Fuji color films

[Michael Graves]

I'm going to be shooting some 4x5 color in the near future and could use a little input. It's been years since I've shot color and the films have all changed (except that Ektachrome is still listed. Does it still have a bluish tinge to it?) In perusing Freestyle's website, they list three different Fuji transparancy films. Provia, Astia and Velvia. Is there anywhere that I can get comparitive information on these films? I'll be shooting outdoors. What is the general preference?

[Gene McCluney]

I have not found modern E-6 Ektachromes to have a "blue" tinge at all. The Fuji films are all excellent, I use Provia all the time in small format. It tends to product brilliant blue sky, but no blue "tinge" overall. Very low grain.

[eric black]

I also shoot mostly Fuji films, but disagree with the prior post and find that when I shoot Provia there is a slight blue cast to the film. I often use this to my advantage as I like the effect for fog pics and some of the mountain work that I do. When Im looking to compensate for it a simple warming filter suffices and neutralizes the cast. Other than that I use Velvia, expecially for desert and fall foliage type work.

[naturephoto1]

Hi Michael,

I haven't shot the most current of the Provia or the Astia films. But the original (earlier) Provia films very very sharp and fine grained. It is not as bold as the Velvia films (a bit more neutral) but still a bit punchy. Astia (original at least) was designed to be more neutral still. The film was designed more for studio work and for skin tones, was quite sharp with fine grain. When I first tried Astia in 1998 my friends at Fuji suggested trying it when I was shooting in contrasty situations where you needed detail that had a good chance of blocking up on Velvia (you would obtain more shadow detail). Both films have better reciprocity for long exposures than the original Velvia.

The original Velvia (50) was the king of the color transparency films for landscape and nature. The film was very sharp, fine grained (not as fine as Provia), with a high degree of saturation. That was particularly true of such colors as blues and greens and to a little lesser extent to reds. The film did have greater reciprocity problems (starting at somewhere around 12??? seconds) than Provia. Many of us shot the original Velvia at an ISO of 40 because looking at the transparencies on the light box we felt that Fuji overestimated the film speed. Very few of us have had a chance to compare the new Velvia 50 with the original Velvia to really check on its exposure, film latitude, grain, color balance, and reciprocity.

Velvia 100 was introduced to replace the original Velvia and had a film speed of 100 versus the published 50 of the original Velvia. The film is very sharp, even finer grained than original Velvia, a bold saturated film (but a bit more neutral than the original Velvia), and less contrasty than the original Velvia. The film has better reciprocity than the original Velvia. Some shooters have noted problems with this film early and late in the day not recording close colors to the original Velvia.

I have not shot a sufficient amount of Velvia 100F to comment. Some love and others hate this film.

Rich

[Bruce Watson]

I'm going to be shooting some 4x5 color in the near future and could use a little input. It's been years since I've shot color and the films have all changed...

That they have. In particular color negative films have improved greatly over the last 15 years or so. Modern color negative films nearly equal B&W films in the ability to record large subject brightness ranges (SBRs), far surpassing positive films. Graininess is also much, much better than it used to be, as are reciprocity characteristics. And if you need speed, negative films are clearly the way to go -- 400PortraNC is just an amazingly excellent film.

I'm just saying if you haven't used color in a while, you might want to consider color negative films. Lots of pros, with the only con being that you have to work a little harder to decide what you have on the light table. Well worth the effort IMHO.

[Dick Hilker]

Technically, they're all great films, so the decision should be made based on your aesthetic preferences. If you want bold, over-the-top exaggerated colors, Velvia would be my top pick. Provia's next in line, with a strong bluish response that often suggests a warming filter to keep it from dominating. Astia is the best choice for an accurate rendition, though some might find the lack of "punch" disappointing for images where the colors are the primary reason for the shot.

Dick

[Jean-Marie Solichon]

You may have a look at this : http://www.galerie-photo.com/films-inversibles-fuji-100-iso-test.html

[Jack Flesher]

Yes, they have all changed :) The new Ektachromes are not so much blue, but are more neutral to cooler than Astia or Provia which are a touch warm-ish. E100G is gorgeous IMO as is the softer contrast (wider latitude) Astia, so I regularly shoot both exposed at their stated ISO 100.

On the color neg side, both Kodak and Fuji are excellent. I like Kodak 160 NC (slightly under-saturated look) and Fuji 160 Pro (probably perfectly balanced all around), and expose both at ISO 125. Fuji does seem to scan a bit better as it has smaller apparent grain structure.

Cheers,

[Michael Graves]

From these comments, am I safe in assuming that if I want rich colors with softer contrast, the Astia would be a good choice?

[naturephoto1]

Hi Michael,

Provia is/was softer contrast than Velvia. Astia, is softer than Velvia and less bold than Provia. At least that was the older films. I would probably go for the Provia.

I am including 2 scans from Provia worked in Photoshop of the same scene about 10 minutes apart from Rocky Mountain NP. They were taken with a Linhof Technikardan with a Rodenstock 90mm f6.8 90mm Grandagon N and a 3 stop ND Heliopan filter. The one in Pink light (Predawn, Nymph Lake) was about a 10 second exposure. The second photo Golden Light, Nymph Lake was about a 4 second exposure.

The 3d photo though not 4 X 5 is on old Astia. The photo was taken with a Leica R7, Leica 800mm f5.6 Modular Apo Telyt on loan from Leica Camera USA. Exposure not recorded and taken in 1998.

Rich

[Michael T. Murphy]

In 1998 I settled on Portra 160NC and Astia as my standard films for scanning.

I like the wide open, natural, even subdued contrast and color of both. Once you get to the computer, you can always *bump up* saturation and contrast. If you try to back off on either, you get banding and gaps in the histogram. You are stretching too little data to fit a wider range.

That said, I have recently switched to Provia from Astia. Not sure why, just to have the transparencies closer to my final output I guess. If a scene is going to challange the contrast range of a transparency or is challanging to meter, etc., I usually go with Portra 160NC anyway.

I would prefer to shoot all Portra, but scanning to see all of the images is a PITA when you do a large shoot over 4 days or so (100 images from that last week. 55 Portra, 45 Provia.)

I *think* I am going to go back to Astia after I am out of Provia. I do miss that simple, nice, open look without the extra "pop" of Provia. As I said, I can always add that pop in Photoshop. I don't think you can go wrong to start with one of the two, then move up in saturation and contrast if needed.

Best,
Michael

[Michael Graves]

I appreciate everyone's help. I'm going to order a couple of boxes of Astia and see if that works well for my project. Looking for that softer look and everyone seems to concur that is the softer of the transparency films. Thanks everyone.