Velvia 50 Production to End!!

I have just read that Fujifilm are discontinuing production of

Velvia 50. I'm actually in shock. Fujifilm have released another

velvia 100 (obviously they knew velvia 100F was nothing like velvia

50) and they think that the time is right to cease production of

RVP. Well thanks very much for the consultation, but I don't think

the time will ever be right. Is it cheaper for them to produce

100asa films over 50? Why would they take this decision? Press

release attached. If anyone has anymore details (like it being an

early april fools day prank) please let me know.

 

Richard Linney, product manager for Fujifilm Professional,

said: "While Velvia 50 has traditionally been the favoured film for

many photographers there has always been the demand for a film that

offers high colour saturation but with higher speed and finer grain -

Velvia 100 provides this."

 

Linney continued: "With the launch of Velvia 100 we think the time

is right to discontinue production of Velvia 50. I would like to

reassure our customers that we have sufficient supplies of Velvia 50

to satisfy demand for at least the next 12 months. This will give

photographers ample time to make the transition from 50 to 100 and

to appreciate the benefits the new film has to offer."

That's a shame. I guess everyone's just shooting the 100 instead. Although, it has been many months since I've seen the 50 in any of the local pro shops around where I live, so they are obviously just following the market trend.

There was mention that RVP 50 has something during manufacture that has become listed as toxic/ hazardous. The new film just omits that. RVP 50 must be Fuji's oldest emulsion by now in color slide, so it wouldn't suprise me if something has become toxic.

The thing is that Velvia is slow and extremely difficult to scan, and digital gives better colors and almost as much detail, actually in a magazine a 6 MP digital image will probably look sharper. And no supernatural colours to worry about. Velvia 100F seems to be a lot easier to scan and the colors are more natural. If the 100 plain has similar colors to the original Velvia, there should be little not to like about it for those remaining precious few photographers who shoot slide film. Fuji thinks the new stuff is better, and they tested it in the Japanese market, and the conclusion seems to be that it is good, and would sell better than the 50. So given the reducing volumes of slide film use, Fuji has to do what they can to make profit.

"digital gives better colors"!??! According to who? Have you ever shot digital in overcast days? What color? I'm somebody who started in digital photography - saw several slides shot in Velvia 50/scanned and I sold all my digital SLR equipment. I love Velvia 50 for it's color rendition, no other film in history has ever compared to the rich color saturation of that film. You can't just recreate Velvia's effect on Digital SLR either, it's unique only to that film! I'm stocking up on the remaining Velvia 50 I can buy and start shooting the new 100 speed film as well - but DAMN I'm so attached to Velvia 50!!

You might get surprised by the lack of gasps and horror-which is possibly because the announcement was made on 8th February in US and there have been at least three of four threads on here on this already.

 

Couple of points though, I don't know where you are, Andrew, but there has been no shortage of Velvia 50 where I buy it, here in UK, and the supposed intention is to maintain supply for a year. The sellers I've talked to last week and this week have all indicated that the 50 sells still at least as well as Velvia 100F. I think a lot of people recognise that Velvia 100F is a very different film, and in many ways less good, so I don't think there's any question that RVP 50 is just being allowed to die, having been overtaken by the 100F version. If that were the case they wouldn't need to bother with the 100.

Adonnis I'm with you. You spend 3 years getting to know the best film in the indutry, knowing what it can and cant do, and then they take it away from you. Fuji said that 100F would be as good as 50, but I used 2 rolls. What if the new Velvia 100 is the same as the 100F. I much prefer provia 100F to Velvia 100F, and I'll be forced back to RDP if the new emulsion is "as good" as the 100F was hailed to be. If it is a toxicity thing, then get the chemists in to fix the issue.

 

For the photographers who state that you can get as good a picture out of a digital 16mega pixel camera thats fine, but for the images I sell I need a file of 100 mega pixels. At the moment, I laugh at the digital issue.

David, I live in Australia, so it seems that it taked about 8 days for the info to filter to the other side of the globe!

I don't know how many times this has to be repeated to sink in. The fact that Fuji has been producing two 100s has been known for a very long time even though only 100F has been available outside of Japan. Velvia 100 is supposed to be quite similar to Velvia 50 though twice as fast, and neither is similar to Velvia 100F.

I'm saddened too. Velvia 50 is one of my favorite films. The 100F version and Kodak E100VS don't hold a candle to it. It just has that individual look to it that we attribute to all of our most beloved films. You know, the Kodachrome look, the Tri-X look, the Velvia look, etc.

 

That makes me think. If this new Velvia 100 isn't up to scratch, where will all the formerly devout Velvia 50 users go? Back to the Kodachrome they abandoned 20 years ago, or to a competing product from Kodak or another manufacturer like E100VS? Hmmm.

 

I can't even begin to imagine the eBay auctions-it'll make Kodachrome 25 look like pocket change.

 

Guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Your complaining is based on the assumption that Velvia 100 will suck, or at least not be as good as 50. You have zero evidence that this is the case, and in light of the fact at Fuji has decided to replace the 50, it seems very unlikely.

 

Save your whining until you know you have something to whine about.

<i>"Andrew, but there has been no shortage of Velvia 50 where I buy it, here in UK, and the supposed intention is to maintain supply for a year"</i>

<p></p>

No suprise there. The state of things where I am just now (literally known as the armpit of Canada) is that there are only two shops locally that even stock "professional" film, and their stock often depends on who has bought out what and when they happened to put in a new order... I could even buy old Portra 400UC until this last summer b/c no-one else was using it. There is always plenty of the 100F though.

<p></p>

It's never bugged me much as I've either been shooting negative, digital or trying out the new Kodak and Agfa slide films anyway.

I've been living in Japan the last two years and have used all 3 Velvias and Fortia as well. In my opinion, Velvia 100 has no where near the amount of color saturation as Velvia 50. For example, when I was shooting autumn pictures with both 50 and 100, the reds of 100 don't even come close to 50.

<p>

However, there are a few occasions where Velvia 100 is almost equal to Velvia 50. The Japanese photography magazines have comparisons every once in a while comparing all 3 Velvias and Fortia. The blues of skies are just about equal between 50 and 100, but with sunrises and sunsets, there is no comparison. 50 has a lot more color. I won't even talk about 100F, it's not even worth buying.

<p>

One bit of good news though, I had my friend check through Fujifilm's Japan site for any information regarding the discontinuation of Velvia 50 in Japan. And after searching, we couldn't find any press release that said they were going to end it here. So for all you Velvia 50 diehards, like myself, maybe a trip to Japan will be on your schedule in the future.

We have already heard the story about the "toxic compound" several years ago, when APX25 disappeared. To say it frankly, I just dont't believe that a company like Fujifilm (or AGFA) is not able to substitute one compound by a lesser toxic one, but has to discontinue the product instead of. I guess it is all about "decreasing production numbers" and they just try to standardize the production as much as possible to cut down costs. Exotic films just don't fit in there.

 

Yes, you needed a tripod for Velvia 50 and a stopped-down lens with a polarizer, but the same will be true for the 100 speed film.

 

Especially many travel photographers have collected huge archives of pictures on Velvia 50, which they could mix for publication, no matter if they were 10 years or 10 days old (like people did with Kodachrome 64 decades ago). This guys won't be too happy when they have to switch film.

 

Regards

 

Georg

Adonis, I shoot my D70 in overcast light all the time and it beats any film I've ever used in that kind of light. The resulting prints are absolutely stunning, and Velvia in comparison would make me feel ill. But if you use a Canon digital, I couldn't agree with you more. It has nothing to do with the technology and everything to do with how the sensor data is processed.

 

The Finnish Nature Photographer 2005 competition book came out. A book that used to be mostly Velvia and Sensia is now 70% digital. And are the results worse? No. There is more experimentation going on and good results of new subjects never before photographed. And the photos look lifelike, and natural, which one could never say of Velvia.

I for one won't miss Velvia 50 but I am more concerned about the gradual disappearance of emulsions from the manufacturers' product lists. It's hard not to see it as another nail in the coffin of film.

But in this case there is a new film to replace the old.

I forgot to mention that I shoot Medium Format and Large Format films, and I've not seen any 6-8 Megapixel camera compare to any of those slides/trannies scanned in High Quality scanner. There's a whole discussion about creating a photograph as "real" as the scene. I don't think that's the pursuit of photography, at least for me. And my favorite photographers from John Shaw to Galen Rowell also mentioned that they create photos based on how they "felt" like in the scene being overwhelmed by the beauty of the sorrounding landscape - the colors the light... It is then transferred to Velvia 50 and hence a lot beautiful landscape images are created - full of vibrant colors, almost having a 3 dimensions...

I surmon that Fuji just do not see a large enough capacity of the market to maintain 3 different Velvia emulsion on export market. Sure for those who like the extrene saturated color, the Velvia range supreme. I won't miss it though, I much prefer the more faithful render of the 100F for my landscape and Flora. And Velvia never good for portrait anyway.

 

The implication of all thses, however is we will be seeing less choice and it will be harder to get film and its relating service ( D&P etc.. ) Well so long the lab still exist and provide E-6, I will be shooting film and my Minolta 5400 is giving me marvallous scan. Now I just have to save up so I can have the Nikon 9000

I anxiously await the introduction of Provia 50.

Its also very likely that fuji is killing velvia in favor of an emulsion that scans better since so many are concerned with this in the digital age. I've read many posts where people complain about not getting good scans from the traditional velvia. Personally I like velvia 50 the way it is. If you really need a film with "realistic" color rendition and scanability ease, there a plenty of other alternatives. Theres no need to make all films gravitate towards a middle of the road look. I like being able to chose from different films based on the look I am trying to achieve.

And hey, maybe they'll release another "50" film in the future anyway. Using the experience and technology they've produced over the last few years, they could probably come out with a new Velvia/Provia/Astia/Fortia/Whateveria film with a speed rating of 50 that has remarkably fine grain and tremendous resolving power.

 

That's only IF there's a market for it though. I'm sure they could somehow produce an ISO 10 film with many fine attributes but who in the world would buy it? Enthusiasts and a few amateurs and pros who need it for very special applications but the market would be TINY compared to the tons of consumer grade color negative films they sell at Walmart every day.

 

Maybe they'll even replace Velvia 50 with TWO films.. by that I mean maybe they'll release Velvia 100 here now, wait until the end of 2005 when they finally phase out Velvia 50 and finally release Fortia 50 over here. Then again, most slow films have died in favor of faster 'equivalent' films over the years. In the future, we may be saying "Remember Velvia 400? Man that was great stuff compared to this new Velvia 3200."

Ilkka Nissila wrote: <I>"Adonis, I shoot my D70 in overcast light

all the time and it beats any film I've ever used in that kind of

light. The resulting prints are absolutely stunning... But if you

use a Canon digital, I couldn't agree with you more."</I>

<P>

This is the first I've heard that the D70 produces better results

than Canon in overcast light. Canon samples on Dpreview.com

do look somewhat less 3D than results from Sony-CCD DSLRs and even

Olympus 4:3, but Canon color looks fine. Is there a thread in some

other forum discussing DSLRs and overcast light? I found nothing

like that in Ilkka's posting history.

<P>

Personally I like the results of Velvia 50 in cloudy/rainy weather,

at sub-Finnish latitudes, but it requires a tripod. However I suspect

that in 10 years, RVP will look as outdated as Kodachrome does now.

<i>The Finnish Nature Photographer 2005 competition book came out. A book that used to be mostly Velvia and Sensia is now 70% digital. And are the results worse? No. There is more experimentation going on and good results of new subjects never before photographed.</i><p>

 

This is in no way a poke at digital, but I simply don't subscribe to this idea that digital allows more experimentation, at least in the context of nature photography. Seriously, as photographers, I though the idea was to approach a scene and compose it with a vision that was in our "mind's eye". SLRs have been around for ages and they show us the image we're composing directly in the viewfinder. What's the difference between having the image projected on a tiny LCD screen on the back of the camera after the exposure or having it projected on the ground glass focusing screen in the viewfinder before exposure? Both are showing you what you're gonna get compositionally and neither will show you the correct exposure (visually) nor the true colors that will be in the finished file/frame.<p>

 

If you must experiment, why not take your camera, look through it, and try different angles, compositions, lenses etc. before actually clicking the shutter? The whole idea behind a through the lens (TTL) viewing system is to see exactly what you'll get.<p>

 

As far as digital allowing more experimentation due to reduced costs, that I can only understand up to a point, at least in the context of nature photography. For example, if you're shooting a sunrise, you should have at least a rough idea of the image you want to create. Before shooting, walk around, change your point of view, ask yourself questions about what it is you like about the scene and what message you are trying to portray to the viewer. I simply don't believe that filling a 1GB flash card and picking out the best shot later will ever teach you anything. Why, because without the thought process going into making a particular exposure, we never identify the exact elements that made us shoot the image in the fist place. The next time we're in the same situation, we'll simply take the same shot cause it was the one we liked last time. I personally feel this method of shooting will lead to a photographic rut. I know for myself, my images improved a hundred fold when I started shooting large format. The simple fact that each shot costs about $4 and that the gear is cumbersome, made me realize that before I pressed the shutter or set up the camera, I damn well better know why I'm doing it. You obsess over each and every shot and it's nothing for it to take 2 hours to make one exposure, waiting for just the right light or finding just the right movement or angle of view.

Rob, I wholeheartedly agree with your comment on the adverse impact of the digital age on photographic skill. My camera is totally manual, I have to read the light for every shot, and film and processing is expensive as you said; I get 4 shots to a roll of 120.

 

For every shot I take, I have to think and understand how the light will react with the film. How hard is it to shoot a hundred images in quick succession on DSLR. The law of averages will help with that image you supposedly "nailed". I understand that I'll be there too one day, not by choice. It is an inevitability.

 

All I can say is it's been a bad few months though, first Fuji announce that they are dicontinuing the production of my camera, and now veliva.