Why velvia 50 died

Craig · May 27, 2006

Roxi331 said:
I have even known those did not like Tri-x, believe it or not!

Me too. I've never had anything good out of it, but I have had it reticulate and other rolls the emulsion washed right off, I poured it out with the fix and was left with clear base. Oddly, it was a 2 roll tank and I did a roll of HP5 in the tank at the same time and it turned out perfectly. Maybe the Ilford film objected to being in the same tank as the Kodak?

Since those disasters, I've never used Tri-X again.

jd callow · May 27, 2006

txp rocks

Photo Engineer · May 27, 2006

Craig said:
Me too. I've never had anything good out of it, but I have had it reticulate and other rolls the emulsion washed right off, I poured it out with the fix and was left with clear base. Oddly, it was a 2 roll tank and I did a roll of HP5 in the tank at the same time and it turned out perfectly. Maybe the Ilford film objected to being in the same tank as the Kodak?

Since those disasters, I've never used Tri-X again.

Since no Kodak film is supposed to reticulate or wash off the support if processed properly, did you complain to Kodak and get the problem resolved?

They could give you your money back and you could have bought some Ilford film.

OTOH, if you didn't complain, how would EK know they had a problem, and why didn't you complain? It seems to me, a disaster like this without a complaint is a waste of your money.

PE

Craig · May 27, 2006

The film was given to me, so I wasn't out of pocket anything. I didn't complain at the time because I didn't have an emulsion number or anything traceable (like packaging).

Photo Engineer · May 27, 2006

Craig said:
The film was given to me, so I wasn't out of pocket anything. I didn't complain at the time because I didn't have an emulsion number or anything traceable (like packaging).

Interesting that this would happen to a Kodak film. Being made in 5000 foot runs up to 60" wide means that if there is such a defect, a LOT of customers are going to have problems. This didn't happen.

Hardener cannot be misssing from just a small segment of a run without having other major defects present that are visible even on reticulated film. ILEB and subbing problems are more likelly, but the absence of ILEB would have been observed during coating, PreEB would be a probable cause, but again, a lapse in this would be like night and day literally due to the brilliant discharge present. A subbing error would be my guess, and EK would want to know about it. However, it cannot cause reticulation AFAIK. So there are some interesting things about this that should be made known.

Therefore, IMHO, something else played a part in your problem. For example, did you verify the edge markings? Was it Kodak film?

I would suggest that even without your information, the code on the edge of the film would help Kodak identify the batch and they would want to know about this. Don't hesitate to contact them and send a sample of the reticulated film with edge markings along with the samples that washed off. They can determine what went wrong.

And you did incur costs from processing, so you are due some compensation, provided it was not your fault.

PE

Craig · May 27, 2006

Photo Engineer said:
Therefore, IMHO, something else played a part in your problem. For example, did you verify the edge markings? Was it Kodak film?
PE

Yes, it was Kodak, Tri-X (rather than TXP). It came from a 100' bulk roll. The odd thing was I had other film from that roll and it came out fine. I was teaching a workshop at the time and we went through quite a bit of film a day and it was all bulkrolled. Other films from the same 100' roll went through the same batch of chemistry and were ok. After the emulsion washoff I dumped the chemistry and mixed fresh. It was D76 and Ilford fixer. This all happened about 15 years ago, but I've been gun shy about using TX after that.

The roll that reticulated was a year or so earlier and that was a 135-36 in original Kodak packaging, so I figured that I must have misprocessed it.

Ilford is easier to obtain for me, so that's generally what I use, althogh I have had some beautiful results off Plus X.

roteague · May 27, 2006

srs5694 said:
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.

True, but Velvia 50 could be quite nasty at long exposures. In those situations, I prefer the Velvia 100.

removed account4 · May 27, 2006

i am a fan of tri x too,
i don't care if it is the olde stuff, the new stuff
400 or 320, it is good.

i do have a box or 2 of 5x7 tri x expired in the 90s ..
factory sealed before i opened them, and not one sheet
out of 100 had ---vvv-- notch codes

oh, i also like velveeta, have a few boxes that my camera is slowly eating

Sparky · May 27, 2006

I'm confused here.

I'd been following this thread... but am seeing evidence to the contrary. The fuji dealer NEXT DOOR TO ME (how about that??) told me Velvia 50 WASN'T discontinued... that it was brought back because it's replacement didn't work out. So I checked online - and - as of yesterday anyway, B&H has a FULL complement of Velvia 50 available. Any size you want - in unlimited quantities...

so - is it dead or not??

signed,
Confused.

Paul Sorensen · May 27, 2006

Sparky said:
I'd been following this thread... but am seeing evidence to the contrary. The fuji dealer NEXT DOOR TO ME (how about that??) told me Velvia 50 WASN'T discontinued... that it was brought back because it's replacement didn't work out. So I checked online - and - as of yesterday anyway, B&H has a FULL complement of Velvia 50 available. Any size you want - in unlimited quantities...

so - is it dead or not??

signed,
Confused.

Here is what Fuji's web site has to say: "Velvia 50 is expected to be available into 2006 with eventual replacement by Fujichrome Velvia 100 Professional."

copied from http://www.fujifilmusa.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/proPhotoProductVelvia.jsp

I have also seen it about fairly regularly. I got some 4X5 sheets really cheap from Hunt's camera on eBay, it does seem that folks are closing it out.

roteague · May 28, 2006

Sparky said:
so - is it dead or not??

Yes, Fuji announced last December when the final batch was run. I'm not surprised you can still get it, I'm sure they only run a few batches a year anyway, so one batch would last quite a while (probably longer when you consider all those choosing to shoot digital or Velvia 100).

Noons · May 28, 2006

Ah OK. Thanks a lot. Yes, I agree: 50 is excellent for the hard but subtle colours and tones of the Australian desert. Hmmm, makes me think I should keep a box or two in the freezer just in case I need it later on... It's still easily available over here, so now seems to be the time to hoard it.

Andy K · May 28, 2006

Hi Noons, not sure if you'll know but I'll ask anyway, are you aware of any new restrictions in place on photography around Uluru? Are people still permitted to climb the rock? I seem remember reading somewhere that climbing the rock was to be stopped due to Aboriginal objections.

It is a long time since I was there (1987), I have heard that it is overly 'touristy' now and there are concerns about the environmental impact of tourism. When I went the only way in or out was a long coach ride from Alice Springs, apparently now there is an airstrip? There was only the one hotel when I was there too.

Tony Egan · May 28, 2006

Andy K said:
are you aware of any new restrictions in place on photography around Uluru? Are people still permitted to climb the rock? I seem remember reading somewhere that climbing the rock was to be stopped due to Aboriginal objections.

I have not been to Uluru but my daughter was there last year. Climbing is actively discouraged by the local Aboriginies but is still permitted. Photography is also strongly discouraged in certain areas. In an earlier post someone mentioned the Valley of the Winds near the Olgas which is no longer accessible to the public. Wim Wenders the film maker has photographed in the Australian outback and withdrew an image of the Valley of the Winds which was supposed to be part of an exhibition in Sydney a few years ago. There is an image and some commentary about this on his site here:
http://www.wim-wenders.com/news_reel/2002/pftsote3.htm

roteague · May 28, 2006

The last time I was at Uluru, in 2001, climbing was still permitted but discouraged (but I'm not convinced the Aboriginies really care). Large areas are off limits for photography, as is the case with Kata Tjuta as well. Valley of the Winds was off limits. The tourism is rampant there; the village outside the park, Yulara, has its own airstrip, several hotels; now very touristy, and very expensive - a standard room was AU $300 per night. These and other reasons are why I will never go to this park again. Kind of like the Australian version of Yosemite.

Noons · May 29, 2006

Andy K said:
Hi Noons, not sure if you'll know but I'll ask anyway, are you aware of any new restrictions in place on photography around Uluru? Are people still permitted to climb the rock? I seem remember reading somewhere that climbing the rock was to be stopped due to Aboriginal objections.

Not new ones, just what's been in place for a few years now: you can still climb the rock but it's verbally discouraged. I wouldn't let this stop you, though: as the other folks commented, the local natives more than likely had nothing to do with that and it's still the main reason people go there. The view is worth it! Take it away and the place might as well close.

There are a few spots around the rock that are sacred and have been so for a long time and where the local Aboriginals ask folks not to take pictures. Fair enough, it's only a few places anyway. And there is PLENTY of other good angles to explore. You can still photograph around the rock from the outer track, the views are superb.

The news about the Valley of the Winds is very disturbing! It's a magical place indeed, but from there to asking folks not to walk in... I can't help the feeling the local Aboriginals probably had little interference on that one!

Time to rescue my slides form the area and scan/duplicate them just in case the Kodachrome gives up...

There is an airstrip and a high-end hotel in a resort around 20Kms or so from the rock. Complete with swimming pool and other lunacy, prices matching.
Place is called Yulara, look it up on the net.

I stayed there in the late 80s in a caravan in the camping ground which was a LOT cheaper. That'd be my first choice nowadays, if still available: the hotel is just plain silly expensive.

Someone else mentioned Mt Connor? That's around 70Kms East of Uluru and off the main road: you need a properly equiped vehicle or a tour in order to visit it. It's quite a place as well: I'd make an effort to go there. The road in goes through some almost pristine desert shrub vegetation that used to be all around the place. Superb nature and landscape photography there!

Graeme Hird · May 31, 2006

You can explore most of Ayers Rock with your camera unless you are a pro photographer. You can't publish any shot (in any form) without paying a fee and having approval to do so.

I'm not interested in visiting the place.

Graeme

Colden · Jun 9, 2006

This is both a bit late and a bit off-topic, but what is with all this talk that goes something like this: "...if *sigh* you can still get the Velvia 50..." and so on. B&H told me that they have "thousands of rolls" in stock (June/2006). If anyone wants the Velvia 50, why not buy it now then, and stick it in the freezer? It does not appear to be hard to get at this point in time at $5/roll of 36 in 35mm. Perhaps other formats are more of a problem?

Now, I, of course, understand that it will not be produced indefinitely, to be discontinued some time this year, in fact, but already dozens of posts and references across this and other forums exist referring to this film (in 35mm) as either already dead or impossible to get. Something similar is going on with Kodachrome.

Gerald Koch · Jun 9, 2006

Markok765 said:
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. I wonder what raw material it was?

I believe it was the film base that was discontinued. IIRC, there is only one company now still manufacturing base materials. This has led to the discontinuation of other products as the number of materials has narrowed.

Dave Parker · Jun 9, 2006

Colden said:
Now, I, of course, understand that it will not be produced indefinitely, to be discontinued some time this year, in fact, but already dozens of posts and references across this and other forums exist referring to this film (in 35mm) as either already dead or impossible to get. Something similar is going on with Kodachrome.

The actual production of Velvia ISO 50 was discontinued in Dec of 2005, the stocks you are seeing at stores is the last of the ISO 50 films, our local store that I used to work at, can no longer get it from the suppliers and this will continue to be a declining product as the stocks are bought up, I have several thousands of rolls myself that have been in the freezer and will continue to deplete as I shoot it..

R.

Why velvia 50 died

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency