Velvia 100 magenta

rjas · Jun 5, 2006

I just had a look at some 120 velvia 100 transparancies that I had shot and had developed a few months ago but never had a chance to take a look at until now. I noticed that in the shadows, an object that was supposed to be grey came out looking very magenta. Is this just a case of the processing being off (i wouldn't think it was very likely with this pro lab but theres always a chance) or is this just a quality of velvia 100 that we have to live with?

Dave Parker · Jun 5, 2006

Well with the old velvia if you underexposed the shadows it would go blue on you, I have not shot enough of the new 100 to really know what color the shadows being underexposed would be..

R.

roteague · Jun 6, 2006

I haven't found that to be the case, if anything I've found Velvia 100 to lean more towards blue, like Kodak VS100.

Dave Parker · Jun 6, 2006

roteague said:
I haven't found that to be the case, if anything I've found Velvia 100 to lean more towards blue, like Kodak VS100.

Robert,

your E100VS goes blue? hmm weird, I have always had more magenta in Kodak films than I have in Fuji films when the exposure was wrong...interesting.

R.

roteague · Jun 6, 2006

Roxi331 said:
Robert,

your E100VS goes blue? hmm weird, I have always had more magenta in Kodak films than I have in Fuji films when the exposure was wrong...interesting.

R.

Roxi331, that is just my impression. I haven't shot enough to really know much about it.

Claire Senft · Jun 6, 2006

It is my understanding that there are at least 4 factors that govern this type of problem. Any reflections from a magenta object in the scene will be most apparent in your neutrals of any scene photographed with color film. Then you have the characteristics built into the film and its storage and handling thru the whole photographic chain from start to finish which will cause deviations...this includes how YOU handle the film and expose it. The you have the processing deviations from normal which influeces how colors, among others thing get reproduced. You also will be at the mercy of the lab chosen. A lab that is set up to give the very best results with Kodak will have an differing effect on Fuji films and vice versa.

If you find this film interesting and of use to you try a second roll from a different emulsion batch from a supplier that cold stores their film and turns it over rapidily..harder to do in these digi days. Send it to a pro lab that has optimized their system for Fuji. Make sure that you use the film within the parameters set by Fuji.

At that point you can decide whether or not to continue using Velvia 100 for the work you wish to do.

HerrBremerhaven · Jun 6, 2006

Daylight exposures: I am getting bluer shadows with Velvia 100F than with E100VS. The shadow areas look more natural with E100VS, though the rest of the image seems warmer, almost like having used a warming filter (though not magenta cast).

Night/after sunset exposures: Velvia 100F skies look more magenta. E100VS skies are a saturated deep blue, definitely not natural, but the effect I wanted. More accurate would be Astia 100F.

Anyway, just my experiences, and the plain Velvia 100 is probably a bit different than the 100F. Another thing I found odd was that on long night exposures E100VS has a slight blue shift; this is something of an advantage for what I want to achieve, since I can use lighter blue filtration than I need for Velvia (82A or 82B, compared to 80A). It might be possible that developing chemistry has something to do with this.

Ciao!

Gordon

Gary Holliday · Jun 6, 2006

Are you this isn't just a colour temperature issue? The light changes throughout the day and I've read that Kodak looks better in the US than it odes in the UK.

Does anyone actually bother to use a colour temperature meter before shooting?

roteague · Jun 6, 2006

Claire Senft said:
A lab that is set up to give the very best results with Kodak will have an differing effect on Fuji films and vice versa.

If you find this film interesting and of use to you try a second roll from a different emulsion batch from a supplier that cold stores their film and turns it over rapidily..harder to do in these digi days. Send it to a pro lab that has optimized their system for Fuji. Make sure that you use the film within the parameters set by Fuji.

Good idea. The lab I use, Calypso Imaging, is setup to use Fuji processing.

naturephoto1 · Jun 6, 2006

Gary Holliday said:
Are you this isn't just a colour temperature issue? The light changes throughout the day and I've read that Kodak looks better in the US than it odes in the UK.

Does anyone actually bother to use a colour temperature meter before shooting?

Unfortunately Gary very few of or any of us use color meters to gauge the color temperature that I know. At this point due to cost and weight of these meters, most color transparency photographers rely on their experience and/or tests of the films with filtration when needed/appropriate.

I think that unless Fuji makes some changes to the color of Velvia 100 that seems is being reported throughout the world, we are going to have to live with or figure out our own personal filtration for the film in at least certain conditions.

Rich

HerrBremerhaven · Jun 6, 2006

Gary Holliday said:
Are you this isn't just a colour temperature issue? The light changes throughout the day and I've read that Kodak looks better in the US than it odes in the UK.

Does anyone actually bother to use a colour temperature meter before shooting?

Well, I have not taken photos in the UK, and my usual locations in the US are much further south than the UK, so perhaps there is some latitude effect?

On the time of day issue, I shot Velvia 100F within a couple minutes of E100VS under the same daylight conditions, so that is how I came to my observations there. These were also unfiltered images, so no influence in that regard.

With the night and after sunset images, it is tougher to make direct comparisons, since I am doing several minute exposures. There might be enough difference in the colour temperature over several minutes to affect that. However, when I was able to shoot Velvia 100F and E100VS on the same night, with exactly the same filtration, then the E100VS was definitely bluer, while the Velvia 100F was more magenta. I know, not very scientific, but I am consistently getting the same results. Going from an 82B to an 82A, I still found that E100VS gave bluer night skies than Velvia 100F with an 82B or an 80A.

I had a colour temperature meter a few years ago, and largely found it useless for what I wanted to do with saturated colour films. Quite possibly there is enough of a constant shift in urban city scenes at night that colour temperatures are varying at a constant rate . . . I just don't know on that, but when I am getting the results I want I don't feel a need to question any further.

I have many years of using E100VS, and have found it consistent across 35mm, roll film, and 4x5 sheets. My usual processing place is a Fuji biased lab, so maybe that has some influence on my results. With the Fuji films, older Velvia 50 gave different results than 100F or Velvia 100 (no F). So far, I cannot state I like 100F at all, though I find that Velvia 100 works nicely in some scenes. If I were to generalize, I would state that Velvia overall is cooler than E100VS in daytime exposures, and warmer overall than E100VS in night exposures.

Hopefully I have explained that better. I do find your comment about more northern skies interesting . . . there might be an atmospheric or latitude influence. Maybe Photo Engineer can find this thread and throw in some comments.

Ciao!

Gordon

Gary Holliday · Jun 6, 2006

HerrBremerhaven said:
I do find your comment about more northern skies interesting . . . there might be an atmospheric or latitude influence. Maybe Photo Engineer can find this thread and throw in some comments.

Ciao!

Gordon

Sorry I can't elaborate more on the subject, but this came from a discussion years ago with my boss when I was being trained.

He stated that American pro photographers preferred Kodak as it was calibrated or looked better in "American" light. Kodak didn't look great in the UK, so most of us shot Fuji.

I'm looking for a new trannie film myself and looking for something neutral, I've tried a roll of Provia so will keep an eye on this 100F thread to read peoples' observations.

roteague · Jun 6, 2006

Gary Holliday said:
He stated that American pro photographers preferred Kodak as it was calibrated or looked better in "American" light. Kodak didn't look great in the UK, so most of us shot Fuji.

I'm looking for a new trannie film myself and looking for something neutral, I've tried a roll of Provia so will keep an eye on this 100F thread to read peoples' observations.

I don't think that is true. Fuji Velvia has been the preferred film for outdoor/landscape photographers in the US for years.

Velvia 100F was not really designed (or so Fuji says) with the outdoor / landscape photographer in mind. If that is the type of work you are doing, I would highly recommend Velvia 100 instead.

HerrBremerhaven · Jun 6, 2006

Gary Holliday said:
. . . . . . .
He stated that American pro photographers preferred Kodak as it was calibrated or looked better in "American" light. Kodak didn't look great in the UK, so most of us shot Fuji.

Most of the pros I know in the US are using Fuji films. Maybe because I am German, but happen to live/work in the US, I use mostly Kodak?

Gary Holiday said:
I'm looking for a new trannie film myself and looking for something neutral, I've tried a roll of Provia so will keep an eye on this 100F thread to read peoples' observations.

In the past, I used mostly Kodak Ektachrome 64 for that neutral look. In the last couple years, I have switched to Fuji Astia 100F to get that neutral look. I never liked Provia in any variety, though I understand it is a favourite of many. Most of my work involves lots of saturated colours, so I tend to go for saturated films, like E100VS.

With roll films, or 35mm, you might want to try out Kodak E200 too. This is more medium to low contrast, and fairly natural colour rendition. Unfortunately not available for large format.

Ciao!

Gordon

roteague · Jun 7, 2006

FWIW, here is an image taken on Velvia 100, with a nice slow shutter speed.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

It seems to be more on the blue side, than on the magenta side.

Claire Senft · Jun 7, 2006

I think that the Velvia 50 with its exaggerated pallet is supplying many photographers with what they want. It depends on the types of photos that they wish to take and their own sensibilities that determine what they like. Velvia may not be a photographer's dream if he/she likes pastels and subtle coloration or skintones.

This photographer prefers Kodachrome 25. I also love Panatomic X, Konica Impressa 50 and Polymax paper. Well, we all know what happens to the things I prefer: The La Brea Tar Pit Syndrome.

naturephoto1 · Jun 7, 2006

Claire Senft said:
I think that the Velvia 50 with its exaggerated pallet is supplying many photographers with what they want. It depends on the types of photos that they wish to take and their own sensibilities that determine what they like. Velvia may not be a photographer's dream if he/she likes pastels and subtle coloration or skintones.

This photographer prefers Kodachrome 25. I also love Panatomic X, Konica Impressa 50 and Polymax paper. Well, we all know what happens to the things I prefer: The La Brea Tar Pit Syndrome.

Claire,

For those familiar with and experienced using Velvia 50 it has more than just an exaggerated pallet. It can certainly render delicate colors and tones in the right conditions.

