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

[Bernice Loui]

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.]

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.

[Drew Wiley]

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]

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]

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.

[otto.f]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.