Why velvia 50 died

Markok765 · May 26, 2006

I know. after thanking fuji for staying with films. they told me this:

In regards to Velvia 50, unfortunately we were forced to discontinue this
product as we are no longer able to source one of the raw materials used
for the production of Velvia 50. However, we have replaced Velvia 50 with
the new Velvia 100 film, which proves to be as good as the original 50 with
a finer grain and twice the speed.

I wonder what raw material it was?

Marko

Lee L · May 26, 2006

I've never seen an indication of what the material was. I recall seeing something saying it was the sole supplier of the material that had stopped production, and that Fuji couldn't go into production of the material themselves because it wasn't economically feasible.

Lee

roteague · May 26, 2006

That is the same explanation I heard as well. However, a Fuji rep I talked to told me it was more a matter of Velvia 50 being a very old emulsion and Fuji wanted to upgrade it to be more like the rest of the F line. I suspect that both are probably the case, except the former was probably more a cost factor than an availablilty factor.

Regardless, Velvia 100 is what we have, and what we have to live with. I find the 100 to be a good substitute in many, but not all, situations. For those situations I have a small stock of the 50 left.

Andy K · May 26, 2006

Just cheer you up a bit Robert I may give the Velvia 100 a try. The last time I shot transparencies was in 1987.

roteague · May 26, 2006

Andy K said:
Just cheer you up a bit Robert I may give the Velvia 100 a try. The last time I shot transparencies was in 1987.

Good man...

Perhaps, when I visit England again (maybe next summer) you can show them to me - after you show me the local pub, that is.

BTW, I've been to that spot, as well as the rock formation in the background.

Petzi · May 26, 2006

Markok765 said:
I wonder what raw material it was?

One of the couple thousand chemicals that are used to make the emulsion.

My dealer still has Velvia 50 in 135, 120, 4x5" and 8x10" formats.

Andy K · May 26, 2006

roteague said:
Good man...

Perhaps, when I visit England again (maybe next summer) you can show them to me - after you show me the local pub, that is.

BTW, I've been to that spot, as well as the rock formation in the background.

My local pub is a bit of a 'flying bottle' as we say here. Not a good place to take a guest to this country!

That spot was a few meters up from the top of the 'chain' as I took a breather before continuing to the top and signing the guestbook. Not sure what they're called today, but in '87 those rocks were called Mt Olga.

Ps. Shot in '87. Not as pretty as your avatar though.

roteague · May 26, 2006

Andy K said:
My local pub is a bit of a 'flying bottle' as we say here. Not a good place to take a guest to this country!

That spot was a few meters up from the top of the 'chain' as I took a breather before continuing to the top and signing the guestbook. Not sure what they're called today, but in '87 those rocks were called Mt Olga.

Ps. Shot in '87. Not as pretty as your avatar though.

The Aboriginal name for the Olgas is "Kata Tjuta" - they have gotten away from calling these places by their English names.

Not to worry about the Uluru picture, my avartar came from Australia.com - none of my images of Uluru are that good, and I don't plan on returning there (too touristy).

Nige · May 26, 2006

hoping to visit the rock next year. Don't know if will get to climb it, as youngest son may not be up to it yet (me either unless I get a bit fitter!). I think most 'locals' call Ayers Rock by it's 'native' name these days, but nobody knows the Olgas name, nor can pronounce it!

Andy K · May 26, 2006

I remember some of the features... the Dingo God's Paw Prints and the Kangaroo Tail at Uluru, the Dying Kangaroo Man at Mt Olga... and don't forget Mt Connor on the way to Uluru.

The climb is pretty easy after the chain, so long as you follow the dotted line. If you don't you could end up with your name on a nice little bronze memorial plaque at the base of the climb.

Roger Hicks · May 26, 2006

Lee, Robert,

Velvia 50 had its enemies too. I hated it because it replaced the old Fuji RF/RFP ISO 50, my favourite colour film of all time.

Cheers,

Roger

Dave Parker · May 26, 2006

Roger Hicks said:
Lee, Robert,

Velvia 50 had its enemies too. I hated it because it replaced the old Fuji RF/RFP ISO 50, my favourite colour film of all time.

Cheers,

Roger

I don't think there has ever been a film that DID NOT have enemies, if there were I have never heard of it and we would not have seen so many great films over the years.

R.

Markok765 · May 26, 2006

Roxi331 said:
I don't think there has ever been a film that DID NOT have enemies, if there were I have never heard of it and we would not have seen so many great films over the years.

R.

what about tri-x?

Dave Parker · May 26, 2006

Markok765 said:
what about tri-x?

Yup,

I have even known those did not like Tri-x, believe it or not!

LOL

R.

Petzi · May 26, 2006

Me. I hate Tri-X.

Markok765 · May 26, 2006

Petzi said:
Me. I hate Tri-X.

You must be one of those ppl that when they look at a photo shot with anything over 50 iso they go"Oh, no grain! please dont make my image Great. u know what would scare you thhe most? ilford delta 3200 developed in rodinal. gahsp!

Marko

Petzi · May 26, 2006

I eat grain each morning. I don't need any of that in my pictures.

Markok765 · May 26, 2006

Petzi said:
I eat grain each morning. I don't need any of that in my pictures.

Whats wrong with grain? its beautiful. it adds texture and realness to the print, add to that the beautiful tonal range of tri-x

nworth · May 27, 2006

Yes, Velvia 50 had enemies. It was great when it was great, but too often it would do odd things.

Back to the subject, though. A Fuji representative told me that some component of the film (or its processing effluent) violated the new European environmental laws.

Noons · May 27, 2006

Andy K said:
I remember some of the features... the Dingo God's Paw Prints and the Kangaroo Tail at Uluru, the Dying Kangaroo Man at Mt Olga... and don't forget Mt Connor on the way to Uluru.

There is also a magical place behind Mt. Olga. It's called "Valley of the Winds". You get to it after a 10 minute walk off the track around the Olgas. You go over a little hill and then bingo: before you is the valley. It looks like an old Cinerama movie - for those who rememebr what that means... - but it's darn real. Amazing place.

Noons · May 27, 2006

roteague said:
the 100 to be a good substitute in many, but not all, situations. For those situations I have a small stock of the 50 left.

Interesting statement. Been using 50, but have tried the new 100 and I find it - at least in 35mm - an amazing film indeed. Tried it in the rb67 and found that it needs about 1/3 stop more exposure - that could be a defect of my camera.

What do you reserve your 50 for? I've got some 120 size 50 left and was thinking of using it asap and go 100 only, but now I'm entirely curious!

Dave Parker · May 27, 2006

Noons said:
Interesting statement. Been using 50, but have tried the new 100 and I find it - at least in 35mm - an amazing film indeed. Tried it in the rb67 and found that it needs about 1/3 stop more exposure - that could be a defect of my camera.

What do you reserve your 50 for? I've got some 120 size 50 left and was thinking of using it asap and go 100 only, but now I'm entirely curious!

Not Robert,

But I am a shooter of Velvia 50 going back many years, as well as Kodachrome for many years before that, I don't find the 100 (not 100F) as saturated, the contrast curves are different and the film is more muted than the old ISO 50 was, it is what we have to live with now, but not the same film, the grain structure is good, but I find the subtle difference in the shadow areas not as good, someone else said Velvia 50 would do odd things, I never found it to do anything odd, if you were exposing it correctly and knew how the film reacted to certain situations, I shot Velvia 50 at ISO 40 for many years and processed normally and have had hundreds of shots published over the years in various outdoors magazines with no problems at all.

I am not saying its bad, but is different and takes some getting used to after many years of shooting is older brother.

R.

roteague · May 27, 2006

Noons said:
Interesting statement. Been using 50, but have tried the new 100 and I find it - at least in 35mm - an amazing film indeed. Tried it in the rb67 and found that it needs about 1/3 stop more exposure - that could be a defect of my camera.

What do you reserve your 50 for? I've got some 120 size 50 left and was thinking of using it asap and go 100 only, but now I'm entirely curious!

Noons,

I don't have a large stock, just enough for my next trip. I love the way that Velvia 50 looks in the desert - deserts are hard enough to photograph that the subtle colors the 50 is capable of rendering can make the difference between a great image and a so-so image. Here in Hawaii I find the 100 to be a good film, and I have successfully used it in New Zealand as well.

So, the batch I have I am saving for my next trip. This October I am going on a road trip with my friend Steve (from Adelaide); we will be travelling from Adelaide to Alice Springs, where we will spend several days photographing in the West MacDonnell range. Another APUG member from WA is supposed to join us.

As for Kata Tjuta:

http://www.visionlandscapes.com/Gallery.aspx?Gallery=Australia&ImageID=AU4020&Page=1

roteague · May 27, 2006

Roxi331 said:
I am not saying its bad, but is different and takes some getting used to after many years of shooting is older brother.

R.

Roxi331,

I agree with you. While I'm not happy that the 50 is gone, I am now doing almost all of my shooting on the new 100, and getting used to it; it is the only real choice we have.

srs5694 · May 27, 2006

Noons said:
What do you reserve your 50 for? I've got some 120 size 50 left and was thinking of using it asap and go 100 only, but now I'm entirely curious!

Others have posted about subtle differences, but let me state that I'm hoarding my small stash of Velvia 50 for the obvious reason: It's one stop slower than any other color film that's currently available. The general public has gotten obsessed with film (or now, digital sensor) speed and has forgotten that slow films enable effects like long shutter speeds to blur moving things and wide-open apertures in daylight to get narrow depth-of-field. Although it's true that ND filters enable you to do these things with faster films, they're a bit of a hassle to use and they aren't always practical. I've got a couple of oddball ultrawide lenses with rear-mounted filters. I expect I'd have to get ND filters custom made for them.

Why velvia 50 died

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency