Coming to terms with Velvia 100F...

[ThomasH]

I have problems with scanning the new Velvia 100F. To be
on a safe side, I verified with Wolf Faust if a separate
target would be recommended. I obtained it, I made a scanner
profile and I still cannot get it done right.

The problem seem to be the reproduction of shadows with
Velvia 100F. They are never really neutral gray. They
tends to run toward dark but very saturated colors and they
tend to lack any gradation. Photographing nature does not
seem to be a problem, we all love these punchy colors.
But in the cities, or while photographing people this is
really a "whacky material."

Or: Maybe I do something wrong!

I posted one example. This image taken in Holland on a
sunny day. My idea was to experiment what will the new Velvia
deliver in such surroundings. I expected nice red of bricks
and intense colors of paint on the architecture and such things:

http://www.pbase.com/phototalk_thh/velvia100f

Instead I got in shadows soil and asphalt rendered in all
sorts of dark purple or violet! I tried to use the predefined
profile as well, to make sure if my Velvia100 profile is ok.


What are your experiences with this film?

Thomas

 

[Wilfred]

I have problems with scanning the new Velvia 100F. To be
on a safe side, I verified with Wolf Faust if a separate
target would be recommended. I obtained it, I made a scanner
profile and I still cannot get it done right.

The problem seem to be the reproduction of shadows with
Velvia 100F. They are never really neutral gray. They
tends to run toward dark but very saturated colors and they
tend to lack any gradation. Photographing nature does not
seem to be a problem, we all love these punchy colors.
But in the cities, or while photographing people this is
really a "whacky material."

Or: Maybe I do something wrong!

But isn't Velvia supposed to be intended for nature scenes in the first
place? My experiences are more or less similar to yours. Perhaps it's
better to switch to Provia, which is a more all-round type of slide film.
Anyway, for scanning I don't think it makes sense to use these 'punchy'
slide films at all. Using a softer kind of film, such as Agfa RSX II or
a portrait slide film (yes, even for nature!), you can capture a wider
dynamic range, which you can always compress in post-processing.

 

[David J. Littleboy]

I have problems with scanning the new Velvia 100F. To be
on a safe side, I verified with Wolf Faust if a separate
target would be recommended. I obtained it, I made a scanner
profile and I still cannot get it done right.

The problem seem to be the reproduction of shadows with
Velvia 100F. They are never really neutral gray. They
tends to run toward dark but very saturated colors and they
tend to lack any gradation. Photographing nature does not
seem to be a problem, we all love these punchy colors.
But in the cities, or while photographing people this is
really a "whacky material."

Hmm. I've had good luck with it with people. Better than Velvia 50, at
least. I've been using it as my main film for a while now.

Or: Maybe I do something wrong!

I posted one example. This image taken in Holland on a
sunny day. My idea was to experiment what will the new Velvia
deliver in such surroundings. I expected nice red of bricks
and intense colors of paint on the architecture and such things:

http://www.pbase.com/phototalk_thh/velvia100f

Instead I got in shadows soil and asphalt rendered in all
sorts of dark purple or violet! I tried to use the predefined
profile as well, to make sure if my Velvia100 profile is ok.

What are your experiences with this film?

I don't find it to be radically different from Provia 100F. Like Provia,
shadows tend to be blue, so I hack the curves in Nikon Scan to bring up the
red and down the blue in the middle to lower half of the histogram. On a per
image basis, making scanning slower and more painful than it already is.

IMHO, shadows are hard: the color of the light is radically different. Out
eyes adjust automagically, but film is stuck recording what's there. Also,
slide film "shadow detail" is pretty poor. Sigh.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[David J. Littleboy]

But isn't Velvia supposed to be intended for nature scenes in the first
place?

Velvia 100F is a _radically_ different film from Velvia 50. Velvia 100F is a
slightly higher contrast, slightly _more neutral_ version of Provia 100F.
Fuji claims the grain is better, but I don't see much of a difference
between the three 100F films scanned at 4000 dpi.

My experiences are more or less similar to yours. Perhaps it's
better to switch to Provia, which is a more all-round type of slide film.
Anyway, for scanning I don't think it makes sense to use these 'punchy'
slide films at all. Using a softer kind of film, such as Agfa RSX II or
a portrait slide film (yes, even for nature!), you can capture a wider
dynamic range, which you can always compress in post-processing.

You may be right here: a bit less contrast would be nice. I did shoot a
couple of rolls of Astia 100F, but wasn't blown away by it. I should try it
again. I have a stash of Fortia 50, which Fuji claims is even more off the
wall than Velvia 50, for this fall...

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[Wilfred]

Velvia 100F is a _radically_ different film from Velvia 50.

My only experience is with Velvia 100F (and Provia 100F). I never used
Velvia 50: I knew its characteristics are so extreme that it's very hard
to scan so I never bothered. Yet, to my knowledge, Velvia 100F is still
marketed as a film for nature and landscape photography, AFAIK, and
Provia is supposed to be more multi-purpose. But I may have missed
something.

Velvia 100F is a
slightly higher contrast, slightly _more neutral_ version of Provia 100F.
Fuji claims the grain is better, but I don't see much of a difference
between the three 100F films scanned at 4000 dpi.

My experience agrees with the higher contrast claimed by Fuji and the
lack of finer grain claimed by you. I don't have the impression that
Velvia 100F is more neutral than Provia. The higher contrast seems to be
why Velvia 100F is more difficult to scan. That Velvia 50 is *even more*
difficult to scan is something I didn't address at all ;-)

You may be right here: a bit less contrast would be nice. I did shoot a
couple of rolls of Astia 100F, but wasn't blown away by it. I should try it
again. I have a stash of Fortia 50, which Fuji claims is even more off the
wall than Velvia 50, for this fall...

Never heard of Fortia, but it may not be available outside Japan, just
like Trebi.
With the portrait films, you may want to try applying S-shaped curves
adjustments to bring the saturation and contrast at a mire
Provia/Velvia-like level.

 

[Wilfred]

With the portrait films, you may want to try applying S-shaped curves
adjustments to bring the saturation and contrast at a mire
Provia/Velvia-like level.

Sorry - typo: 'mire' should be read as 'more' ...

 

[owenpevans]

I've shot Velvia 100F for as long as it has been available! I used to shoot
Velvia 50 but had to constantly shoot at any ISO except 50. My focus is
floral photography and hence the Velvia is my first choice. In a pinch I'll
shoot Provia 100. I would not use Velvia as a general film for landscapes
etc. There are more appropriate emulsions for that type of work.
I tried Wolf Fausts' targets and ended up using the default values in
Vuescan. I saw some similar problems to what Thomas sees in his scans. Also,
I see a blue tinge to your photo and this is what plagued my scans when I
used the target.
I am using an older Polaroid SS-4000 at 4000 dpi and I am very pleased with
the default values of Vuescan.

--
Owen Evans
J.33.3

" Many men stumble across the truth, but most
manage to pick themselves up and continue
as if nothing had happened."
--Winston Churchill--

 

[Robert M]

I have problems with scanning the new Velvia 100F. To be
on a safe side, I verified with Wolf Faust if a separate
target would be recommended. I obtained it, I made a scanner
profile and I still cannot get it done right.

The problem seem to be the reproduction of shadows with
Velvia 100F. They are never really neutral gray. They
tends to run toward dark but very saturated colors and they
tend to lack any gradation. Photographing nature does not
seem to be a problem, we all love these punchy colors.
But in the cities, or while photographing people this is
really a "whacky material."

Or: Maybe I do something wrong!

I posted one example. This image taken in Holland on a
sunny day. My idea was to experiment what will the new Velvia
deliver in such surroundings. I expected nice red of bricks
and intense colors of paint on the architecture and such things:

http://www.pbase.com/phototalk_thh/velvia100f

Instead I got in shadows soil and asphalt rendered in all
sorts of dark purple or violet! I tried to use the predefined
profile as well, to make sure if my Velvia100 profile is ok.


What are your experiences with this film?

Thomas

Slides that are ment to be scanned should be a little thin
(overexposed), and you should use scanner with higher Dmax, so it can
penetrate in shadows.
Also, Velvia tends to give more saturated colours and some colour
shifting, so if you need more realistic colors, go to Ektachromes from
Kodak, you have various types there, vivid, saturated, warm... and they
are all more realistic than velvia...
BTW, someone mentioned Agfa RSX, this film also gives too strong blue
cast in shadows...

In case of bright sky over a shadow area, when using slides you should
also use gradation neutral filter to darken sky so it won't be (burnt)
overexposed...

 

[Alan Browne]

ThomasH wrote:

What are your experiences with this film?

I enjoy Velvia 100F and have recently shot a lot of 120 with it ... nature
scenes of course. Velvia is generally very bad for people as it makes the skin
run to red... very bad. 100F may be a little less harsh in this regards, but
still not the right film.

Cheers,
Alan

 

[Wilfred van der Vegte]

Robert M wrote:

Slides that are ment to be scanned should be a little thin
(overexposed), and you should use scanner with higher Dmax, so it can
penetrate in shadows.
Also, Velvia tends to give more saturated colours and some colour
shifting, so if you need more realistic colors, go to Ektachromes from
Kodak, you have various types there, vivid, saturated, warm... and they
are all more realistic than velvia...
BTW, someone mentioned Agfa RSX, this film also gives too strong blue
cast in shadows...

That was me, but I was referring to RSX II. AFAIK the original RSX is
still available for medium format, whereas RSX II is 35 mm-only.
Anyway, I never experienced a blue shadow cast with RSX II
Nevertheless I started trying out Ektachrome as well ...

 

[dontthinkso]

Slides that are ment to be scanned should be a little thin
(overexposed), and you should use scanner with higher Dmax, so it can
penetrate in shadows.

Not sure how much overexposure you are suggesting. In your Rethymno_1, I
would consider the clouds correctly exposed with details in the
highlight, but the waves overexposed and without details.

 

[Fernando]

The problem seem to be the reproduction of shadows with
Velvia 100F. They are never really neutral gray. They
tends to run toward dark but very saturated colors and they
tend to lack any gradation.

Same problem here.
I looked at the tech sheets, and it seems a "normal" behaviour of this
film. Near DMax, the sensitometric curves spread out.
I'm afraid there's no much we can do about that, apart from "aimed"
tonal corrections in the shadows and/or a longer CCD exposure (as far
as it does not blow out the highlights) to recover some details.

Fernando

 

[David J. Littleboy]

I enjoy Velvia 100F and have recently shot a lot of 120 with it ... nature
scenes of course. Velvia is generally very bad for people as it makes the skin
run to red... very bad. 100F may be a little less harsh in this regards, but
still not the right film.

That's funny, I've had great results shooting people with Velvia 100F,
although not in harsh lighting<g>.

(Aside: Fernando's comments on the shadow response of Velvia 100F seems spot
on: I spend a lot of time adjusting the low end of the RGB curves when there
are shadows.)

Again, I suspect that there's a confusion Velvia 100F with Velvia 50. Here's
how Fuji describes these films:

http://www.fujifilm.co.jp/ppg/rfilm-01.html

Velvia 100F
"While maintaining the extremely high saturation of Velvia, Velvia 100F
achieves the industry's highest level of hue accuracy. We recommend this
film for applications, from commercial to nature photography, that require
high saturation"

Velvia 100
"Ultrahigh saturation film that evolves the brightness of Velvia even
further. The emphasised reds and greens make this film optimal for nature
photography."

Velvia
"The definitive ultrahigh saturation film. Expresses color brightness and
clarities beyond what is seen by the eye. Optimal for landscape and flower
photography."

(Comment: reading between the lines in this and other Fuji literature on
Velvia, I have the strong impression that Fuji thinks Velvia is an
abomination and that they are horrendously embarrassed at its popularity.)

Provia 100F
"Almighty film that can handle any subject. Also features the highest level
of ability to handle push processing and long exposures."

Astia 100F
"The industry's finest grain slide film designed for skin tone reproduction.
Astia 100F's gentle contrast and clarity of color reproduction make it
optimal for portrait photography."

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[Hecate]

Again, I suspect that there's a confusion Velvia 100F with Velvia 50. Here's
how Fuji describes these films:

http://www.fujifilm.co.jp/ppg/rfilm-01.html

They're very accurate descriptions of what those films should be used
for. I use V50 and 100 for landscape and nature, even if it is a pain
to scan

Otherwise, I use either Ektachrome or Astia.

 

[ThomasH]

Slides that are ment to be scanned should be a little thin
(overexposed), and you should use scanner with higher Dmax, so it can
penetrate in shadows.
Also, Velvia tends to give more saturated colours and some colour
shifting, so if you need more realistic colors, go to Ektachromes from
Kodak, you have various types there, vivid, saturated, warm... and they
are all more realistic than velvia...
BTW, someone mentioned Agfa RSX, this film also gives too strong blue
cast in shadows...

Yes it does, doesn't it? But its a dark color, kind of "navy
blue," not so annoying like this violet purplish made by
the Velvia. Agfa seems to be warmer than Provia/Sensia. I like
it on skin tons and I like the green better.

Personally I made bad experiences with some of the Ektachromes,
foremost with the E200. But Kodak made recently a few new
materials, I might give em a try.

Thomas

 

[ThomasH]

That's funny, I've had great results shooting people with Velvia 100F,
although not in harsh lighting<g>.

(Aside: Fernando's comments on the shadow response of Velvia 100F seems spot
on: I spend a lot of time adjusting the low end of the RGB curves when there
are shadows.)

Again, I suspect that there's a confusion Velvia 100F with Velvia 50. Here's
how Fuji describes these films:

http://www.fujifilm.co.jp/ppg/rfilm-01.html

Velvia 100F
"While maintaining the extremely high saturation of Velvia, Velvia 100F
achieves the industry's highest level of hue accuracy. We recommend this
film for applications, from commercial to nature photography, that require
high saturation"

I saw these descriptions as well and frankly, this is what annoys
me in the Velvia 100F description: "industry's highest level of
hue accuracy"?? Accuracy my foot! With all these this radical
discoloration of shadows? Shall I believe that the hue is really
so far from neutral gray and that our eyes correct that much for
our perception?


I have also problems with people and Velvia 100F. I added an
image, which I also despite all experiments with NikonScan
and with Vuescan could not get done right. Look at the hair,
at the drastic red shadow spot on the face and all the violet
"outbursts" on the neutral black bag and also on the walkway!

I am still surprized that the IT8 V100F target shows the black
quite neutral! With such neutral black on the target we get
here no help at all...

Velvia 100
"Ultrahigh saturation film that evolves the brightness of Velvia even
further. The emphasised reds and greens make this film optimal for nature
photography."

I think that we do not have the Velvia 100 at all, it is probably
for Japanese market only.

Velvia
"The definitive ultrahigh saturation film. Expresses color brightness and
clarities beyond what is seen by the eye. Optimal for landscape and flower
photography."

(Comment: reading between the lines in this and other Fuji literature on
Velvia, I have the strong impression that Fuji thinks Velvia is an
abomination and that they are horrendously embarrassed at its popularity.)

Abomination! I like that!

Solution: I am afraid we just got to go digital!!!

Thomas

 

[Wilfred]

Again, I suspect that there's a confusion Velvia 100F with Velvia 50. Here's
how Fuji describes these films:

http://www.fujifilm.co.jp/ppg/rfilm-01.html

Velvia 100F
"While maintaining the extremely high saturation of Velvia, Velvia 100F
achieves the industry's highest level of hue accuracy. We recommend this
film for applications, from commercial to nature photography, that require
high saturation"

Velvia 100
"Ultrahigh saturation film that evolves the brightness of Velvia even
further. The emphasised reds and greens make this film optimal for nature
photography."

Hmm - interesting - is this another Japan-only film? I haven't seen it
here in Europe, that is, without the 'F'.

 

[David J. Littleboy]

Hmm - interesting - is this another Japan-only film? I haven't seen it
here in Europe, that is, without the 'F'.

Yes. The following chart shows the films plotted on contrast (horizontal)
vs. saturation (vertical) graph.

http://www.fujifilm.co.jp/ppg/positioning.html

Note that Velvia 50 isn't even listed<g>.

Here's the Velvia line compared.

http://www.fujifilm.co.jp/ppg/velvia-graph.html

The interesting points are
1. Velvia 100F doesn't turn green as badly as 100 and 50 do under
fluorescent light.
2. Velvia 50 is grainier
3. Velvia 50 is OK without exposure compensation up to 32 seconds whereas
the others are OK up to 8 minutes.
4. Velvia 50 has _serious_ archival problems and processed film requires
storage at under 10 degrees C, 30 to 50% RH for long term storage. The
others will last 100 years at typical Japanese residential temperatures
(25C) and humidities (70%).

You can see why I think Fuji really doesn't like Velvia 50<g>.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[Wilfred]

The following chart shows the films plotted on contrast (horizontal)
vs. saturation (vertical) graph.

http://www.fujifilm.co.jp/ppg/positioning.html

Well, the diagonal placement doesn't surprise me: it means that Velvia's
higher saturation is achieved by limiting the density range (=by
increasing the contrast). Which corresponds to the various conclusions
made in this thread. It also means that using Velvia for scanning
doesn't make sense because you can always reduce the density range in
the postprocessing stage.

Note that Velvia 50 isn't even listed<g>.

Here's the Velvia line compared.

http://www.fujifilm.co.jp/ppg/velvia-graph.html

The interesting points are
1. Velvia 100F doesn't turn green as badly as 100 and 50 do under
fluorescent light.
2. Velvia 50 is grainier
3. Velvia 50 is OK without exposure compensation up to 32 seconds whereas
the others are OK up to 8 minutes.
4. Velvia 50 has _serious_ archival problems and processed film requires
storage at under 10 degrees C, 30 to 50% RH for long term storage. The
others will last 100 years at typical Japanese residential temperatures
(25C) and humidities (70%).

You can see why I think Fuji really doesn't like Velvia 50<g>.

.... and I'm glad I never used it ;-)
Thanks for the translation - my kanji and kana aren't too good.

 

[Robert M]

Not sure how much overexposure you are suggesting. In your Rethymno_1, I
would consider the clouds correctly exposed with details in the
highlight, but the waves overexposed and without details.

Well, that was just a poor scan made in one minilab, I should rescan
some photos on my site, good reminder
Anyway, a polorizes solely is used on that photo, so that may be the
reason for that difference between clouds and waves highlight.

As for overexposure, in old days with cibachrome processing dias should
be a little underexposed 1/3 stop or so, that is not good for scanning,
they should be a little overexposed by that 1/3 stop but with respect
for highlights, so a neutral density gradual filter like cokin could
help on those landscapes with very bright sky...