What is the difference between these films and what should I rate them at for more pleasing portrait results?
Velvia 50 & Velvia 100F
-
A
- Thread starter Krzys
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Nikon s2 with 50mm 1.4
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
Sold Fujifilm 4x5 Fujichrome Veliva 100 and Fujifilm 4x5 Fujichrome 64T. EXPIRED
- Started by Renato Tonelli
-
Sold Fujifilm Neopan 100 Acros 120 and 4x5
- Started by Renato Tonelli
-
For Sale Nikkor 5cm f2 ltm
- Started by Gram Nylén
Forum statistics
Velvia 100F is my favorite of the three Velvias. It looks more "normal" than the other two, but still looks "Velvia-esque". It is always my choice for Velvia pictures of people (which are few and far between, as I usually shoot people on negative film). The 50 is pretty amazing when used for the right subjects, though. You don't want to use it for a composition with an extreme luminance range, though. 100F handles that much better at box speed and normal processing. Additionally, 100F pulls very well, which lowers the contrast even more. I routinely shoot it at -1 and -2 with no ill effects on color. The 50 pulls 1 stop OK (not as well as the 100F, IMO), but I have never tried two.
I would suggest, barring information that something with your equipment or processing or metering techniques is not quite right, that you rate them at box speed.
I would suggest, barring information that something with your equipment or processing or metering techniques is not quite right, that you rate them at box speed.
I rate RVP at 40EI and the 100 at box, but I'd not personally use them for portraits, not unless you like red/magenta faces like severe sunburn look. Velvia gets used for landscapes especially with vibrant blues and greens red is out there but too strong for northern European skin tone in my opinion-try Astia
As described above, 100F is pretty normal saturation but with a degree of Velvia 50 and 100's contrast. Velvia 50 is the full-on high saturation film for landscapes. 100 (not F) is similar to 50 but cleaner and bluer. 50's better for autumn and spring, 100 for winter and summer in my experience. I rate them all at box speed - just make sure you choose your mid-tone carefully using a spot meter.
I couldn't recommend either for portrait work. Get some Astia, it's ideally suited to portraits.
I couldn't recommend either for portrait work. Get some Astia, it's ideally suited to portraits.
Velvia 100F has attracted a lot of attention, and not all of it positive.
It has a notiecably flashy, avant-garde palette and it performs well in early morning or evening light, but it does look over-exaggerated, particularly red spectrum hues, and magenta casts leave many users irritated. I used 100F for 2.5 years before my Ilfochrome printer recommended returning to Velvia 50 because of the very different and occasionally unsatisfying colour rendition, even under polarisation. Velvia 50, better rated at EI40, has deeply enriched primaries that remain controlled under full polarisation but then the normal bluish tint of POL will often be exaggerated. V. 50 is designed for diffuse lighting, while 100F to its credit, with a noticeably less haute contrast, is more useful in challenging light, yet it remains that this film's oddball palette has caused more than a ripple of discontent. Some love it, some don't.
Today, my two Fuji rev. films of choice are Provia 100F for difficult light and Velvia 50 when ideal, controllable conditions present (flat to hazy light). Ilfochrome prints created from Velvia 100F are not to my eyes (or my printer's) as satisfying as those from Velvia 50. For 100F, it is the hue and saturation that troubles a lot of us: i.e. greens can appear yellow-ish and flat, reds overly pinkish, though whites are very clear and blues, oddly, are quite normal. Sunrise and sunset hues can look very unnatural, but many photographers do exploit this, as they do with Velvia 50. I have never pushed or pulled any reversal film; exposed correctly it won't need it.
Neither Velvia 50 or 100F should be used for people photography because of the high level of primary saturation. I would strongly recommend you to try Velvia 50 and 100F over some time and critically analyse the results, observing the differences palette presentation, most noticeable in Ilfochrome prints. Opinion alone should not be used to guide your final choice.
It has a notiecably flashy, avant-garde palette and it performs well in early morning or evening light, but it does look over-exaggerated, particularly red spectrum hues, and magenta casts leave many users irritated. I used 100F for 2.5 years before my Ilfochrome printer recommended returning to Velvia 50 because of the very different and occasionally unsatisfying colour rendition, even under polarisation. Velvia 50, better rated at EI40, has deeply enriched primaries that remain controlled under full polarisation but then the normal bluish tint of POL will often be exaggerated. V. 50 is designed for diffuse lighting, while 100F to its credit, with a noticeably less haute contrast, is more useful in challenging light, yet it remains that this film's oddball palette has caused more than a ripple of discontent. Some love it, some don't.
Today, my two Fuji rev. films of choice are Provia 100F for difficult light and Velvia 50 when ideal, controllable conditions present (flat to hazy light). Ilfochrome prints created from Velvia 100F are not to my eyes (or my printer's) as satisfying as those from Velvia 50. For 100F, it is the hue and saturation that troubles a lot of us: i.e. greens can appear yellow-ish and flat, reds overly pinkish, though whites are very clear and blues, oddly, are quite normal. Sunrise and sunset hues can look very unnatural, but many photographers do exploit this, as they do with Velvia 50. I have never pushed or pulled any reversal film; exposed correctly it won't need it.
Neither Velvia 50 or 100F should be used for people photography because of the high level of primary saturation. I would strongly recommend you to try Velvia 50 and 100F over some time and critically analyse the results, observing the differences palette presentation, most noticeable in Ilfochrome prints. Opinion alone should not be used to guide your final choice.
Last edited by a moderator:
For much more natural skin tones on slide film, I would recommend Kodak E100G (neutral palette), E100GX (warmer palette) or Fuji Astia 100F (neutral palette). In my opinion, the Kodak products offer better skin tones.
"Neither Velvia 50 or 100F should be used for people photography because of the high level of primary saturation."
The question is what is the difference between the films, not whether or not we have the opinion that they "should" or should not be used for portraits. The best film for anything is a subjective question, so I have never understood the "don't use Velvia for portraits" orders, or any other similar orders, that appear so often on the Internet. Why the overwhelming need to order others how to do their own work? I use the 100F for portraits and I like it. I can also see the 50 working. It all depends on what the photographer wants. Instead of ordering that one shouldn't use it for portraits, how about, "This is why I don't like Velvia for portraits", or "
Neither Velvia 50 or 100F are traditional choices for people photography because of the high level of primary saturation"? Is it that hard not to state opinions as facts or orders?
The question is what is the difference between the films, not whether or not we have the opinion that they "should" or should not be used for portraits. The best film for anything is a subjective question, so I have never understood the "don't use Velvia for portraits" orders, or any other similar orders, that appear so often on the Internet. Why the overwhelming need to order others how to do their own work? I use the 100F for portraits and I like it. I can also see the 50 working. It all depends on what the photographer wants. Instead of ordering that one shouldn't use it for portraits, how about, "This is why I don't like Velvia for portraits", or "
Neither Velvia 50 or 100F are traditional choices for people photography because of the high level of primary saturation"? Is it that hard not to state opinions as facts or orders?
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe 2F/2F should read my post more thoroughly regarding differences, and refrain from misquoting casual alliterations.
To add, both RVP films are intended for landscape, commercial or product photography (a fact made known by Fujifilm and legions of skilled photographers). Fuji has very suitable C41 products (NPS160 an excellent stock). True, as per a later post, does Kodak.
Yes, yes, there are fundamental differences between the two, and here is what I and colleagues have recorded: RVP 50: high saturation with prominance to green and blue; crisp and clear with a very striking colour rendition from reversal to print. RVP 100F (better at EI80): ultra-high saturation with a distinctively reddish palette that has, in some threads on APUG, caused irritation; palsy, flat greens and ethereal yellows (supposedly where the film's strengths lie). Polarisation, where used, needs to be tempered with RVP 100F's disposition to strongly falsify hues e.g. a brown fern leaf under pol can be rendered as bright red. This film does have a valid use for early morning and evening imaging where the subtle hues need to be lifted, but they can still be 'overcooked'. It's use for star trails photography is also valid to accentuate star trail colours, and its magenta shift can be appealing in this application.
And finally, let's sort out what I said: The first two lines are an observation, conveniently misquoted of course. I do say I strongly recommend the OP try Velvia 50, 100F (in whatever application he sees fit to, including anything adverse to my observation, no big deal). Summary: 1. Try it. 2. Analyse the results. 3. Print from it. AND: "Opinion alone should not be used to guide your final choice." Period.
Thanks!
To add, both RVP films are intended for landscape, commercial or product photography (a fact made known by Fujifilm and legions of skilled photographers). Fuji has very suitable C41 products (NPS160 an excellent stock). True, as per a later post, does Kodak.
Yes, yes, there are fundamental differences between the two, and here is what I and colleagues have recorded: RVP 50: high saturation with prominance to green and blue; crisp and clear with a very striking colour rendition from reversal to print. RVP 100F (better at EI80): ultra-high saturation with a distinctively reddish palette that has, in some threads on APUG, caused irritation; palsy, flat greens and ethereal yellows (supposedly where the film's strengths lie). Polarisation, where used, needs to be tempered with RVP 100F's disposition to strongly falsify hues e.g. a brown fern leaf under pol can be rendered as bright red. This film does have a valid use for early morning and evening imaging where the subtle hues need to be lifted, but they can still be 'overcooked'. It's use for star trails photography is also valid to accentuate star trail colours, and its magenta shift can be appealing in this application.
Which part of that is not understood?
And finally, let's sort out what I said: The first two lines are an observation, conveniently misquoted of course. I do say I strongly recommend the OP try Velvia 50, 100F (in whatever application he sees fit to, including anything adverse to my observation, no big deal). Summary: 1. Try it. 2. Analyse the results. 3. Print from it. AND: "Opinion alone should not be used to guide your final choice." Period.
Thanks!
Last edited by a moderator:
First, there was no misquote, as you stated twice. I copied and pasted the one sentence in your entire post with which I held issue (even though it is only a single word that grated).
Second, my issue is not with your post in general, which was very informative, but just with the word "should". To answer your question, the use of the word "should" is part of what is not understood.
Thirdly, in my read, all the stuff that came after the first sentence in that paragraph is tempered by the first sentence to make it seem as if the rest of the sentences in the paragraph could not possibly apply to pictures of people, for which Velvia "should" not be used. To answer your question again, this is part of what is not understood.
Fourth, the idea that what the manufacturer intends for something is its only use does not make sense to me. I see people speeding down the highway in box trucks all the time...
Using things for their non-intended uses has led to some very interesting art, and discovery in general, throughout history.
Fifth, every time someone mentions Velvia, someone (and usually more) say that it "should" not be used for people. I am just sick of it in general, so please don't take it personally.
So, as I originally said, "are traditional choices" is a much better thing to say than "should". That was my only practical point.
...and P.S. AGAIN in your second post with the term "valid use"...It just sounds so damned arrogant! Lay off and let people do whatever the hell they want with it. The way I see it, I'd explain the differences, even make opinionated and subjective statements...but I'd identify them as such! I would not use terms like "should" and "valid use" as statements of fact.
Second, my issue is not with your post in general, which was very informative, but just with the word "should". To answer your question, the use of the word "should" is part of what is not understood.
Thirdly, in my read, all the stuff that came after the first sentence in that paragraph is tempered by the first sentence to make it seem as if the rest of the sentences in the paragraph could not possibly apply to pictures of people, for which Velvia "should" not be used. To answer your question again, this is part of what is not understood.
Fourth, the idea that what the manufacturer intends for something is its only use does not make sense to me. I see people speeding down the highway in box trucks all the time...
Using things for their non-intended uses has led to some very interesting art, and discovery in general, throughout history.Fifth, every time someone mentions Velvia, someone (and usually more) say that it "should" not be used for people. I am just sick of it in general, so please don't take it personally.
So, as I originally said, "are traditional choices" is a much better thing to say than "should". That was my only practical point.
...and P.S. AGAIN in your second post with the term "valid use"...It just sounds so damned arrogant! Lay off and let people do whatever the hell they want with it. The way I see it, I'd explain the differences, even make opinionated and subjective statements...but I'd identify them as such! I would not use terms like "should" and "valid use" as statements of fact.
Last edited by a moderator:
Personally, I avoid all the velvias for shots in which people and their skin tones are important- the colour palette just isn't nuanced enough for skin tones. I much prefer Astia 100F for that. Astia may now be the only slide film on the market today that can deliver realistic skin tones.
Velvia 100F is the least 'velviesque' of the velvias and would have the best chance at decent skin tones, but nevertheless it'd not deliver what astia can. Velvia 50 for skin tones, oh hell no!
Now for landscape, velvia 100 is my poison.
Anyway I agree that you should try all of the above and arrive at your own conclusions. I predict that you when you have people in the scene, you will like Astia for slides and pro s (160s) or the similar Kodak product for negs.
Velvia 100F is the least 'velviesque' of the velvias and would have the best chance at decent skin tones, but nevertheless it'd not deliver what astia can. Velvia 50 for skin tones, oh hell no!
Now for landscape, velvia 100 is my poison.
Anyway I agree that you should try all of the above and arrive at your own conclusions. I predict that you when you have people in the scene, you will like Astia for slides and pro s (160s) or the similar Kodak product for negs.
Last edited by a moderator:
As a long time Velvia user, i gave 100F a good try when it was introduced as their first attempt at a Velvia 50 replacement a few years back. Since they subsequently launched Velvia 100 and relaunched 50 I haven't had need to use it again. Indeed IMO it is by far the worst film in the Velvia "family" and had Fuji persevered with this version alone I have little doubt that I'd have been a committed Kodak slide film user by now.
Velvia 50 I rate at box speed, though before its discontinuation I tended to set it at ISO 40. Velvia 100F I rated also at box speed ( for info the 100 -non F - I rate at 125). I particularly disliked the way in which by comparison with RVP50 the 100F seems to make skies look too magenta, and less strong foliage greens and yellow /oranges are pushed towards olive and brownish respectively. V100F is to me a strange mix of bright and gungy. By comparison RVP 50 could and still can hold a strong cyan and bright yellows and oranges very well.
Both films share the Velvia characteristic of exaggerating slight nuances of colour in the light when lighting isn't strong, in particular at around dawn and dusk.
The portrait issue? well I think the vast majority of photographers , insofar as they would choose a slide film at all for that application, would say that they avoid Velvias because they exaggerate the warm side of the spectrum (not identically as it happens but all noticably) and produce a result that many consider unflattering and unrealistic.
Velvia 50 I rate at box speed, though before its discontinuation I tended to set it at ISO 40. Velvia 100F I rated also at box speed ( for info the 100 -non F - I rate at 125). I particularly disliked the way in which by comparison with RVP50 the 100F seems to make skies look too magenta, and less strong foliage greens and yellow /oranges are pushed towards olive and brownish respectively. V100F is to me a strange mix of bright and gungy. By comparison RVP 50 could and still can hold a strong cyan and bright yellows and oranges very well.
Both films share the Velvia characteristic of exaggerating slight nuances of colour in the light when lighting isn't strong, in particular at around dawn and dusk.
The portrait issue? well I think the vast majority of photographers , insofar as they would choose a slide film at all for that application, would say that they avoid Velvias because they exaggerate the warm side of the spectrum (not identically as it happens but all noticably) and produce a result that many consider unflattering and unrealistic.
Using Velvia for portraits is like using Kodak UC 400 for a wedding. Yes you can do it and get do results many times, but some of the times the saturated colors will not be pleasing and then you will not be able to use the photograph. It is a risk.
Steve
Steve
I'd avoid Velvia for portraits, unless you're doing avant-garde fashion work that you want really saturated colors. I have used Velvia 50 to great enjoyment to do macro shots of tropical flowers. The colors are so bright they jump off the screen. Many people might not care for this more-vibrant-than-life approach, but I like it. I almost always use a Nikon A2 warming filter with it to keep my greens from having a blue cast, and I always use a Polarizer, too. I spot meter off a 18% grey card, and bracket by 2/3 of a stop. With a Nikon F100 and 200mm Micro, I usually get 2 out of 3 useable exposures. I know this is a little off topic, but it may help some others : )
To me, based on my experience: One with a more neutral color palette than Velvia... one shot with Portra NC, for example. I don't even like portraiture with Portra VC.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |