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

[halfaman]

Honestly, that is probably the most overrated and exaggerated point in current film discussions. Because for more than 30 years now we have really excellent built-in exposure meters (and of course excellent hand-held meters), several built-in metering modes in cameras, very precise shutters, semi-automatic or automatic modes and so on, all of that making it so extremely easy to get a correct exposure. Even for total beginners with no knowledge about film and correct exposure.
I started shooting reversal film at the age of 14, with my first own camera, a Nikon FM (still have it). It has a quite simple 60/40 weigthed metering. Nevertheless even for me as a beginner it was easy to get 95% correct exposed transparencies.
Now with my F6 I get 99% perfect exposed shots, and the 1% rest is only 1/3 to 2/3 stop away from perfection, but still very good and usable.
My Mamiya 645 Pro TL has also a very precise metering, and with my TLR I just use my Gossen Digipro F2 hand held meter.
So no problems at all to get perfect exposure in medium format either.

With all these excellent metering tools we have today it is really extremely easy to get perfect exposures

All true but nothing that can be compared to color negative film tolerance to overexposure. 2-3 stops is like nothing (done and checked) getting additional shadow information if needed, and you can go even higher to 5-6 stops loosing very little highlights information compared to the hughe overexposure. When I load Portra 400 in my camera I know I am ready for anything.

When you are in Germany next time let's meet, and I will show you some examples. You will be very impressed, promised .

That is a very kind offer, I would love to see those prints. It will very difficult to happen though, but just in case: Where are you located in Germany?

 

[logan2z]

(Moderator's note: duplicate threads combined)

According to Fujifilm, "it became difficult to procure some of the raw materials used for production".

https://petapixel.com/2021/10/16/fujifilm-ends-the-fujicolor-pro-line-and-velvia-50-sheet-film/

 

[Arcadia4]

Given the discontinuation of Pro 400h globally for the same raw material reasons earlier this year, it was just a matter of time for Pro 160 NS being also a ‘4th’ layer film but presumably smaller volumes as japan only. Velvia 50 sales in sheet must be smaller still, noting they reckon the 4x5 stocks will last to 2023! Vs the 8x10 which suggests whats left has already been converted a while ago and is sitting on some pallets in the store. Having said that these two have followed the more usual pattern of discontinued globally first and a few years later in japan.

 

[Henning Serger]

I just started LF last year and shoot Velvia 50. So I'm disappointed they will be discontinuing it. However, I still have my MF equipment and could shoot that in Velvia 50. But what do I do with my LF equipment then?

Alan,
don't worry too much, as the solution for your LF equipment is quite easy:
1. For some subjects and situations Provia 100F works best, and for others Velvia 50. Use both films according to their strenghts, and when they fit best to the situation.
2. Evaluate for how long - for how many years - you can (age, possible health issues) or want to use LF: 10 years, 15, 20? Then based on the result calculate how much Velvia 50 you need per year (along with Provia), and in the end how much you need for the coming 10 or whatever years.
Velvia 50 has excellent long term stability when cold stored (fridge or freezer). 6-8 years in a fridge won't be a problem, and 15 -20 years in the freezer are also possible.
Just buy the amount of Velvia 50 you need (based on the calculation above). As the current stock available in Japan last probably until spring 2023 (according to Fujifilm), you have some time for stocking up. You can do it in smaller batches / orders, which makes it more easy financially.
3. You could also (maybe additionally) buy a 6x9cm rollfilm back for your 4x5" camera, for using 120 Velvia 50.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

Of course not, but since you are scanning anyway, with a little editing skill you can make it look exactly like Velvia.

No, not really, it does not work getting the exact same results. The colour rendition of both films is much too different. If you have matched one colour in a certain area, you will get problems and crossovers in other areas, especially in the shadows.
And with Ektachrome you also don't have one of Velvia 50 (and 100) most significant advantages: Their record level of resolution of details with very low contrast (80-85 Lp/mm for 1.6 :1 object contrast). No other colour film can offer such high values.
Not to mention all the time needed for such post-processing. And that work is definitely no fun either.
Best for Alan would be the strategy I've mentioned above. Would allow him to continue using Velvia 50 in LF for many years to come. Maybe even for the rest of his life.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

And why is it sheet films are discontinued and not roll films, for Velvia 50?

It is simply a matter of demand: Not sufficient for Velvia 50 in sheets anymore.
Sheet film is coated on a different = thicker base than 135 and 120 (well, we are talking about real sheet film, not about some offerings by the repackaging firms which simply let cut sheets from too thin 100 micron film jumbo rolls for 135/120) .
Therefore completely different coating runs are necessary. Therefore you need an own, specific coating run for Velvia 50 sheet film in addition to the separate 135 and 120 format coating runs.
And that have to be several jumbo rolls / master rolls per coating run. Otherwise costs would explode and the product would be too expensive.
And the demand for such amounts is not there anymore.
Sheet film in itself is a very small niche market. And an ISO 50/18° sheet film is "niche in the niche".
That is also the reason why Ilford is not offering PanF+ in sheets. And the BW market for sheet film is even bigger than the colour reversal film market. How much ISO 50/18° sheet films do you find on the whole market, besides Velvia 50........go figure.

Fujifilm is bashed for discontinuing Velvia 50 in sheets. But the same people don't bash all the other manufacturers for not offering ISO 50/18° sheet films at all.........

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

You both are seemingly to young to know, but there were times when a 50 ASA film was called a fast film. And people were not stuck to studio stills.

I am old enough to have grown up with Agfapan 25, Agfaortho 25, Agfa Dia Direct, Efke KB 14, Orwo NP 15, Panatomic X, Technical Pan, Kodachrome 25 etc.
Since my beginning in Photography I am using slow or very slow speed films. Always liked their strengths.
Currently I am using several films in the ISO 3/6° to 50/18° range, like ADOX CMS 20 II, ADOX HR-50 at EI 3/6° in full infrared use, ADOX SCALA 50, Agfa APX 25 (fortunately I still have some), Velvia 50. And Delta 100, Acros II and ADOX CHS 100 II all at EI 50/18° for perfect shadow detail and tonality.
I am using several dozens rolls of film p.a. in that low to very low light sensitivity range.
Therefore I know what I am talking about. And I know about the challenges and limitations of an ISO 50/18° film in Large Format.

Regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

More like 5 stops (maybe a bit more if you are really lucky) of straight line, about 7-8 stops visually viewable under normal circumstances, getting anything more requires pumping light into the Dmax in a scanner/ repro situation & hoping you get enough information to reconstruct somewhat meaningful colour.

Lachlan, I have to disagree here because of the results in my photography test lab and my daily results in shooting dozens of transparency films p.a. It is more than 5 stops straight. And about 8 stops visible on a normal light table, and more than 8 stops in projection. How much more is simply depending on the projector used (light power (watts), quality of condensor and lens quality) and the quality of the screen (matte or high reflection screens like the DaLite HP surface, which has been best in class).
And the DR is also dependent on the colours, some colours react with better DR than others.
And you can pull lots of details out of the shadows using a real drum scanner with photomultiplyers. Most photographers simply do not know how much information is still there in the shadows with transparencies. Especially if they don't use projection, or if they only use these cheap amateur scanners with their low DR range (flat bad scanners being the worst).

Here just an example from me: I had a defect in the light meter in one of my Mamiya 645 PRO TL bodies (problem now solved) resulting in severe underexposure (2-3 stops). But the completely underexposed shadows could be saved by drumscanning, as the detail really is on the film, and not lost. Please look here at the scans on a Heidelberg Tango Drum Scanner made by scan expert Sebastian Dziuba (just scroll down to the portrait of the young lady):
https://www.fineartdrumscanning.de/bilder/

Unfortunately lots of prejudices and misinformation is spread about transparency film. Mainly by people with no or very little experince with it. And they are just repeating the myths which are spread online.
Colour reversal film is much better than most photographers think. And in many parameters it offers significantly better quality than CN film (better sharpness, higher resolution, finer grain, better colour brillance, the unique three-dimensional impression in projection and under an excellent loupe, the better versatility, advantages in scanning, cost advantages in several applications).

Astia was overall probably Fuji's best transparency material (though nowhere near as sharp), but most of the people its sensibilities appealed to in terms of contrast, colour and latitude seem to have gone for colour neg instead (which gives you all of those, plus better sharpness for making prints).

Astia 100F fan here . Still enjoying it because I am continuing using it (still have some in the freezer). Outstanding film. But I would not go so far to call it the best in general. The best for portrait and fashion, and for very high object contrasts, yes. But Provia 100F, the Velvias and not to forget the outstanding Provia 400X (by far one of the best ISO 400/27° films ever, destroys Portra 400 completely in terms of detail rendition, Provia 400X can be enlarged much more) all have their strengths and unique advantages, too.
And I have to disagree concerning sharpness of prints being generally better with CN film: The sharpest prints I (and many of my experienced photographer friends) have got / seen are from reversal film. Cibachrome / Ilfochrome and drum scans exposed on RA-4 paper. The superior sharpness of reversal film itself (especially the current Fujichromes, as E100 is less sharp and lower resolving than the Fujichromes) at the start of the imaging chain is significant.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

All true but nothing that can be compared to color negative film tolerance to overexposure. 2-3 stops is like nothing (done and checked) getting additional shadow information if needed, and you can go even higher to 5-6 stops loosing very little highlights information compared to the hughe overexposure. When I load Portra 400 in my camera I know I am ready for anything.

Yes, you can overexpose colour negative film. You have much overexposure tolerance / latitude (and with colour reversal a significant underexposure latitude [at least more than most photographers know, see my post above and the link] ).
But, that is just an exposure latitude, and not (!) a general quality latitude concerning all technical parameters!
You have to pay a price, and make quality compromises, when you overexpose more than one stop:
- less sharpness due to diffusion effects (the more overexposure, the lower the sharpness)
- less resolution due to diffusion effects (the more overexposure, the lower the resolution)
- less speed (longer shutter speeds or wider apertures needed)
- and with more than one stop overexposure also less highlight detail compared to correct exposure at box speed; of course film is still much much better than digital with huge overexposure. But correct exposure gives better highlight detail than massive overexposure.
- decreasing quality in colour rendition with bigger overexposure.

These other quality aspects are always overlooked and ignored. Especially by young film users and all the film youtubers. Significant lack of knowledge. Most probably because none of them are doing proper scientific film tests. And the majority of them are using the worst imaging chain (from a quality point of view): Scanning with cheap or middle class / medium resolving scanners (and medium resolving includes the SP-3000 and HS-1800 lab scanners).
Using overexposure of more than one stop with CN film very rarely makes sense, as the disadvantages outweight the one advantage of more shadow detail (and if you have placed those objects of your shot, which are most important for the message of your picture, in the deep shadows, then you have made an important mistake in composition).

Please take my explanations not as a critic of your photography. I made them as general explanations, as all these one-sided, not differentiating talk online and general praise of massive overexposure of CN film is counterproductive in so many cases. And especially not helping young and beginning film photographers.

That is a very kind offer, I would love to see those prints. It will very difficult to happen though, but just in case: Where are you located in Germany?

You're welcome.
In Lower-Saxony, Celle and Hannover. I am also often in Berlin. So maybe we could meet next year in Berlin on the Berlin Photo Week, or the AnalogueNOW film photography festival.
Or you join the regular "Northern Germany Film Photographers Meetings" in Hannover which I organise. The next will be on November, the 27th.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...ADOX CHS 100 II...at EI 50/18° for perfect shadow detail and tonality...

That correlates exactly with my results after calibrating 4x5 CHS 100 II developed in FX-39 II 1+19 using Jobo Expert drums at 45 r.p.m on a CPP-2. Best negatives at EI 50.

 

[halfaman]

Yes, you can overexpose colour negative film. You have much overexposure tolerance / latitude (and with colour reversal a significant underexposure latitude [at least more than most photographers know, see my post above and the link] ).
But, that is just an exposure latitude, and not (!) a general quality latitude concerning all technical parameters!
You have to pay a price, and make quality compromises, when you overexpose more than one stop:
- less sharpness due to diffusion effects (the more overexposure, the lower the sharpness)
- less resolution due to diffusion effects (the more overexposure, the lower the resolution)
- less speed (longer shutter speeds or wider apertures needed)
- and with more than one stop overexposure also less highlight detail compared to correct exposure at box speed; of course film is still much much better than digital with huge overexposure. But correct exposure gives better highlight detail than massive overexposure.
- decreasing quality in colour rendition with bigger overexposure.

I think that is very pesimistic view, at least for my expererience. I accidentally overexposed by two stops a Portra 400 120 roll some years ago (forgot to change the ISO dial) and I couldn't find anything to really complaint about after developed it normall while scanning (Nikon Super Coolscab 8000 ED with AN filmholder) or enlarging to 25x25 cm. Perhhaps it was not optimal from "scientific" point of view but perfectly acceptable.

I haven't done anything more than two stops, and no more than one stop intentionally, but a friend of mine forgot one time to close the shutter after removing the darkslide from a 4x5'' film holder loaded with some Kodak CN (don't remember). Overexposure was insane but he developed the sheet anyway with the rest of the session. It was incredible to see that there was still detail in it and the main subject still clearly visible (a bicycle).

It is not that you have to overexpose CN, the important thing for a photographer is to know the characteristics of the recording media is using (film, digital sensor), one of them being the latitude. You need to know that CN tolerates very well overexposure and slide film is the opposite towards underexposure, then act accordingly when you planned your shot.

You're welcome.
In Lower-Saxony, Celle and Hannover. I am also often in Berlin. So maybe we could meet next year in Berlin on the Berlin Photo Week, or the AnalogueNOW film photography festival.
Or you join the regular "Northern Germany Film Photographers Meetings" in Hannover which I organise. The next will be on November, the 27th.
Henning

Thanks again. Difficult to justify for now a trip to Germany but perhaps could be for any of 2022 fairs.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Lachlan, I have to disagree here because of the results in my photography test lab and my daily results in shooting dozens of transparency films p.a. It is more than 5 stops straight. And about 8 stops visible on a normal light table, and more than 8 stops in projection. How much more is simply depending on the projector used (light power (watts), quality of condensor and lens quality) and the quality of the screen (matte or high reflection screens like the DaLite HP surface, which has been best in class).
And the DR is also dependent on the colours, some colours react with better DR than others.
And you can pull lots of details out of the shadows using a real drum scanner with photomultiplyers. Most photographers simply do not know how much information is still there in the shadows with transparencies. Especially if they don't use projection, or if they only use these cheap amateur scanners with their low DR range (flat bad scanners being the worst).

Here just an example from me: I had a defect in the light meter in one of my Mamiya 645 PRO TL bodies (problem now solved) resulting in severe underexposure (2-3 stops). But the completely underexposed shadows could be saved by drumscanning, as the detail really is on the film, and not lost. Please look here at the scans on a Heidelberg Tango Drum Scanner made by scan expert Sebastian Dziuba (just scroll down to the portrait of the young lady):
https://www.fineartdrumscanning.de/bilder/

Unfortunately lots of prejudices and misinformation is spread about transparency film. Mainly by people with no or very little experince with it. And they are just repeating the myths which are spread online.
Colour reversal film is much better than most photographers think. And in many parameters it offers significantly better quality than CN film (better sharpness, higher resolution, finer grain, better colour brillance, the unique three-dimensional impression in projection and under an excellent loupe, the better versatility, advantages in scanning, cost advantages in several applications).



Astia 100F fan here . Still enjoying it because I am continuing using it (still have some in the freezer). Outstanding film. But I would not go so far to call it the best in general. The best for portrait and fashion, and for very high object contrasts, yes. But Provia 100F, the Velvias and not to forget the outstanding Provia 400X (by far one of the best ISO 400/27° films ever, destroys Portra 400 completely in terms of detail rendition, Provia 400X can be enlarged much more) all have their strengths and unique advantages, too.
And I have to disagree concerning sharpness of prints being generally better with CN film: The sharpest prints I (and many of my experienced photographer friends) have got / seen are from reversal film. Cibachrome / Ilfochrome and drum scans exposed on RA-4 paper. The superior sharpness of reversal film itself (especially the current Fujichromes, as E100 is less sharp and lower resolving than the Fujichromes) at the start of the imaging chain is significant.

Best regards,
Henning

That's pretty much how all transparencies work - about 5 stops linear response (the easily reproducible bit) and 8 stops visible total on the light table (as that correlates roughly to to about the DR that the eye thinks is 'black' to white/ clear film base). As someone who spends quite a lot of their life digging stuff out of the Dmax for people who messed up exposures - there's a real difference between 'recoverable' and 'good' - life is much easier & quality higher when people respect the limits of the materials . The same applies to the relatively narrow latitude (for the intended colour balance etc) of professional neg films - you can very quickly tell when someone's been overcooking their colour neg if your scanner is decent quality... I'd also add that my own experience with scanning/ printing neg & transparency stocks (covering pretty much everything on the market today, plus many professional older C-41 stocks, various generations of Ektachrome, Kodachrome, all the Fuji professional chromes from the last 20-25 years etc) tallies pretty precisely with what has been disclosed by Ron Mowery and others - transparency is not bad at all, but modern colour neg has a far wider range of techniques available to produce higher inherent sharpness and overall lower noise, allowing more of the resolution to be used in making prints/ reproductions, even if that absolute resolution of a contrasty bar chart isn't as good as a directly viewed transparency (which relies much more on contrast for apparent sharpness, rather than inherent edge effects/ inhibition effects etc). Much of the time the sharpness differences are non trivial & very obvious even at quite low resolutions (assuming a scan system with excellent MTF is being used) - and almost always match up with the published MTF charts. Unfortunately, people do many terrible things to colour negs in the process of scanning/ inverting them - but if they're producing less sharp and noisier images than transparency, there are technological issues that need resolved within the scanner/ inversion path. What was the origination format, output device (lightjet/ lambda etc) and size of outputted prints that you describe as 'the sharpest prints'?

 

[Arcadia4]

Looking at Yodobashi, which usually has the full Fujifilm Japan range, the Velvia 50 in LF is out of stock. Additionally Velvia 100F in LF, (a Japan only offering for some time, still on the Fujifilm current product list) is now also stated as a discontinued product.
https://www.yodobashi.com/category/19055/34561/53219/53221/ranking/

 

[sasah zib]

"
Fujifilm Holdings Corp.’s tough decision to accept the demise of its film and digital photography businesses and embrace the health care and semiconductor sectors was validated last year during the pandemic, the company’s new chief executive officer said.
“Health care and semiconductor materials will be our future earnings drivers,” Teiichi Goto, who took the top post at Fujifilm last month, said in an interview Wednesday
….“We’ve pivoted decisively toward health care,” said Goto, whose first job at the company was selling color film, in 1983. “And apart from health care, the materials business for semiconductors is very interesting.”
July 8, 2021
FUJIFILM Holdings adopted a new management structure on June 29 this year. Under the leadership of the new President Teiichi Goto, the Fujifilm Group will further reinforce “human resources DX” by developing human resources dedicated to DX and creating working environment where they can play an active role. The Group will also take on “Work process DX” to streamline work operations by updating the system for centrally controlling management data worldwide for fast decision-making, as well as “Product DX” to support the customers accelerating their DX initiatives by applying robotics and AI technologies to products and services in a wide range of business fields. In addition, the Fujifilm Group will further strengthen information security which serves as the foundation for promoting DX.
Though still known largely for its photo business, the company’s Imaging Solutions segment that includes film now makes up just 13% of total revenue.

Still, Fujifilm doesn’t plan to leave the “film” behind in either name or strategy. Decades of experience in photo chemicals and layering technology are still paying off in other business segments, Goto said, adding that film will remain a lodestone for the company."
====
the july posting gave a brief bump to Kodak stock.

Mr Goto is moving fast.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I found out where all the film is we've been waiting for.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/shipping-containers-juan-de-fuca-strait-1.6222341

 

[MattKing]

I found out where all the film is we've been waiting for.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/shipping-containers-juan-de-fuca-strait-1.6222341

Two of those containers are full of hazardous material that self ignites. They have started burning, and can't be extinguished with water. The weather here is worsening, and this is a real concern.
By the way, I already linked to that story in the thread about difficulties obtaining Kodak colour chemicals!

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Two of those containers are full of hazardous material that self ignites. They have started burning, and can't be extinguished with water. The weather here is worsening, and this is a real concern.
By the way, I already linked to that story in the thread about difficulties obtaining Kodak colour chemicals!

Figures they'd put the chemicals and film in the same container.

 

[flavio81]

And I have to disagree concerning sharpness of prints being generally better with CN film: The sharpest prints I (and many of my experienced photographer friends) have got / seen are from reversal film. Cibachrome / Ilfochrome and drum scans exposed on RA-4 paper. The superior sharpness of reversal film itself (especially the current Fujichromes, as E100 is less sharp and lower resolving than the Fujichromes) at the start of the imaging chain is significant.

Umm this is very... interesting. The MTF curves for the Kodak C41 and E6 films showed the C41 films in general being of higher MTF than the same-speed E6 films. And Ron Mowrey (RIP) explained why this happened -- basically thanks to more freedom on the C41 films for adding interlayer effects and special couplers that improved sharpness, color purity, etc. He repeated many times, with emphasis, that the E6 films were harder to engineer because of less possibilities for applying the techniques that were possible to build into C41 emulsion.

The reversal process does give finer grain thanks to the reversal phase itself where the image now is formed of evenly exposed grains.

Note that i'm mentioning "sharpness" not "resolution", which is an entirely different thing. I am thinking you were mostly taking a look at the enlargenment done through a digital process, where the sharpness can be digitally enhanced, thus perhaps the final result in terms of both sharpness and resolution being better with E6 film.

There were many tests in the past about this topic, for example http://www.boeringa.demon.nl/menu_technic_ektar100_grainstructure.htm

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Umm this is very... interesting. The MTF curves for the Kodak C41 and E6 films showed the C41 films in general being of higher MTF than the same-speed E6 films. And Ron Mowrey (RIP) explained why this happened -- basically thanks to more freedom on the C41 films for adding interlayer effects and special couplers that improved sharpness, color purity, etc. He repeated many times, with emphasis, that the E6 films were harder to engineer because of less possibilities for applying the techniques that were possible to build into C41 emulsion.

The reversal process does give finer grain thanks to the reversal phase itself where the image now is formed of evenly exposed grains.

Note that i'm mentioning "sharpness" not "resolution", which is an entirely different thing. I am thinking you were mostly taking a look at the enlargenment done through a digital process, where the sharpness can be digitally enhanced, thus perhaps the final result in terms of both sharpness and resolution being better with E6 film.

There were many tests in the past about this topic, for example http://www.boeringa.demon.nl/menu_technic_ektar100_grainstructure.htm

Wouldn't chromes have an appearance of greater sharpness since it has fewer stops and more contrast and acutance?

 

[Lachlan Young]

Wouldn't chromes have an appearance of greater sharpness since it has fewer stops and more contrast and acutance?

Transparency materials are overall less sharp (lower acutance) at the frequencies that define how 'sharp' something will look if subsequently printed/ scanned. Transparency materials are reliant on their inherent contrast (intended as final display media) to help them look 'sharp'. Some transparencies don't do too badly with large area objects (low/ very low frequencies), but fall off much more sharply in the higher frequencies than essentially any reasonably modern professional (and some amateur) colour neg stock. Resolution of a high contrast object really is not meaningful unless the MTF is there to support it. Thus you can have a nominally more moderate resolution & very high MTF on a higher latitude/ moderate contrast material which will look better than higher resolution & a more precipitous MTF fall-off on a higher contrast/ low latitude material. Transparencies give you contrast and saturation (and less of the scan op/ printer's opinion as to what they should look like) - if those matter, you live with the weaknesses. Neg stocks have different compromises.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Transparency materials are overall less sharp (lower acutance) at the frequencies that define how 'sharp' something will look if subsequently printed/ scanned. Transparency materials are reliant on their inherent contrast (intended as final display media) to help them look 'sharp'. Some transparencies don't do too badly with large area objects (low/ very low frequencies), but fall off much more sharply in the higher frequencies than essentially any reasonably modern professional (and some amateur) colour neg stock. Resolution of a high contrast object really is not meaningful unless the MTF is there to support it. Thus you can have a nominally more moderate resolution & very high MTF on a higher latitude/ moderate contrast material which will look better than higher resolution & a more precipitous MTF fall-off on a higher contrast/ low latitude material. Transparencies give you contrast and saturation (and less of the scan op/ printer's opinion as to what they should look like) - if those matter, you live with the weaknesses. Neg stocks have different compromises.

I like the contrast of chromes. Negatives are boring.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I like the contrast of chromes. Negatives are boring.

And that's your prerogative - far too often people work themselves into all sorts of shapes claiming an ill-defined tech-spec/ resolution chart derived 'best' rather than choosing their compromises on the basis of what looks most appealing to someone's particular taste. This must however be clearly delineated from the imaging science that aims to define and explain the differences between the materials & indicates what the optimal materials for certain processes are - mainly in terms of the ability of the material to hold and transmit/ reproduce usable signal vs noise.

 

[George Mann]

Slides viewed directly provide the best image. Negatives have to be scanned/printed to get a usable image.

 

[dutchsteammachine]

So much for Fuji saying they are dedicated to their film heritage and will keep it going.

 

[Henning Serger]

I think that is very pesimistic view, at least for my expererience.

No, I don't think so, it is just a realistic assessment based on a huge amount of test results in my test lab and results in my daily photography. For overexposure of more than 2/3 to 1 stop you always have to pay a price: You are gaining a bit in one parameter (shadow detail), but you are loosing quality in several other parameters (as explained in my posting above).
And this quality loss is simply not necessary if you meter and expose correctly.

I accidentally overexposed by two stops a Portra 400 120 roll some years ago (forgot to change the ISO dial) and I couldn't find anything to really complaint about after developed it normall while scanning (Nikon Super Coolscab 8000 ED with AN filmholder) or enlarging to 25x25 cm. Perhhaps it was not optimal from "scientific" point of view but perfectly acceptable.

Well, a print of only 25x25cm from 120 is really extremely small. Enlargement factor of about only 4, that is next to nothing. At such a small enlargement you of course will not detect losses in certain quality parameters (like sharpness and resolution losses caused by increased diffusion effects in the emulsion).
But aside from that:
My main point is the following:
The main reason to use an ISO 400/27° film instead of a lower speed film (which gives you better quality) is just that you need that high(er) light sensitivity. Because there is not enough light.
If you now generally expose that 400 speed film with 1-2 stops more light, you are loosing the main advantage of the film. Period.
Or in other words:
Portra 400 exposed at EI 200/24° or even 100/21° (what is promoted by some of the young film influencers / youtubers / bloggers) gives you less quality then the even cheaper Portra 160.
Portra 160 at box speed compared to overexposed Portra 400 will give you
- better sharpness
- higher resolution
- finer grain
- better highlight detail
- more precise color rendition
- lower costs.
So if the lighting situation makes it possible to use an ISO 100 or 160/200 film, then you get the best quality at the lowest cost if you use a film with that box speed.
It makes very little sense to waste the more expensive higher speed films in situations when this higher sensitivity is not needed.
Therefore personally I only use higher speed films when I really need them, when I need the higher light sensitivity because there is not enough light. But in most cases I don't need them, and using low(er) and medium speed films give me high(est) quality at low(est) cost.

Thanks again. Difficult to justify for now a trip to Germany but perhaps could be for any of 2022 fairs.

Well, you can always contact me if you intend to come to Germany in the future.

Best regards,
Henning