Fuji discontinues Velvia 100F and Velvia 50

[olwick]

In many sizes
Details: http://www.bjp-online.com/british-j.../fujifilm-discontinues-two-professional-films

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

E6 film is not doing well, for sure.

 

[Sirius Glass]

<<sigh>>

 

[Leigh B]

What's the difference between Velvia 100F and Velvia 100 without the F?

- Leigh

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Leigh,

Don't know if this helps or not:

Velvia 100F
Velvia 100

 

[Leigh B]

Thanks, Thomas. I had looked at those; mostly marketing hype.

The suggestion is that the F is different from the non-F in its color rendition, compatibility with mixed lighting and such.

Thanks.

- Leigh

 

[Double Negative]

Thank gawd Velvia 50 is still available in 135/120 formats!!!

When those are killed, will be the day I officially weep.

 

[Steve Smith]

Fuji discontinues Velvia 100F and Velvia 50

Again?


Steve.

 

[Radiognome]

Sad... I have good memories of these films.
I hardly shoot slide film anymore. Used them for scanning only and use a dslr now instead of that procedure. I found more pleasure in printing negatives since then, but will pop in a roll of Velvia next time round, just as a remembrance.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

From what I can tell, roll film and 135 remains in production, except for Velvia 100F.

 

[mhanc]

All I can say is that we just need to shoot more slide film... a lot more!!!

 

[Yamaotoko]

What's the difference between Velvia 100F and Velvia 100 without the F?

- Leigh

They're quite different, it was quite a few years ago that I bought a pro pack of the 'F' by mistake, I didn't like it (for the purpose I was using it for). From memory, without pulling out the slides, it was more like Astia in its contrast (probably not a bad thing) but also seemed to have a greenish cast, as opposed to 'non F's' almost red cast. Like I said though, this is by memory from over four or so years ago.

I've got a bit of a stock of 50 in 4x5 and 120, all close to or slightly I've expiry since I haven't been shooting it much over the past couple years. Was going to on-sell it, might have to hang on robot if this is all true!

 

[LJH]

E6 film is not doing well, for sure.

No, I would argue that it is not "for sure".

It says that 100f and 50 are doing less well than 100.

Fuji's just trimming dead and dying wood to make a more efficient business model. This will, in my opinion, keep E-6 alive longer as the costs of producing low/negative profit options are removed.

 

[wogster]

All I can say is that we just need to shoot more slide film... a lot more!!!

This is true, the real issue is that there are not enough people still buying the films to make it worth it to continue manufacture, and like Kodak they haven't figured out how to make film in smaller quantities. If someone could figure out a way to economically make smaller lots, say a pallet load instead of a boxcar load at a time, then a lot of these films would be able to continue in production for many years.

I think in the next 10 years someone will figure this out, and hopefully the recipes for these films isn't lost.

 

[Brian C. Miller]

From what I've read, the "recipes" are how to make a fixed batch size. And when the batch size is changed, either the leftovers are thrown out, or else the emulsion has to be reformulated for a new batch size.

In the case of Kodak, E-6 was 1-2% of its total film sales. Sales of the film had dropped so far that they were throwing away too much, and reformulating the emulsion wouldn't have been cost-effective. Since Fuji 100 is the successor to Fuji 100F, I must agree that they are just trimming things up a bit. I read a review of 100F to 100, and it appears that the newer film is a bit more neutral than its predecessor.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I don't want to argue with you, but how long ago is it that Kodak announced their obsolescence of all E6 film?

While I believe in consolidating product lines where less successful products make way for more successful ones, this leaves the community with the choice of very few E6 films. How many are left? Provia 100F, 400F, Velvia 100, and Velvia 50 in rolls. There are some European alternatives too, but I hear very mixed reports on their qulaity.

With Fuji discontinuing a number of E6 films, I can only draw the conclusion that the demand is simply not there to continue manufacturing it on the scale they have so far. I wish Fuji well with E6 films, though, and sincerely hope that I'm wrong.

No, I would argue that it is not "for sure".

It says that 100f and 50 are doing less well than 100.

Fuji's just trimming dead and dying wood to make a more efficient business model. This will, in my opinion, keep E-6 alive longer as the costs of producing low/negative profit options are removed.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Anybody care to verify the accuracy of the BJofP report? Spot the ambiguities and errors.

I wouldn't miss the flashy, emboldened palette of Velvia 100F as opposed to the green-centric Velvia 50 (I have never liked the Velvia 100 model), but the loss of any/all Velvias is a serious concern. Provia just doesn't cut it and Velvia 100 is just awful. But the real kick in the teeth is to the legions of 4x5 users. Nothing is comparable to the bite that a beautiful Velvia 4x5 on the lightbox has. The world cannot afford to be seen in shades of grey: it must be seen in colour, and only the time-proven traditional formats of film have ever been good at doing that.

 

[DREW WILEY]

My take on all this is simply that, instead of an endless head-to-head price war and interminable
one-upmanship, Kodak has simply ceded to Fuji what they do best, and visa versa. Kodak's strong
point in terms of sales volume is color neg, and Fuji's is chrome film. Further, by removing a number
of redundant options from the selection, it optimizes the chances of the remaining film selection
remaining commercially viable. Just good sense, really, and not a sign of the extinction of either E-6
or C-41, though one or those other might be regionally affected. I'll miss both Astia and E100G, but
have enough in my freezer to tide me along.

 

[Rudeofus]

I shoot lots of slide film, currently mostly (remaining stocks of) Astia and E100VS, and of course Provia 400X and the occasional roll of Velvia 50. I was really sad when Astia and E100VS were killed, but let's be honest: in this time, who really expected 3 versions of Velvia to stay around for good? I'd rather have E100VS, Velvia 100, Provia 400X and Astia 100F instead of this currently available range of silde films ....

 

[ajuk]

So Provia is outselling Velvia in Larger formats now? Silly question but isn't it a case of the larger format you go to the harder it is to get the image of the same resolution digitally, so why is it the larger formats struggling, I'm genuinely confused.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Don't get your question. Velvia has always been a poor seller in 8X10. Mid-contrast films like Provia
and E100G are just more versatile. I really liked it when there was a selection of three contrast levels, but frankly, found it was rarely worth the extra effort to tote more than a mid-range film. I used Astia mostly in the lab for duplication work, and Velvia mostly in 4X5 for softly-lit scenes. Studio protocol has changed quite a bit, mostly to MF digital. But with controlled lighting and commercial subjects, one rarely wants a hyped film. The appeal of Velvia was outdoors, esp in smaller formats. It was tricky stuff to print on Cibachrome - I often had to resort to a .90 density
contrast mask, which means you'd need one helluva bright colorhead to punch through that.

 

[Discoman]

So, basically, all the really good slide films for large format are dead. I guess it's time to go back to b/w for large format work.
Unless another company is going to step up and deliver a large format color slide film.
I am saddened by this news.

 

[ajuk]

I was under the impression that because CCDs can't be as big as LF film yet and scanning backs are no good for anything that moves and not very portable that 8x10 and ULF film had been less affected by digital, no?

 

[Rudeofus]

So, basically, all the really good slide films for large format are dead.

I've seen 6x6 slides projected and was very impressed. But what would a 4x5" slide be good for, there aren't all that many projectors available, are there? Ilfochrome is on its way out, so I can imagine why slide film on LF is not the big thing anymore.

I was under the impression that because CCDs can't be as big as LF film yet and scanning backs are no good for anything that moves and not very portable that 8x10 and ULF film had been less affected by digital, no?

The biggest enemy of LF may not be CCD or CMOS sensors directly, but time and cost pressure, and photographer laziness You'd be amazed how far "sort of good enough" gets you today.

 

[Leigh B]

I was under the impression that because CCDs can't be as big as LF film...

CCDs can be made as large as your wallet will allow.

The problem is that for high-quality (professional/laboratory grade) CCDs, the yield in the fabrication process
is much lower than for consumer-grade parts as used in most modern cameras, even expensive ones.

Consumer-grade devices can tolerate a few dead pixels, which greatly increases the yield. If you specify zero
dead pixels, the yield drops like a rock. The yield also drops precipitously as the sensor size increases.

There is a point of diminishing return beyond which a sensor can only be made at exorbitant cost, like for
DoD research projects and such, or spy satellites. We're talking high-priority government budgets here.

- Leigh