Provia 100: What am I missing?

[mark_thomas2]

I hope not to bore or upset anyone with this but I send this after

extensive thread navigating and Photo.net reading. I read the film

lesson by Greenspun and disagree with him on something and would like

a comment or two if you will.

 

The issue is what to expect from the different films. I do not want

comments on all of them so I will be specific. I am hooked on Velvia.

I lug 20 plus pounds of MF equipment (Mamiya 645 Pro TL) all over the

world while I am out and about with my day job, because I want

enlargability, fine grain and the flexibility of the larger negative.

I have tested many different films like Velvia, Provia 100 and 400,

Ektachrome (more than a couple) Porta etc. and can see the subtle

differences that result. I am not a working professional but have

sold some work and will get more into that in the future.

 

Now for the specifics, what is it about Provia 100 that makes so many

people use it? My thoughts are, it is only one stop faster than

Velvia and if I am going to take the time to take my shots as I do,

including tripod and exposure calculations, that does not justify the

speed. Grain is a no brainer, Velvia wins that race. Sure I saw the

different shades when I shot some tests of a castle with a green

tiled roof but I could not (at least not any time soon) begin to

think about knowing in advance what exactly to expect from the two

and if anything my technical abilities are developed and capable way

beyond my artistic abilities. Then there is the comment from

Greenspun not to buy anything 200. I like the jump in speed from 50

to 200. My next stop, generally for hand held work is Fuji PN800

negative film. By 200 I am referring to Ektachrome E200. I am just

curious if there is something I am missing about Provia 100 that you

other MF users can clue me in on. Thanks in advance,

 

Mark

[david_henderson]

Well Velvia is my film of choice too, though Provia 100F has a role in my bag that I'll come on to. But let's start with the fact that whilst you and I - and for that matter most of the landscape photographers whose work I admire - use Velvia extensively it isn't everyone's cup of tea and Provia represents about the closest they want to get to a saturated film with good grain and sharpness. A lot of people use Provia 100F as their "standard" film and keep Velvia for dull days when they need the extra punch.

 

So as a Velvia user, why do I always carry Provia 100F on a trip? Well there are times when the combination of depth of field I want and the wind moving trees and grasses around means that I need a little extra speed and I have the simple choice of compromising on film or walking away from a fine shot. Provia gives me an extra stop but it also pushes well so I can get ISO 200 pretty much all the time or even

ISO 400 if things aren't too contrasty. I haven't yet found a transparency film faster than this from which I'm prepared to have large prints made. I don't want to open up a debate on whether I should be using neg. film for this sort of work outside of saying that I just don't and I'm very comfortable with that decision for me.

 

Then there are occasions when whatever I'm looking at is just extraordinarily bright, to the extent that Velvia will just give me colours that I consider to be over-the top. Some people think that Velvia always does this and I disagree strongly, but hey, everybody's got their limits. I got sunset shots at Poole Harbour a few weeks ago that were just bright red and they got binned. Some of the trees I saw in Colorado last fall were too bright for Velvia. If I spent my life photographing red rocks early and late in the day in SW USA I might use more Provia than Velvia and so on, and certainly when I return to Antelope Canyon in a few weeks time there'll be Provia 100F in my cameras not Velvia. If I feel there's a danger of a polariser turning a sky too dark, even after positioning it carefully, then I'll use Provia 100F.

 

So I see Provia as a multifunctional reserve film which accounts for say 10/15% of my usage. I don't think it's "better" than Velvia - it's a tool to make a good image when Velvia won't do it for me, but it's not so very different that I feel I'm compromising too much.

[audidudi]

I gave up using Velvia on anything but overcast or rainy days several years ago. For my tastes, the colors are too saturated, the contrast is way too hard and as a result, it doesn't scan well on anything but a high-res drum-scanner. Provia's colors are less saturated, it does a better job of balancing shadows and highlights and it's much easier to scan well at home.

 

That said, I do keep a few rolls of Velvia around for rainy days, as well as a few rolls of Astia for shots that have people in them.

[mick_obrien]

Mark, I use Provia F 1oo for the extra stop I get over Velvia, the amazing reciprocity stability (2 minute exposure without any color shift or compensation) and the less saturated colors. The granularity is as good unless you use an electron microscope to test. I use Velvia when the previously mentioned factors are not an issue. Both are great. Go to the Fuji site and copy the spec sheets for both films and let that be your guide.

Thank, Mick O.

[audidudi]

With respect to David's comments, I should add that I live in Arizona and agree that Velvia is definitely NOT the film to shoot in Antelope Canyon. In fact, on my last trip there, I shot Astia instead of Provia 100F and was quite pleased with the results.

[david_goldfarb]

It's a matter of taste. I find Velvia pretty lurid for most uses. If it works for you, use it. What is to discuss?

[wayne_crider3]

I shoot alot with a polariser, but not necessairly at its maximum strength, and the extra stop of an ISO 100 film (I don't use the ISO 400 yet) helps when needing to keep good DOF/reasonably high shutter speeds for late daylight stuff. After shooting enough Provia 100 to tell tho, I don't personally find it better than my normal film, Astia pushed a stop, when on the light table. Prints off either film might change my mind here tho. The one plus to Provia is it's reciprocity with unfiltered times from 1/4000 to 128 sec's according to the manual, so I'm just starting to use it for night shooting. The best Astia does in comparsion is to 16 sec. For some reason Provia just doesn't turn me on like, say Velvia does, so my kit now is Velvia and Astia @200 from dawn to dusk with Provia 100 for the night stuff. Maybe trying the 400 Provia will change my mind. In answer to your question, I don't think your missing anything that can't be supplied elsewhere regardless of the finer grain aspect of the Provia film. If you need the extra 2 stops try Astia @200. I find it really nice.

[jeff_drew4]

I prefer Provia vs. Velvia for similar reasons regarding color saturation (Velvia is usually too vivid for me) and I like the 1 stop faster speed of Provia. That said, I generally don't use Fuji films, preferring Kodak Portra series for prints and E100/E200 for 'chromes. K25/K64 are my 35mm favorites! Agfa versions also get mixed in to my bag - and using 3 major brands just got too confusing.

[glenn_kroeger]

Mark:

 

While I often prefer the colors and saturation of Velvia on the light table, I have found that Provia 100F produces better final prints using a scanning/Photoshop/LightJet5000 process. First, although the size of the grain is similar, the Provia produces smoother variation between dye clumps in areas of constant tonality. This accounts for the lower RMS rating, and produces much smoother skys with the appearance of less grain when scanning. The lower contrast allows me to retain nearly a stop more dynamic range from the image. The extra stop of speed means less wind movement or more DOF, and I can push 1 stop with virtually no image deterioration. Finally, with the digital work flow, I can dial in the amount of saturation I need, so if the subject really warrants Velvia-like saturation, I can get it. For really contrasty scenes I will sometimes use Astia, but it clearly is more grainy than either Velvia or Provia 100F.

[moses_sparks]

Hi Mark,

 

You don't mention your subject matter, but it sounds like all the landscape guys are chiming in, so I assume that's your direction as well.

 

As already noted, Velvia is great for that unless you are dealing with extremes of color and light, and then some people find it a bit garish.

 

But if you ever put PEOPLE in those landscapes it's unlikely you will appreciate what Velvia does for those skin tones...it will make them all look sunburned, whether they are or not. (For my money, you can't beat Astia for the best reproduction of skin).

 

Provia is a more neutral and versatile film that can handle a wide range of subjects with equal aplomb.

 

And finally, why would you care what Mr. Greenspun has to say about film? I definitely DO NOT want to offend him or find myself banished from MFD...but have you ever looked at his pictures?

 

I have no doubt he is a very talented and intelligent individual, but not with a camera!

[steve_swinehart]

Velvia? Ugggghhhhhllly film. Contrast is too high and "lurid" is a compliment. If you like it, and the color palette fits your eye, then use it. Personally, I find the color rendition eye gouging, and wouldn't use it except for selected subjects or "special effects." Cartoonish is the closest color description I can give to what I see.

 

I have carefully compared Provia F to Astia and Ektachrome E200. At this point in time, ignore what Phil has said about 200 speed chrome films. E200 is a very nice, long scale, fairly fine grain film that you can easily push 1-2 stops with little apparent increase in grain or color shift.

 

Astia is a nice film, but still retains too much of the Velvia color palette for my taste. Kind of a "Velvia lite" look. Pastel cartoons?

 

Provia F is a good film that, if anything, is a little bit cool. The color palette has nothing in common with either Velvia or Astia. Where Velvia and Astia make greens with yellow in them, Provia makes a truer, darker, richer green. The reds and yellows in Astia and Velvia are really hyped compared to Provia F. Blues are much truer in Provia than either of the other two Fuji films.

 

When compared to E200, the greys in Provia will look a bit blue (or the greys look a bit warm in E200?). Green rendition between the two films is about equal and very difficult to tell apart. The blues in E200 are much warmer, and reds not as saturated as Provia F. E200 has a bit longer scale than Provia (seems to hold shadow detail better)as it is a little lower in contrast with a longer toe.

 

Provia F is a true 100 speed film that I have been able to get a 6-1/2 stop exposure range on regularly. It holds highlight detail extremely well. To get shadow detail in Provia F, I've been really pushing the upper end (which it holds). In fact, it maxes out my scanner at the high end - something which the E200 does not do.

 

In the last 3 years I've shot somewhere in the area of four hundred 220 rolls, and one hundred 35mm rolls of E200. In the last 2 months, I've shot 15 rolls of 120 Provia F and 200 sheets of 4x5 Provia F.

 

As stated previously, Provia F reciprocity is amazing to 2 minutes. I've shot fairly long exposures on 4x5 (up to 20 seconds timed with a watch), and photos come out dead on. That's one thing I would never do with the E200.

 

Why do I use Provia F? It's available in ready loads, and I don't like the Ektachrome film available in ready loads as Provia has a longer scale and better reciprocity characteristics.

[scott_eaton]

In regards to Velvia vs Provia for Landscape photography:

 

Velvia renders green foliage that looks like green, Fisher Price polypropolene baby toys under a black-light. If you really consider this "superior" to the way Provia renders the color green, then you must also prefer Canon color laser prints to LightJet prints because the laser prints have brighter colors. Also, the actual maximum color saturation that all Fuji slide films can reproduce is pretty much the same. Velvia merealy gets there sooner.

 

Velvia is popular with commercial pros because it provides maximum impact in a 24mm x 36mm frame of film. Those of use who have scanners, use good scanners, and know how to use them, will generally pick other films simply because Velvia's difficult contrast and shadow detail doesn't benefit digital scanning. Otherwise, Velvia is suitable where any other higher contrast film is suited, which is basically lower contrast situations.

[joseph_albert]

Mark, was your testing on the old Provia 100? I think you'd find

that the new Provia 100F has enlargeability and grain that rivals

Velvia. In fact, grain with Provia 100F is slightly smoother than

with Velvia, although Velvia is slightly sharper.

<p>

But the enlargeabilities of both are so close that differences in

contrast and pallette are much more important in deciding which to

use, as many folks have already elucidated in this thread.

<p>

The original provia 100 had a kind of smokey cast to it. this was fixed

with Provia F.

[john_whitman]

I was hoping Scott Eaton would weigh in on this one because in another

thread recently he summarized perfectly why many photographers reject

Velvia: "There are more things to photograph in life than lighthouses

and balloon races," I believe it was. For a few subjects Velvia is

great; for most subjects, I think there are better choices, including

Provia.

 

Does Velvia render dramatic colors? Of course. Does Velvia render

natural colors? Of course not; often they look downright silly (look

at the overwrought color landscapes in any issue of Outdoor

Photographer). Which film you use depends on how you want viewers to

see the world through your eyes. Me? I would choose Provia III over

Velvia even if the former were ISO 50. The fact that Provia is ISO 100

is just frosting on the cake.

[christian deichert]

I personally don't like Provia at all. When the new 100F came out I tried it and really enjoyed it at first, so I took a bunch of it to Europe with me as well as some E100VS. Thank God I saved some of the E100VS for the last leg of the trip, Iceland, as Provia screwed me on a lot of waterfall photos.

 

With Provia, I noticed a pronounced blue cast every time I took photos of anything in shadow on a clear day, even when I was using a warming filter (812) to compensate. Not so with the E100VS. I had to toss out a lot of Provia slides that were so blued it was ridiculous. Others I kept but didn't bother scanning. I exhausted my stock of Provia on that trip, and after I got my slides back I never bought any again. Now it's Provia or E100VS, or no color at all, for landscapes.

[mark_thomas2]

Thank you all for the comments. That does make a lot of sense and perhaps the tests I did were not complete and in adequately varying settings. They were done in different settings but only one group of shots showed obvious differences. That is the shot I referred to of a castle (in Japan) with the green tiled roof. There was a blue sky and white building with some detail that was washed out at some exposures. Also in the shot were a lot of green trees and bushes around the bottom. I bracketed from what I considered to be a correct exposure in half stop increments up to two stops over and down to two stops under to see the affect. I actually made these tests using a 35mm back on my 645 so I could save a little money on the enlargements and see what the grain difference would be. After reviewing the transparencies I chose either the exposure I started with or half stop under in some cases as my preferred print. I enlarged these to 5x7 and really was pleased with the resulting information I obtained. The Provia 400F was pleasingly fine grained for the speed. As noted the Provia 100F was also very fine grained but not quite that of the Velvia. Two noticeable color variations were first; the roofs were all a subtle different shade of green except for the Velvia, which almost glowed. However in this case it wasn't cartoonish but rather pleasing. Not that I don't appreciate others experiences and from reading all your messages I will certainly do more testing or at least shoot some side by side rolls in the future to see the differences. I do that now sometimes but for different reasons. The second difference I found was with the Ektachrome E200. Although all the skies were a bit different among the Fujis I would attribute that probably to slight variations in exposure. With the Ektachrome there was a very slight purple tinge to the coloring. Nothing bad and probably not immediately noticeable if not holding the prints side by side but it was there. E200 is another favorite of mine in that speed range.

 

 

As for the types of photographs I'm making, that is also varied. With the above-mentioned films, I'm shooting landscapes, architectural/city scenes. I shoot a lot with my 35mm lens in towns and cities and like that affect. When people are involved, I change films accordingly to something more appropriate. I am a little late and just playing catch-up on the digital scene. I can not lug around a scanner but am learning quickly and like the added flexibility. I will keep those comments in mind while heading up that road

 

Again, thank you for your opinions. Just this morning (7 am) I shot some Provia 100F and Velvia side by side for a few shots with a very clear sky, in a coastal city scene, using a polarizing filter. We will see tonight (morning stateside) how they look.

[joseph_albert]

Christian,

<p>

Open shade on a day with clear skies is supposed to produce a blue

cast on slide film. that's because the light in that place is fairly cool. don't blame this on the film. If you were

getting a blue cast, it means you didn't have enough color correction

on the front of your lens. Proper technique involves doing a priori

experimentation with the emulsions you use so you know how they

respond well enough to exercise the technique needed to control the

results. Where does an 812 fit in the normal warming sequence?

I'm not particularly familiar with Tiffen products.<p>

Cheers,

<p>

[ted_roberts]

This thread could go on and on.....film choice is strictly a matter of personal choice in most cases...another factor is who is processing your film and prints. I use a separate lab for my 16 x 20 prints only because that's all they do...the technician there knows how to get the colors right no matter if I use Velvia or Provia 100F..he will do several "tests" before we decide on the final print....I never have to concern myself with all this other stuff! TED

[syd]

I agree completely with Christian. I tried Provia against E100-VS, which is my stock film in 120 roll, and the blue caste in every frame was so ridiculous as to warrant my total disgust. I've got three words for you; blue, blue, blue...

 

If being totally dominated by blue is your thing then I guess Provia III is the film for you.

 

Simon,