining all of the quality we were known for the past 20 years.

Dave

Ted Harris

31-Jul-2007, 19:29

the test shots in the article all rated the film (both old and new) at 50. For the images of the birches I bracketed both films n, n-1 and n+1. The images printed were both the n exposures.

PViapiano

31-Jul-2007, 19:37

Calypso service and quality is top-notch. I just sent them a month's worth of 4x5 E6 and the customer service, shipping and quality was unsurpassed...

PViapiano

31-Jul-2007, 19:41

Dave Parker

31-Jul-2007, 21:26

Is all "non-new" Velvia 50, the old Velvia 50?

Or was there ever another Velvia 50 that came in between the old and the new?

Because I see Velvia 50 on eBay occasionally, expiration 2006 or so, and wonder if it is the old Velvia?

Yes, that is the old version of velvia, I buy it quite often off there and have never had any problems with color shift and such, just always make sure to purchase from a reputable person and carefully check their feedback, but again in several years of purchasing film on ebay, I have never had a problem.

Dave

Wayne

31-Jul-2007, 22:20

So far nobody has said where i can buy it in the US so it must NOT be back. I cant wait a month-I have an opportunity to shoot for about a month, I havent shot color in something like 6 years and Velvia is the only film I ever got good at. But if it isnt back, as in on someone shelves within afew days, I will have to take my chances and use Provia or Astia.

Wayne

Dave Parker

31-Jul-2007, 22:36

4x5 is not yet available in the states, but the 35mm version is.

Dave

Baxter Bradford

31-Jul-2007, 22:51

... think I can add something to this discussion apart from sales data and having to buy a mag.

My friend David Ward has been testing the new emulsion and has posted a comparison and mini-review on 15 June at his blog oceans of instants (http://www.oceansofinstants.blogspot.com/). There are some well considered musings there too - as those familiar with David's writing and images would expect. He's been making some wonderful pictures this year.

Apart from the slight change in colour, the new one being marginally more neutral, the film is a true ISO50 apparently confirmed by Joe Cornish too.

I have now shot a few sheets against 'classic' RVP50 in early morning light. The results are virtually indistinguishable - except that I used ISO50 for the new and ISO40 for the old. Haven't done any scans yet and there's really not any point since they are that close on the lightbox.

Early days yet, but I'm much more upbeat than when trying out RVP100. Good news alround. Still have a few hundred sheets of the 'Classic' in the freezer to shoot first.

The base curls less when processing too, not that this affects the actual image or those who lab process, but is an issue when arranging film out of the tank onto my drying holder. In fact it proved the easiest way of determining which was which!!!

Ted Harris

1-Aug-2007, 04:22

Two things:

1) If you look on the lael of the box of the new film it says "Velvia 50" on the old box it just says Velvia. The same difference appears on the edge markingof the film.

2) Rating one film at ISO 40 and the other at ISO 50 defeats the purpose of doing a one-to-one comparison and further complicates doing any sensitometric comparisons (should you feel the need to do so). For these reasons I rated both films at ISO 50 when I did the tests. I'll see if I can post some images when I get a few minutes late today or tomorrow.

Baxter Bradford

1-Aug-2007, 07:45

Yes Ted sure....

But when I know that ISO40 is right for me for the original Velvia 50 after hundreds of sheets of film and am told by people whom I respect that this is a difference from their testing of the new emulsion. Why would I choose to ignore that advice? That my results confirmed this difference proves the sense in my actions.

I chose to pass this on to others to save them the time, expense and effort of determining this characteristic.

I think this is an example of a positive way of sharing information for the benefit of LFF members. Others choose to use web forums in a less productive manner.

I seek stronger pictures, not opinions.

steve simmons

1-Aug-2007, 08:08

The article in View Camera clearly states that the exposure for both films was the same and that the differences in density and color balance were so minimal as to be virtually indistinguishable.

May I suggest reading the article before commenting on it.

steve simmons

Baxter Bradford

1-Aug-2007, 08:29

Which is all well and good - but I found differently....