See the following:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Rich

Claire Senft · Jun 7, 2006

Thank you for your helpful interest. I am aware that Velvia may be manipulated and with different techniques give a wide variety of differing results. One could also claim that Astia can with a number of techniques be made to provide a wide variety of saturation and contrast.

It, is I believe for each photographer, to determine what qualities they prefer in film(s) and use those materials best suited to give them what they want. In one case Velvia may be just the very best choice in other cases it may not give one what they want.

Eric Leppanen · Jun 7, 2006

naturephoto1 said:
Unfortunately Gary very few of or any of us use color meters to gauge the color temperature that I know. At this point due to cost and weight of these meters, most color transparency photographers rely on their experience and/or tests of the films with filtration when needed/appropriate.

Actually I have been using a Gossen Color Pro 3F color meter for the last year, and have been very happy with it. It is very small and light, and was recommended by Charles Cramer in a fairly recent View Camera magazine article. Used meters sell for around $500-$700 on Ebay, and come up for sale fairly regularly. Here is the manufacturer's spec sheet (I presume that the "Color Pro 3F" and "Colormaster 3F" are the same product, they certainly appear identical):

http://www.gossen-photo.de/pdf/colormaster_e.pdf

Just add several warming filters of varying strengths (and maybe a cooling filter too), and you're good to go!

Steve Hamley · Jun 7, 2006

My 2 cents, I've had mixed results from my limited experience with Velvia 100.

In 1 day, I shot a couple of different compositions, same batch of Velvia, same day, same processing.

Composition 1: a white-bloomed service tree against a blue-sky background, Heliopan warm tone polarizer (partial), shot with Velvia 100 and Kodak E100G. Sunlit. I liked the Velvia better. Less warm, nice neutral white (which is why I didn't like former versions of Velvia that much), no "dirty" cyan or green cast, preferred Velvia to Kodak. Velvia 100 had a very "clean" look.

Composition 2: small wet-weather fall, shaded cliff, sun and shade, rainbow in falls. No polarizer as it would cut the rainbow. Velvia came out very magenta, especially when slightly underexposed to emphasize the rainbow. Kodak much less magenta, more blue but not excessively so like the Velvia was magenta. Liked the lack of magenta in Kodak, but other than that, they were about equal although I subjectively thought the Velvia did the rainbow a bit better. Light was changing here so it was hard to be sure.

So I think it's the exposure and light quality.

Steve

Baxter Bradford · Jun 7, 2006

One thing you could check quickly to see if it is processing error (imbalance of pH most likely). Look at the colour of the Yellow/Amber Fuji lettering in the rebate. I have found it can vary when sent to one lab which is supposed to have a good reputation. On some batches, it has been much redder than usual with an associated cast in the whole image.

As for the performance of RVP100 - some like it more than others. I have found it unpredictable at sunruse/sunset; so don't use it. Many others though are seeming to like it.

Colour is so subjective, you really do have to try and find the emulsions you prefer and the conditions in which to use them. No point arguing about it. Best look in the galleries and try the films used in those images which you most identify with.

HerrBremerhaven · Jun 7, 2006

Unfortunately, I am not able to see the images posted, since those are only available to Subscribers. However, I do think there might be a big difference between Velvia 100 and Velvia 100F; or at least the implied message I am finding is indicating that. I have not used Velvia 100 in Quickloads, only in 35mm and as 120 roll films. I have used 100F in all the formats I shoot. I generally found Velvia 100 to have better green performance than 100F, though the bluer shadows seemed to still be there; very generally, I agree with the comments about a cleaner look to Velvia 100. I have been underwhelmed by Velvia 100F.

As for processing, I tend to use the same places, and I go by their consistency. The film rebate areas are consistent. Whether they are consistently wrong could be another matter, though if the results for me are always consistent, then I know what to expect. We could expect all Fuji, or all Kodak, transparency films to work in very similar ways from one batch of film to another, though anyone who has gone through lots of boxes/rolls of film realizes that there is a certain level of variation. This is why I put the comment generally when I describe characteristics of these films.

With so many films available, I tend to choose them based upon subject matter, or intended scenes. If I am photographing italian sports cars, I tend to go for E100VS. When I photographed an old Morgan Plus 4, which was BRG, I based my decision off a test of E100G and Velvia 100, and chose E100G. On some old Porsche race cars, with a particular blue to them, I chose Velvia 100. These are very specific examples, with the generalization that Fuji choices work better for blue to green (cool) tones, while Kodak choices work better with red and yellow (warm) tones.

People who shoot lots of landscapes tend to want more of the blue or green performance. I rarely have ever done any landscapes, and even more rarely desert scenes. You would be better asking the opinions of others on choices of films. Part of film choices is a discovery of what matches your own personal vision and expectations. I am just glad we still have so many great choices.

Ciao!

Gordon

Markok765 · Jun 7, 2006

Never Happeded to me!

Dave Parker · Jun 7, 2006

Markok765 said:
Never Happeded to me!

Your not old enough to have anything happen to you yet!

Geeze Marko, your really starting to get obnoxious....give it a rest..

R.

Velvia 100 magenta

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency