Velvia 50 Production to End!!

Rob, the issue is that with slide film, most of the photos don't look anything like what you see in real life. With digital, the prints look very closely like what was expected because of the lack of significant colour errors. The automatic (or manual) white balance and how well it works makes all the difference in nature photography in the northern latitudes which slide films were never designed for. This is one point.

 

Secondly, people are encouraged to experiment by the fact that the shots are likely to come out well (due to the accurate colours).

 

Third, the APS crop factor and high quality per sensor are allows the taking of close-ups only dreamed about with film.

 

Fourth, the high quality of iso 400 in sensors also contributes, allowing shots of wildlife which could never have been printed in high quality (iso 400 slide film isn't high quality) in a book. Also, the colours of iso 400 slide films are muddy and unimpressive.

 

Fifth, the increased depth of field of small-sensor cameras allows shots to be done which couldn't have been done (in high quality) before. This is evident in close-up photography. New insect photos of previously impossible angles.

 

Sixth, shooting with digital is free for the failed shots which never make it to print. This encourages experimentation.

 

Velvia was popular because it gave a special look which in some situations was very useful. But in all, given grain-free images with accurate colours, most people won't miss it.

 

I could go on and on. But still, I shoot a lot of slide film even now.

typo: per sensor area

 

Also one additional thing: digital encourages children to play with photography, learning fast and not having to justify the costs of film and processing to their parents. New angles come out of this. Photography is no longer restricted to rich adults.

Film photography is restricted to rich adults? I guess with the introduction of digital photography we''ll see kids in urban ghettos running around with 20D's any time now.

No but with film cameras you had to have at least an SLR to get different angles of view. Compact digital cameras can give in some ways better results than an extensive 35 mm SLR system.

 

I know that in the US "things" like cameras and film are relatively cheap and so you may not have to be wealthy to do photography. But many of my friends take only a few rolls a year precisely because it costs so much to get the pictures. With digital, they shoot easily 100 times as many pics in a given time.

My original point was that if I was back in my high school years, I'd have an easier time asking my parents for $100 or so for an entry level or used film SLR and a few bucks for film every now and then as opposed to $1000 or more for a digital slr, plus more for a printer, oh yeah and then the software thats required to get acceptable images. If I asked for this they'd give me a pencil and tell me to take up drawing.

BTW I'm not sure what you mean by the whole "angle of view thing." Why would you need a digital camera to get a better angle of view? If you are refering to the crop factor I see that more as a negative than anything.

Remember, printing is not needed to learn photography with a digital camera. That's how 99% of digital camera users use it 99% of the time - just view it on the monitor. A great many new photographers are emerging because of the possibility of digital capture. And the typical photographs also seem to be better. Not because digital photographic technology is better but rather because they shoot a lot of pictures. Which they didn't do with film because of the continuous expense of it and also because traditional methods give no control over the technical result to the photographer unless he or she learns a lot about it.

A point and shoot 35 mm camera is either of fixed focal length (so no angle of view choice is given to the photographer) or has obscenely small maximum apertures in the long end and poor quality. With digital, a p&s can have f/2.8 aperture and yet a wide range of focal lengths. This has been made possible because of the small sensors. Also because of the small sensors, the depth of field for an equivalent shot is larger, so it's easier to take pictures which are in focus.

 

For SLR users (which constitute a small proportion of emerging photographers), digital is more expensive - and most people choose to use digital compacts instead. Digital compact cameras give publishable results which point and shoot 35 mm zoom compacts do not.

Needless to say, that I import my film from the US due to the low imposts levied there. God Bless America.

<p>Michael, I love the spin Linney puts on this matter: 'appreciate the benefits the new film has to offer.' His choice of words are telling: benefits not <i>advantages</i>. Very few V50 users think much of V100F, from its release to the present. Bear in mind Linney is a UK employee.</p>

 

<p>Informed comment and discussion is not whining, Mr Ci. Reports from Japan failed to ignite much interest in V100 either, and one poster here gave some reasons why.</p>

 

<p>So why would such a good company take such a bad decision? It is not likely because of declining demand, V50 is probably the easiest 120 and LF film to find in the local outlets, and it is always fresh. Scanning difficulties, moving with the times? Hardly likely, Imacons and higher class of scanners cope fine with Velvia, and it is a professional emulsion, so desktop scanners are a lesser issue. Are drums and Lightjets digital enough for you? Speed? No, serious nature photographers understand the need for tripods. Even V50s reciprocity character has fans, due to the favourable colour shift for much subject matter.</p>

 

<p>One poster raised the notion of very few photographers shooting slides these days. News for him, most magazines of nature subject matter actively <i>encourage and prefer</i> transparencies; I guess they too are 'behind the times'. Comforting to hear the Finnish Nature Photographer is steaming ahead ;-)</p>

 

<p>The real message is that landscape photographers have almost 12 months to stock up and for Fujifilm Corp to reconsider this foolish course of action. But, it is a very Japanese thing to do, to replace something wonderful with an inferior product, and it is surely a defining characteristic of the age to do so.</p>

I don't understand the infatuation with capturing the scene as "real" as you saw it. Most nature photographs I've seen have some form of digital "color" enhancements post exposure - digital or film. How can anyone really tell how the "scene" was in reality when only the photographer's memory of the "scene" is left to judge againt's the exposed image? I'd much rather render the image as rich and lively as I "felt" during and after the time fo exposure. Being an avid fan of Shaw's work and style (and most of his beautiful images are captured in Velvia) I'm having a hard time about the eventual demise of Velvia 50. I just simply don't think any digital sensor out there is capable of being "better" than this film in the larger format - landscape images from d70 and Drebel are bland right off the sensor without any post-processing especially in Saturation. I've had hundreds of Drebel images that bore the heck out me, especially in color and 99% of the time in Overcast light - I've taken the exact same scene in Velvia 50 (Medium Format) and it simply produced the better image. Now, maybe this is just my preference because I love color and rich lively color really catches my attention.

At least in my experience most nature photographers (those who focus on the nature, e.g., biologists etc.) are in love with digital because of the accurate colours and grain-free images. If Velvia is so great, why then would Fuji even consider discontinuing it? Obviously the decision has to have come out of poor sales.

 

Yes, you can still see a lot of reproductions from slides in photography magazines, but I think it will only be a matter of 1-2 years before it has reversed. Since the quality is in favour of digital capture (IMHO), those magazines who insist on slides will simply die out because of the cost of good scanning and processing required to use slides as the source. If a lot of people wanted false colours, then obviously they would keep buying the original Velvia and all would be happy. But they aren't buying it.

Ilkka, they aren't buying Velvia because everyone is jumping on the neverending digital merry-go-round. What really irks me is that everyone thinks that Velvia produces fake replications of a scene that existed at the point of capture. From my experience, nothing is further from the truth. Velvia enhances magenta, and green. So what. Scanning removes a little green 9 times out of ten so its a nill sum game. There is no film that is able to replicate the supremely advanced ability of the human eye to distinguish between actual colour and tonal difference, but as far as I can determine, Velvia 50 does the best job in certain lighting conditions.

 

Unfortunaltely, Ilka you are right, the discontinuation of Velvia must be a financial decision. It is without doubt the choice of the best Landscape photographers the world over. The likes of Joe Cornish, Charlie Waite in the UK, Ken Duncan in Australia, and anyone you point a finger at the the good old USA will use Velvia for their Landscape images. Unfortunatley, the millions of average Joes which are the bread and butter for the likes of Fuji have trotted off and invested heavily in an expensive piece of obsolete electronics that will only be able to produce an image of 20 inches at any respectable resolution. If you're in magazine advertising, hip hip hooray, but if you are into exhibition quality photography, it is the beginning of the end.

PS, given that PN hails from the land of free speech, the amount of editing that is done to forum discussion astounds me. We're only talking about a film emulsion.......

Michael, I actually sincerely believe that the colours from Velvia are very inaccurate and think that my D70 gives far better results of nature photography subjects. Nobody forced me to think that way, in fact I was reluctant to admit it but the results speak for themselves. I do recognize that Velvia is very popular for high-end landscape photography but at this point anything film and high-end are being cut.

 

As for free speech, the US is anything but that! It is a joke. I have friends who lived in the US during the latest Iraqi war and those e-mails that they sent which mentioned the name of the current president of the US never went to their recipient's mailbox! It also is shocking to see what US TV shows in "news" - from it I could conclude that only one of the Soviet Unions survived: the USA.

I'm pretty conviinced that it is not volume alone which is forcing this decision. It might be volume that causes Fuji to conclude that they can't sustain three "Velvias" in the factory, but if it were just a question of shedding a line then decisions to drop Velvia 100F or not to launch 100 would have been just as useful to them and possibly pose less brand share risk. To be frank they could have taken *both* these alternatives and resumed a single Velvia strategy with RVP, with less commercial risk than the route they're taking.

 

There is something else in play here- whether there is really an environmental issue or not; whether its just down to the desire to have just their recent films in play across the transparency market as a last throw there and so they can divert the R&D; or just a marketing-driven desire for a neat three sub-brands all at 100 ISO.

Frankly, in a Japanese business this has all the trappings of a factory decision and the country sales & marketing units may not be in favour and may not even have been consulted - just left to convince their respective marketplaces as best they can.

 

None of this affects a thing though. Unless sales of 100 and 100F are catastrophic in US and Europe the decision won't change.

So that nobody misunderstands me: I am in favour of diversity in film emulsions, and that includes Velvia. I just think it's overused in nature photography and would prefer a more accurate approach. But an occasional Velvia 50 shot in the right conditions can be spectacular. But what bugs me is that a lot of those special emulsions which can still compete with digital in quality are gone. Velvia, Technical Pan, Kodachrome 25 etc. This is because they're the poorest selling emulsions of course. Let us hope that iso 100 films aren't next!! If they go, there isn't anything worthwhile doing in film photography anymore in my opinion.

I agree. If the 100 films go, I will probably stop shooting film for most things. I only use 400 speed for portraits and night shots, so my main use is slow films like 25, 50, and 100. Royal Gold 100 was axed and never replaced, so I'm wondering how long Gold 100 has before its chopped too. Its sad there really is not many films that can compete with digital anymore. I'm still wondering if Velvia 100 has the same sharpness/ accutance as the 50 speed. I doubt it.

Scott, I doubt the 100 will be as sharp as the 50, otherwise Provia 400 would be as sharp as provia 100.

 

I also agree that if the film companies stop production of 100ASA, then medium and large format landscape photography will be finished. I don't know of anyone who shoots professionally (for landscapes that is) with speeds over 125.

"But, it is a very Japanese thing to do, to replace something wonderful with an inferior product,"

 

I called Fuji here in Japan, and it's official here as well: Velvia 50 is being phased out. Their official reason is _exactly_ the same as Kodak's official reason for cancelling Tech Pan: the materials from which it was made are no longer available and any attempt to replicate it would result in a film with different properties.

 

So, is this a lie? I personally doubt it, but then I'm not a fan of paranoid conspiracy theories...

 

Personally, I'm tired of the electric greens in every landscape shot I see and don't like the blown reds with all the detail gone. So the complaints and teeth-gnashing seem a tad excessive.

Although many people still prefer slow speed films like Velvia, the major film companies seem uncommitted to producing anything that isn't being bought in record numbers. So instead of supporting a loyal but niche customer base, they would rather gradually force everyone to buy films which suit there production needs rather than the needs of the consumer. Their goal is probably to have everyone shooting 400 speed Kodak Max type films in a few years so people are so disgusted with film they will want to go digital whether it suits them or not.

The main reason I buy RVP 50 instead of E100VS is that it is slower. I hope Lex is right. Also, if the best film in the world was ISO 10, people would line up to buy it. It looks to me as if I'm going to have to buy one of those expensive adjustable neutral density filters. I hope the new product is better than RVP 100F. Also I would like to point out that the color saturation of nature sometimes exceeds film. Anything can be misused.