Professional Web Applications Themes

Velvia 50 - Photography

"Alan Browne" <ca> wrote in message news:ca...  True enuff Alan, but when your exposure is right-on, a reversal film is a thing of beauty not surpassed by negative film -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----...

  1. #21

    Default Re: Velvia 50


    "Alan Browne" <ca> wrote in message
    news:ca... 

    True enuff Alan, but when your exposure is right-on, a reversal film is a
    thing of beauty not surpassed by negative film




    -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
    Jim Guest

  2. #22

    Default Re: Velvia 50


    "Jim Waggener" <net> wrote in message
    news:newsgroups.com... 
    >
    > True enuff Alan, but when your exposure is right-on, a reversal film is a
    > thing of beauty not surpassed by negative film[/ref]

    Never surpassed; never even close. Uninspired colors, low contrast, and
    grain. Negative film's a disaster. (Although shadow detail is nice to have
    some times.)

    I've got a couple of rolls of the new Astia 100F coming back from the lab
    Friday. I'm really looking forward to it. Finer grain, more accurate colors,
    and (slightly) wider lattitude than Provia 100F. If it only lives up to half
    the hype, I'll probably find all other films unacceptable.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan


    David Guest

  3. #23

    Default Re: Velvia 50

    On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 09:55:13 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
    <com> wrote:
     


    Yes it is grainy, but the color/contrast complaint isn't all
    that relevant -- both of these can be adjusted in Photoshop,
    with minimal effort. I go for subtle colors, anyway -- I don't
    really need all my images pushing up against the gamut
    limits of RGB and CMYK.

    For scanning, negative film is generally easier to deal with
    than slides, since it isn't likely to push up against the dynamic
    range limits of the scanner.

    The extra lattitude means that there's usable detail almost
    everywhere in the frame -- something that's a lot harder to
    achieve with slides. It doesn't matter how much you bracket,
    or how dead-on your exposure is; if the contrast of the
    scene exceeds the film's lattitude, something's going to
    get pushed off the edge. Graduated ND filters can help
    in some situations, as can careful lighting, etc -- but all
    that takes extra effort, extra gear, etc -- and may not be
    possible in all cases.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
    Rafe Guest

  4. #24

    Default Re: Velvia 50

    "Karl Winkler" <com> wrote ... [/ref]
    confused 
    >
    > Not for the US. As far as I can tell (has anyone else seen the
    > incredible mini-poster Fuji inserted into some of the photo
    > magaiznes?) there's only Astia 100F and Velvia 100F. What would be the
    > use of a 100-speed Velvia if it wasn't "F" rated? <g>
    >[/ref]
    Indeed !! There are several Websites around that state that whilst the two
    100F films will be available world-wide, the Velvia 100 will be specifically
    for the Japanese market only, a fact which David seems singularly determined
    to ignore.

    However it's not unreasonable to assume that grey imports of Velvia 100 will
    eventually be available both in the USA and here in the UK


    Tony Guest

  5. #25

    Default Re: Velvia 50

    comnospam (Lewis Lang) wrote in message news:<aol.com>... 
    > >
    > >I don't shoot enough slides to really comment and nowhere near enough
    > >Velvia, but why would you want to launch a new version of Velvia that was
    > >less like Velvia and then yet another that is more like it?
    > >
    > >So now we have:
    > >
    > >(note only my guess)
    > >
    > >Astia 100F -lowish contrast and saturation
    > >Provia 100F - fairly contrasty normal to moderately saturated colour
    > >Velvia 100F - Part way between Provia 100F and velvia 100
    > >Velvia 100 - rather like Velvia 50
    > >Velvia 50 - very contrasty and very saturated.
    > >
    > >Its nice to have a choice but surely 3 films would do. Will they drop
    > >Velvia 50?
    > >
    > >If they keep this lineup going I suppose it proves that film is not dead!
    > >
    > >--
    > >co.uk
    > >http://www.petezilla.co.uk[/ref]
    >
    > I don't have the URL handy but somebody did a test that showed the Velvia 50
    > "classic" (I'll call it) was the sharpest film and one of the Velvias (100 or
    > F, I forget which one) had the finest grain. I actually prefer the Velvia 50
    > for its sharpness.[/ref]

    It's not very sharp at all. Kodachrom 64 is far sharper.

    http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e55/f002_0489ac.gif

    See how high above 100 the curve goes?

    No E-6 film matches that.

     
    Michael Guest

  6. #26

    Default Re: Velvia 50

    Michael Scarpitti writes:
     

    Not useful without a contrast ratio specified.

    Also, above 100% you are looking at accutance, not real detail.

    In any case, in looking at these films under a microscope, I didn't see
    any advantage to Kodachrome. Of course, if both E-6 and K-14 surpass
    the resolving ability of lenses, it doesn't really matter, does it?

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic Guest

  7. #27

    Default Re: Velvia 50

    SNIPS
     

    They do if you want to make large enlargements and prefer to see fine details
    (I do). Its a matter of preference as to which suits your needs for their look
    and sharpness (resolution vs. acutence), etc. I'm still waiting for my
    Kodachrome 125 which would have finer grain than the now defunct K25, equal
    acutence to the Kodachromes, and the saturation of the Fuji E-6 films if not
    their color pallette.

    Maybe one day Fuji will come up with their own K-14 process Kodachrome-like
    film. Wouldn't that be a kick? Not likely, but one can still "silver dream"...

    Lewis

    Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":

    http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

    Remove "nospam" to reply
    Lewis Guest

  8. #28

    Default Re: Velvia 50

    "David J. Littleboy" <com> wrote in message news:<bfm7j0$fc5$gol.com>... [/ref]
    > Velvia 50 [/ref]
    > (100 or [/ref]
    > Velvia 50 
    > >
    > > It's not very sharp at all. Kodachrom 64 is far sharper.
    > >
    > >[/ref]
    > http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e55/f002_0489ac
    > .gif 
    >
    > That's an artifact of the definitions used, and has nothing to do with
    > reality. What is significant is the response (or lack thereof) above 20
    > lp/mm.[/ref]

    Completely incorrect. What's significant is the response between 4 and
    20. That's where the eye is most sensitive. Above 25 or so is useless.
     
    >
    > Provia is slightly better (at the higher frequencies) according to the chart
    > in the middle of the page at:
    > http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF.html
    >
    > What's interesting is that the contrast is at 30% at 50 lp/mm. Contrast
    > lower than 30% isn't good for much other than resolution charts, and if you
    > want 4 lp/mm of 50% contrast detail on your prints, you'll need to keep your
    > enlargement under 10x with any of these films.
    >
    > David J. Littleboy
    > Tokyo, Japan[/ref]
    Michael Guest

  9. #29

    Default Re: Velvia 50

    "David J. Littleboy" <com> wrote in message news:<bfm7j0$fc5$gol.com>... [/ref]
    > Velvia 50 [/ref]
    > (100 or [/ref]
    > Velvia 50 
    > >
    > > It's not very sharp at all. Kodachrom 64 is far sharper.
    > >
    > >[/ref]
    > http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e55/f002_0489ac
    > .gif 
    >
    > That's an artifact of the definitions used, and has nothing to do with
    > reality. What is significant is the response (or lack thereof) above 20
    > lp/mm.[/ref]

    Precisely the opposite is true. Most valuable to the human eye is
    contrast response less than 20.
     
    >
    > Provia is slightly better (at the higher frequencies) according to the chart
    > in the middle of the page at:
    > http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF.html[/ref]

    NO E-6 film matches Kodachrome, and never will.
     
    Michael Guest

  10. #30

    Default Re: Velvia 50

    comnospam (Lewis Lang) wrote in message news:<aol.com>... 
    >
    > They do if you want to make large enlargements and prefer to see fine details
    > (I do). Its a matter of preference as to which suits your needs for their look
    > and sharpness (resolution vs. acutence), etc.[/ref]

    If you are like most people, you prefer higher contrast at 4-20 and a
    sharp drop off after that to a lower contrast overall, even if it goes
    out her.

    In other words, 100-125% from 4-20 beats 75% from 4 to 50.
     



    They used to have that, back in the 1950's.
    Michael Guest

  11. #31

    Default Re: Velvia 50

    >Subject: Re: Velvia 50 
    news:<aol.com>... 
    >>
    >> They do if you want to make large enlargements and prefer to see fine[/ref]
    >details 
    >look 
    >
    >If you are like most people, you prefer higher contrast at 4-20 and a
    >sharp drop off after that to a lower contrast overall, even if it goes
    >out her.
    >
    >In other words, 100-125% from 4-20 beats 75% from 4 to 50.
    >[/ref]

    I prefer both high edge acutence and resolution of fine details for the most
    part...
     
