is fuji velvia 100f really bad?

is fuji velvia 100f really bad?

i just brought 20 rolls of velvia 100f ( 120 size ) in and was search
net for reviews. i badly found people tend say that velvia 100f is
the worst in the family of velvia ( the others are velvia 100 and
velvia 50 ). i will go tour and my question is, should i take some
e100vs instead? ( there is no velvia 50 nor velvia 100 in the local
market and i get no time to buy them on the net ).

thanks.

Re: is fuji velvia 100f really bad?

On 2007-10-25 10:10:01 -0400, Steven Woody <narkewoody@gmail,com > said:

> i just brought 20 rolls of velvia 100f ( 120 size ) in and was search
> net for reviews. i badly found people tend say that velvia 100f is
> the worst in the family of velvia ( the others are velvia 100 and
> velvia 50 ). i will go tour and my question is, should i take some
> e100vs instead? ( there is no velvia 50 nor velvia 100 in the local
> market and i get no time to buy them on the net ).
>
> thanks.

Its all a matter of comparsion. I don't think any really bad film was
made in the latte r years of film invovation and production. Certainly
any of the best of Fuji and Kodak in the 90's are impressive against
any film every made. Shout your velvia 100f and enjoy. Regretfully,
we may not see much more of this.... I for one, will be sorry.


--
Jim <jen....not....home..remvdots...@....yahoo

Re: is fuji velvia 100f really bad?


Jim
> On 2007-10-25 10:10:01 -0400, Steven Woody <narkewoody@gmail,com > said:
>
> > i just brought 20 rolls of velvia 100f ( 120 size ) in and was search
> > net for reviews. i badly found people tend say that velvia 100f is
> > the worst in the family of velvia ( the others are velvia 100 and
> > velvia 50 ). i will go tour and my question is, should i take some
> > e100vs instead? ( there is no velvia 50 nor velvia 100 in the local
> > market and i get no time to buy them on the net ).
> >
> > thanks.
>
> Its all a matter of comparsion. I don't think any really bad film was
> made in the latte r years of film invovation and production. Certainly
> any of the best of Fuji and Kodak in the 90's are impressive against
> any film every made. Shout your velvia 100f and enjoy. Regretfully,
> we may not see much more of this.... I for one, will be sorry.
>
>
> --
> Jim <jen....not....home..remvdots...@....yahoo

thank you jim.

Re: is fuji velvia 100f really bad?

Steven Woody <narkewoody@gmail,com > wrote:
>>
>> Its all a matter of comparsion. I don't think any really bad film was
>> made in the latter years of film invovation and production. Certainly
>> any of the best of Fuji and Kodak in the 90's are impressive against
>> any film every made. Shout your velvia 100f and enjoy. Regretfully,
>
> thank you jim.

Velvia 100F is more accurate than other low-speed Fuji slide films.
The fact that few photographers seem to like it probably indicates
that photographers do not appreciate accuracy.

Velvia 50 (old and new) homogenizes greens and has terrible skin tones.

Provia 100F has weak yellow response, which makes it go blue easily
in cold and shade; also yellow-greens of mediterranean vegetation
are poorly rendered. (You can think of Velvia 100F as an improved
warmer version of Provia 100F but with worse reciprocity.)

Velvia 100 has higher red response than 100F, causing blow-out and
red clipping in scans. It seems more popular than Velvia 100F
judging by photo-forums, and many photographers have switched to it
from classic Velvia 50.

I don't use any of them, so take my comments with a grain of salt.

Re: is fuji velvia 100f really bad?

"Bill Tuthill" wrote

> Provia 100F has weak yellow response, which makes it go blue easily
> in cold and shade; also yellow-greens of mediterranean vegetation
> are poorly rendered. (You can think of Velvia 100F as an improved
> warmer version of Provia 100F but with worse reciprocity.)

I may be misunderstanding something, but I find Provia 100F the most neutral
film I've ever used. Part of that means that it does NOT go blue in the
shade, whereas the Ektachromes always did. It is not very blue sensitive,
thus the rich blue skies without the need of a polarizer.

Re: is fuji velvia 100f really bad?

Howard Lester <heylester@dakotacom,net > wrote:
>
>> Provia 100F has weak yellow response, which makes it go blue easily
>> in cold and shade; also yellow-greens of mediterranean vegetation
>> are poorly rendered. (You can think of Velvia 100F as an improved
>> warmer version of Provia 100F but with worse reciprocity.)
>
> I may be misunderstanding something, but I find Provia 100F the most neutral
> film I've ever used. Part of that means that it does NOT go blue in the
> shade, whereas the Ektachromes always did. It is not very blue sensitive,
> thus the rich blue skies without the need of a polarizer.

I'm glad you like it! But see also:
http :// photo,net /bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006gUN
Your last sentence seems contradictory. How could Provia 100F
produce rich blue skies without being very blue sensitive?

You owe yourself a cool-light comparison between Provia 100F
and Ektachrome 100GX (warm balanced).

Re: is fuji velvia 100f really bad?


"Bill Tuthill" wrote

>> I may be misunderstanding something, but I find Provia 100F the most
>> neutral
>> film I've ever used. Part of that means that it does NOT go blue in the
>> shade, whereas the Ektachromes always did. It is not very blue sensitive,
>> thus the rich blue skies without the need of a polarizer.
>
> I'm glad you like it! But see also:
> http :// photo,net /bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006gUN
> Your last sentence seems contradictory. How could Provia 100F
> produce rich blue skies without being very blue sensitive?

It does seem contradictory, yes. If the film is not very sensitive to blue,
then blue skies come out dark. (Or maybe I have it backwards. But then, if a
film is not very sensitive to light, then the whole scene comes out dark,
right?) Thus, no need for a polarizer. Regardless, To get rich blue skies I
don't need a polarizer as I have had to with Ektachromes (100, 64...), and
scenes I've shot in shade have come out neutral. Fow whatever reason
Ektachrome scenes in shade come out blue... I don't know, but for me they
have. Again, this is with the old Ektachrome 64 and 100 films... in 4x5.

> You owe yourself a cool-light comparison between Provia 100F
> and Ektachrome 100GX (warm balanced).

If Ektachrome 100GX is as fine a resolution as Provia 100F, has all of its
other fine characteristics, and is available in 4x5, then I'll someday try
it. Thanks for the link; I'll take a look.

Re: is fuji velvia 100f really bad?

Howard Lester <heylester@dakotacom,net > wrote:
>
> If Ektachrome 100GX is as fine a resolution as Provia 100F, has all of its
> other fine characteristics, and is available in 4x5, then I'll someday try
> it. Thanks for the link; I'll take a look.

Looks like 100G is available in 4x5, but not 100GX.

Re: is fuji velvia 100f really bad?

In article <472a09cd@news.meer,net >, Bill Tuthill <ccreekin@yahoo,com > wrote:

>I don't use any of them, so take my comments with a grain of salt.

Would that be a grain of a silver salt?

--
http :// blameitonlove,com /