My advice is free, yours isn't. Which is why you can afford to spend so long on here publicising your tomes.

steve simmons

1-Aug-2007, 09:17

If you treat the films differently when you use them then you can not argue that they are the same. If you expose them differently then they are different.This is simple science. We did not find the color difference your reference is claiming

We, Ted and I, have come on here and shared the reults of the article freely.

So, the answer to the question is Velvia back is

when you expose them the same the differences in terms of color and sharpness are vitually indistinguishable If you treat them differently then they may produce different results

steve simmons

roteague

1-Aug-2007, 11:22

Now, its a matter of how many E-6 labs are still around? There's plenty of film around but now where to go get it processed.

There are actually quite a few (I won't mention Calypso, even though I use them exclusively from Hawaii, so the Pacific Northwest shouldn't be a problem). Fuji posted a list in their monthly newsletter - look at the last 3 or 4 issues. If you want I can email them as well.

Ted Harris

1-Aug-2007, 13:15

Baxter, all this says is YMMV. Different lighting situations may call for different exposure/ISO rating. I'mnot trying to argue with the results you got ... just noting how I did it and the, for the most part, my results (which I posted in an earlier thread), are pretty much the same as those that others are now finding. Remember that ISO ratings are a very personal thing and depend on a great many variables, not the least of which is how your meter is calibrated ... and we are talking about between a third and a half stop of difference which could easily be accounted for by different meters/metering techniques, etc.

Jim Grimes

1-Aug-2007, 18:52

Which is all well and good - but I found differently....

My advice is free, yours isn't. Which is why you can afford to spend so long on here publicising your tomes.

This is bordering on negative criticism. I don't think it is appropriate for the forum nor does it serve any useful purpose. Everyone should read the posts and if the information provided is useful, then good. If you disagree, then it's time to move on to another topic. Anyone who sits at their computer for the purpose of being critical of another member(s) is wasting my time and that of other forum members.

Let's move on.

Paul Metcalf

1-Aug-2007, 20:30

One thing that keeps getting left out of the velvia "40 vs 50 vs whatever" exposure banter is the development time. I'm guessing from this that very few develop their own E6, which I do. I use Tetenal's E6 3-Bath Plus chemicals exclusively. And they specifically state in their literature that "Fujichrome films should stay in first developer 16% longer than Agfachrome or Ektachrome films." (this is a direct quote from instructions). So, since I develop all of my transparency film at the same time and temp, I used ISO 40 for Velvia (50). If I used ISO 50, then I'd need to develop longer per the instructions, and that increases the contrast which Velvia definitely doesn't need, and would force me to work in specific film batches. Have you all talked with your lab to see what time they use for Velvia and whether it's different than other E6 films? If so, than that probably explains why the lower ISO rating looks better to most of us (old Velva).

So, now my question for Ted and Steve, did you do anything different in development times for the new Velvia as compared to old of other E6 films?

Thanks.

Paul Metcalf

1-Aug-2007, 20:39

You can order it direct from Japan now through Megaperls (http://www.unicircuits.com/shop/) and it should be available in the US any day now. 'taint cheap. $143.53 USD for 10 sheets of 8x10 :eek: (I know, that's like 40 sheets of 4x5, so $72 for a 20-sheet box is really good - just makes you really make sure you want to take that picture and forget about bracketing!)

roteague

1-Aug-2007, 21:06

This is bordering on negative criticism.

I don't see that at all. Baxter's point seems to be that most people who have used the old Velvia shot it at 40, not 50. Shooting it at 50 won't give the real world results that could be expected.

Remember, Fuji themselves say that if you process Velvia 50 in non-Fuji chemicals you need to add development time. While Steve and Ted are more than welcome to configure the test anyway they want, I'm disappointed they didn't try a sample at 40, since it would have more accurately reflected the practices that most Velvia photographers already follow.

Robert Brummitt

1-Aug-2007, 21:21

There are actually quite a few (I won't mention Calypso, even though I use them exclusively from Hawaii, so the Pacific Northwest shouldn't be a problem). Fuji posted a list in their monthly newsletter - look at the last 3 or 4 issues. If you want I can email them as well.

Could you share the link. I lost my connection to Fuji/Hunt long ago.
I use to run the E-6 line with Custom Color Lab then another lab here in Portland called Wy'east color. Both went belly up when they bought the half mill Lambda printer. :(

roteague

1-Aug-2007, 21:36

Sorry, I don't have a direct link. I just get their newsletters by email. However, I have provided the direct links to their newletters (the ones containing the list of E6 processors)

The lab listings are in these three newsletters:

http://www.fujifilmusa.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/bin/September2006_Autumn_CR01_CableRelease.pdf

http://www.fujifilmusa.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/bin/November2006_Autumn_CR02_CableRelease.pdf

http://www.fujifilmusa.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/bin/CableRelease_MARCH_2007_Winter_CR04.pdf

Each is 3 or 4 MB, so will take a little time to download.

Here is another helpful link: http://www.fujifilmusa.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/ServiceSupportHome.jsp

steve simmons

2-Aug-2007, 09:10

OK

lets do a reality check here

1. the difference between an EI of 40 and 50 is something between 20 and 25% depending on which way you calculate. This is 1/5th to 14th of a stop. How many of you have your meters calibrated often enough to know that they are that close to being accurate all the time?

2. If you take your film to an e-6 lab they run all films through the same dev time and process unless you pay to have the film pushed or pulled. How many of you pay your labs to push the film 16%.?

3. If you do your own e-6 you should do your own caibration for each film and how you expose it. How many of you have one this?

If your answers are no, no, and no then this has become one of those how many angels on the head of a pin debates that some people can't seem to resist. Or, perhaps this is really I'm more of an expert than you because I can nitpick beyond any practical reality.

There will always be people who will claim that the best film is one that is no longer available. The old Velvia must be better because it is not available anymore and the new stuff can't possibly be as good ipso facto. In reality, many good photographers will be usng this 'new' version quite happily and making wonderful images while others will be lamenting for years claiming that the sky is falling in, that there aren't any good films anymore etc., etc., etc. I hope we don't start this again.

steve simmons

Baxter Bradford

2-Aug-2007, 09:41

ISO 40 to ISO 50 is in fact 1/3 of a stop.

As Robert indicated, the use of ISO 40 enables 'Classic' Velvia 50 to be processed using the std E6 process time instead of getting the extra development recommended by Fuji and thus obviating the expense of the push.

When conducting my trial of the new Velvia 50, I altered the aperture by 1/3 stop to effect the change from ISO 40 to ISO 50. The images were taken in stable lighting conditions in quick succession and then processed in the same batch in a JOBO drum for the Standard E6 process time. When placed on the lightbox they are to all intents and purposes identical.

steve simmons

2-Aug-2007, 10:25

When placed on the lightbox they are to all intents and purposes identical.

This was View Camera's conclusion as well.

steve simmons

Harley Goldman

2-Aug-2007, 15:35

roteague

2-Aug-2007, 16:20

Steve,

If I am not mistaken, Baxter is saying the classic rated at 40 and the new rated at 50 were "to all intents and purposes identical". I believe VC reached that conclusion with both rated at 50.

I think so. AFAIK, Baxter always shoots it at 40.

I haven't tried the new stuff yet, I'm hoping to see it in QuickLoads before I leave for Australia/Fiji in late September. If not, I'll just stick to shooting cut sheets of the old Velvia. I use Calypso for processing, and I believe they use Fuji chemicals (so I normally shoot at 50).

steve simmons

2-Aug-2007, 16:32

Yes.

So, it still appears we agree The films are indistinguishable from each other.

To continue to argue about 40 vs 50 is tedium.

You should always do your own testing. Some people will prefer the new film at 64, possibly some at 80, some at 32-40. Unless you have your meter calibrated regularly and to Fuji's specific film calibration there will be some variability. It also depends on what brand of chemicals you, or your lab, uses so there does not seem to be an absolute EI that everyone should use.

This is, or at least should be, a non-issue and not worth an ongoing debate.

use it and enjoy, but do your own testing for your EI.

just my two cents.

steve

Michael T. Murphy

2-Aug-2007, 16:49

I use Calypso for processing, and I believe they use Fuji chemicals

Anyone know about e-sixlab.com in Atlanta? Which chemicals? Also whether they are decent too, though that is a little OT. :)

Thanks!
Michael

Robert Brummitt

2-Aug-2007, 21:46

Anyone know about e-sixlab.com in Atlanta? Which chemicals? Also whether they are decent too, though that is a little OT. :)

Thanks!
Michael

See-see! Another person who would like to know about labs and where to go. I had a person just emailed me looking for a lab in Arkansas.

This would be a great article for View Camera. Please:o

Baxter Bradford

2-Aug-2007, 22:37

I am surprised that a speed difference of 1/3 stop is being ignored, or regarded as tedium.

For those who regularly use Velvia (or indeed any E6) will know that 1/3 stop does make a noticeable and discernable difference to the transparency. I do push/pull sheets of film by 1/3 or 1/2 stop increments if that is what is needed.

Where I see this speed issue as being important is when using a mixture of the two Velvia emulsions - which will probably happen some time soon with my own photography. I have significantly more cut sheet Classic Velvia 50 than I have in Quickload since it is/was much cheaper at £86 for 50 sheets versus £60 for 20 sheets in QL and occupies less volume in my freezer stockpile.

Currently (with all film types), I shoot two identical exposures, give Std process to all the A sheets and apply compensated processing to the B sheet if needed. At present for Velvia I use DDS and cut film for the A sheets and Quickload for the B sheets. Details of the shot are written on the Quickload packet for identification purposes etc.

Thus I will either need to amend this workflow or apply 1/3 stop change before exposing a B sheet of New variant Velvia 50.

When solely using New variant Velvia 50 my meter will be set at ISO 50 as opposed to ISO 40 for the Classic Velvia 50.

steve simmons

3-Aug-2007, 07:42

I am surprised that a speed difference of 1/3 stop is being ignored, or regarded as tedium.

No one said that a difference of 1/3rd stop was tedious.

Here is what I said

To continue to argue about 40 vs 50 is tedium.

You should always do your own testing. Some people will prefer the new film at 64, possibly some at 80, some at 32-40. Unless you have your meter calibrated regularly and to Fuji's specific film calibration there will be some variability. It also depends on what brand of chemicals you, or your lab, uses so there does not seem to be an absolute EI that everyone should use.

Not everyone used an EI of 40 for the 'old' version. Many people used speeds of 25-64.

The same will be true of the 'new'version'

In my 37 years of shooting I have never used the mfg film rating without testing. How many people used Tri-X, either the new new or the most recent prior version, at 320? Or any of the other film mfg's recommendations. If you process your own film, black and white or color, you should test for your dev. time.

Relax, if 40 works for you that is fine. Let people discover what works for them. i/3rd stop can make a difference with any film. We agree. But to argue one film speed vs. another is tedium. It gives the impression that one is correct and anything else is not. Especially when Ted and I have responded to the speed question with film, and this film specifically, several times in this thread.

IMHO the 'new' version will make many people feel right at home. This is a good thing.

steve simmons

Wayne

4-Aug-2007, 22:47

OK, since Velvia is NOT back because its not actually HERE, what is my best alternative? I know Velvia. I dont always like it but I know it. I dont have time or money to order,test, develop and analyze new films to get it right-I have time to shoot a box and take my chances, and thats it. I will be shooting a lot of overcast shorelines, rocks, tidepools etc and I've heard bad things about Provia in overcast. I want something that I can expose pretty much like I exposed Velvia and get at least some acceptable, printable results. No time to learn a new film, so whats my best choice? Has anyone heard of an exact arrival date for Velvia in a store? If its going to arrive within 7 days or so I can wait, otherwise I cant.

Wayne

QT Luong

5-Aug-2007, 17:09

Ted, I am curious about this statement of yours "The original Velvia is ... famous for its ability to hold detail in the shadows". Besides the new Velvia, which are the films that holds *less* detail in shadows than the original Velvia ?

Wayne

17-Aug-2007, 22:53

any sightings in the New World yet?

Wayne

Dave Jeffery

19-Aug-2007, 01:42

"See-see! Another person who would like to know about labs and where to go. I had a person just emailed me looking for a lab in Arkansas."

OK, But if we all use Calypso imagine how fresh their chemicals will be :)

We're pimping for a reason!

Dave Jeffery

19-Aug-2007, 01:47

"We're pimping for a reason!"

How's that for late night grammar?

Ted Harris

19-Aug-2007, 05:12

QT, my own experience ... experience ... and these tests bore it out was that the Velvia 100 had lest shadow detail than either the new or old Velvia. I dug out some old transparencies from several years ago where I was shooting shooting Velvia, EPP and RSX 100II and the Velvia is a clear winner in shadow detail. I also think you will hear many others attest to the shadow detail in Velvia. It is a subtle and small difference IMO but there. OTOH, I have not really done enough side-by-side testing to strongly affirm its presence. Could be another film myth but I do think it is real.

Gordon Moat

19-Aug-2007, 09:25

A couple months ago I met up with a Fuji rep, and he had several example transparencies (6x7) mounted for viewing on a light table. Unfortunately the newer Velvia 50 was not one of them, though he did give me a roll to try out. Comparing the Velvia 100 and Velvia 100F, it was obvious (to me) to see a difference. I thought both of those were a bit too magenta (purple-ish to some). So upon viewing the examples in View Camera, it does seem that Velvia 50 greatly minimizes (or eliminates) that purple-ish colour cast.

Honestly, I was never a fan of the older Velvia (ISO 50) in any format. Given a choice in saturated films, I still prefer Kodak E100VS. However, I don't shoot landscapes, and I can see how Velvia might be appealing to landscape photographers.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

naturephoto1

19-Aug-2007, 14:34

quote=Gordon Moat;266145]Honestly, I was never a fan of the older Velvia (ISO 50) in any format. Given a choice in saturated films, I still prefer Kodak E100VS. However, I don't shoot landscapes, and I can see how Velvia might be appealing to landscape photographers.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
[quote]

I'm wondering what other purposs you'd use Velvia for other than landscapes. It's not really suitable for photography of food, fashion or people. That pretty much leaves architecture, nature/landscapes.

Hi Charles,

I have used the Old Velvia 50 for some Wildlife photography in 35mm. But generally, because of the speed of the long lenses and the need for freezing the animals in the past I would opt for Provia 100 (now I might opt for Velvia 100).

Rich

JPlomley

19-Aug-2007, 14:49

Rich, you may want to try the new Provia 400X. Apparently rivals the 100 speed choices, has improved saturation over the original version, and is more "scanner friendly" (not really sure what Fuji has done to the emulsion to make this claim, but it sure sounds like good marketing)

Gordon Moat

19-Aug-2007, 20:31

The Fuji rep gave me some 400X to try out, mostly as a push process film. Shooting it normally, it is more grain than ISO 100 films, though definitely less than in the past. Somewhat comparable to Kodak E200, though the Provia 400X is more contrasty. In general, I think I have now found a good ISO 400 transparency film, and good performing transparency film in Provia 400X. I never liked any of the older Provia films from Fuji, so maybe they have impressed me now . . . must be different.

In push performance, my feeling is that the 3 stop push could use 1/3 stop more exposure, rather than shooting it straight. In a 2 stops push, I rated it at ISO 1600, and it performed very well. While I don't know if others are interested in using 400X under push conditions, I can state that I feel it outperforms E200 pushed when ISO settings go beyond 1600. One stop push is no perceptible change in contrast, two stops is only slight contrast change, though perhaps compensated with a slight exposure compensation; three stops definitely changes contrast, but no visible increase in apparent grain in larger colour areas, nor in tonal changes.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)