    >equal 
    >if not [/ref]
    dream"... 
    >
    >
    >
    >They used to have that, back in the 1950's.[/ref]

    When did they ever have Kodachrome 125 in 35mm in the 1950's? In the '80's they
    came ot with Kodachrome 64 in 120 roll film, in the 40's?/50's they had large
    format Kodachrome sheet film but the A.S.A. wasn't anywhere near 125.
    Kodachrome II (up to about 1974 was noted for its warm color pallette and
    enlargeability but it was A.S.A. 25.

    Lewis

    Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":

    http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

    Remove "nospam" to reply
    Lewis Guest

  12. #32

    Default Re: Velvia 50



    Jim Waggener wrote: 
    >
    >
    > True enuff Alan, but when your exposure is right-on, a reversal film is a
    > thing of beauty not surpassed by negative film
    >[/ref]


    Hi Jim,
    I wasn't saying one was better than the other, just the basics about
    latitude. Most of my film use is E-6 ... and yes, a projected colorful
    slide is great to look at...

    Cheers,
    Alan

    Alan Guest

  13. #33

    Default Re: Velvia 50

    Fuji has a Kodachrome-type film in the 50's for motion picture work.

    'Japan's first full-color feature-length film, exposure index 10, is
    produced on Fuji's non-substantive color reversal motion picture
    film.'

    Go to:

    http://www.fujifilm.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/MPHomePage.jsp?nav=1&parent=233850

    and click 'chronology'

    comnospam (Lewis Lang) wrote in message news:<aol.com>... 
    > news:<aol.com>... [/ref]
    > details [/ref]
    > look 
    > >
    > >If you are like most people, you prefer higher contrast at 4-20 and a
    > >sharp drop off after that to a lower contrast overall, even if it goes
    > >out her.
    > >
    > >In other words, 100-125% from 4-20 beats 75% from 4 to 50.
    > >[/ref]
    >
    > I prefer both high edge acutence and resolution of fine details for the most
    > part...
    > [/ref]
    > equal [/ref]
    > if not [/ref]
    > dream"... 
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >They used to have that, back in the 1950's.[/ref]
    >
    > When did they ever have Kodachrome 125 in 35mm in the 1950's? In the '80's they
    > came ot with Kodachrome 64 in 120 roll film, in the 40's?/50's they had large
    > format Kodachrome sheet film but the A.S.A. wasn't anywhere near 125.
    > Kodachrome II (up to about 1974 was noted for its warm color pallette and
    > enlargeability but it was A.S.A. 25.
    >
    > Lewis
    >
    > Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
    >
    > http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm
    >
    > Remove "nospam" to reply[/ref]
    Michael Guest

  14. #34

    Default Re: Velvia 50

    Mxsmanic <com> wrote in message news:<com>... 
    >
    > Not useful without a contrast ratio specified.[/ref]

    That IS the contrast ratio, bubba! 

    You're unbelievable. 
    Michael Guest

  15. #35

    Default Re: Velvia 50

    "David J. Littleboy" <com> wrote in message
    news:bfkmfm$2ct$gol.com...
    [SNIP] 
    colors, 
    half 

    Will you tell us what you think, and/or post some links?


    Peter


    Bandicoot Guest

  16. #36

    Default Re: Velvia 50

    com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message news:<google.com>... [/ref]
    > Velvia 50 [/ref]
    > (100 or [/ref]
    > Velvia 50 
    > > http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e55/f002_0489ac
    > > .gif 
    > >
    > > That's an artifact of the definitions used, and has nothing to do with
    > > reality. What is significant is the response (or lack thereof) above 20
    > > lp/mm.[/ref]
    >
    > Completely incorrect. What's significant is the response between 4 and
    > 20. That's where the eye is most sensitive. Above 25 or so is useless.[/ref]


    I quote:

    "Most MTF graphs give results for 5, 10, 20 and 40 lp/mm. It can be
    proved experimentally that the 5 and 10 lp/mm are responsible for the
    overall impression of image quality. The 40lp/mm refer to extremely
    fine detail in the original object. And the 20 lp/mm define the limit
    of details than can be usefully recorded on film."

    From:

    http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/rseries/testr/r14-50.html
    Michael Guest

  17. #37

    Default Re: Velvia 50

    com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message news:<google.com>... [/ref]
    > Velvia 50 [/ref]
    > (100 or [/ref]
    > Velvia 50 
    > > http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e55/f002_0489ac
    > > .gif 
    > >
    > > That's an artifact of the definitions used, and has nothing to do with
    > > reality. What is significant is the response (or lack thereof) above 20
    > > lp/mm.[/ref]
    >
    > Completely incorrect. What's significant is the response between 4 and
    > 20. That's where the eye is most sensitive. Above 25 or so is useless.[/ref]


    I quote:

    "Most MTF graphs give results for 5, 10, 20 and 40 lp/mm. It can be
    proved experimentally that the 5 and 10 lp/mm are responsible for the
    overall impression of image quality. The 40 lp/mm refer to extremely
    fine detail in the original object. And the 20 lp/mm define the limit
    of details than can be usefully recorded on film."

    From:

    http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/rseries/testr/r14-50.html
    Michael Guest

  18. #38

    Default Re: Velvia 50

    >Subject: Re: Velvia 50 

    I went there, I don't have shockwave and I have an old machine so I can't get
    shockwave (not enough hard drive space and an older system). What was this
    non-substantive process - was it similar to Kodachrome, or more like the dye
    destruction process of Cibachrome/Ilfochrome or something else? Did they
    release it in 35mm still film 135 cartridge format or could only moviemakers
    use the film? By the way, did you know that you/your newsreader is double
    posting you posts to this newsgroup?

    Lewis

    Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":

    http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

    Remove "nospam" to reply
    Lewis Guest

  19. #39

    Default Re: Velvia 50

    Mxsmanic <com> wrote in message news:<com>... 
    >
    > No, it's not.
    >
    > The MTF curve shows the percentage of the original contrast ratio that
    > is recorded on film. If the original contrast within a cycle projected
    > on the film is 1000:1, and the ratio of densities recorded on the film
    > is 500:1, the MTF is 50%.
    >
    > The MTF curves can vary with the contrast ratios of the test target. A
    > 1000:1 contrast ratio usually produces better MTF figures than a 2:1
    > contrast ratio. If you don't know the contrast ratios when comparing
    > MTF charges, you may be misled.

    >
    > I'm also right. MTF for films can exceed 100%, because some films,
    > given certain combinations of contrast ratio and cycles per unit length,
    > will exaggerate the original contrast, such that a contrast ratio of
    > 100:1 might produce a density ratio of 110:1 on the film. This will
    > yield an MTF at that point of 110%. The phenomenon is called accutance,
    > and its effect is very similar to unsharp-masking in Photoshop or in a
    > wet darkroom, except that film accutance usually looks nicer.[/ref]

    Yes, of course, but E-6 films can't do that, at least not yet. That's
    what's unique about Kodachrome. It has superb acutance, and that
    matters most of all. I did not understand you meant target contrast
    ratio. In any event, Kodachrome has better acutance than Velvia or any
    E-6 film CAN have.
     
    Michael Guest

  20. #40

    Default Re: Velvia 50

    Mxsmanic <com> wrote in message news:<com>... 
    >
    > I'll take your word for it. I don't recall ever seeing signs of it
    > (although I never looked for it) in E-6. Then again, the same is true
    > for Kodachrome.[/ref]

    No, it's not true for Kodachrome. That's the whole point. Kodachrome
    has better sharpness in the 4-20 range than E-6 film CAN have.
     
    >
    > Maybe. I wouldn't want accutance to go overboard.
    >
    > The last time I shot Kodachrome (K64 Professional), it looked and
    > scanned nicely, but I couldn't see anything special about it as compared
    > to E-6. And it costs $23 a roll, and takes two days to get developed.
    > Right now, I just don't see what I gain from shooting Kodachrome. Maybe
    > if it cost the same as E-6 and I could get it developed in an hour, I'd
    > think differently.[/ref]
    Michael Guest

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Expired Fuji Velvia
    By John O. in forum Photography
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 9th, 07:43 PM
  2. Provia or Velvia for static aircraft?
    By Peter Chant in forum Photography
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: July 20th, 10:18 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139