Problems with Fuji Velvia 100

[tom_johnston4]

Late last year, I finally ran out of my large stock of frozen Fuji Velvia 50

sheet film. I have switched to Velvia 100 but I am having problems. My E.I.

for Velvia 50 using my equipment and my meters was always 40, which was what

many large format photographers rated it at. When I switched to Velvia 100 I

first tried it at it's rated 100 because I had read that, unlike Fuji 50, which

generally should be rated slightly slower than it's ISO rating (which my own

experience confirmed), Velvia 100 was a true 100 speed film. The results were

terribly underexposed. For color, I have used a Minolta Flashmeter IV to make

incident readings in the light of the subject except in difficult situations

where I cannot read in the light falling on the subject, in which case I use a

Zone VI modified Pentax spotmeter. (I use the spotmeter for all b&w work but

have just found incident readings to be better for my color work.) I always

had Velvia 50 down pat. Exposures were almost always right on the button. I

did some tests and found that I had to rate Fuji Velvia 100 at 40 or 50 to get

decent results which is odd, to say the least. I was suspicious of the film

and processing because I found that Helix Camera sell it in Chicago for $30

less for a box of 50 4x5" sheets than anyone else. But it was well within

expiration date and they keep their pro film frozen. (They are a huge store

catering to professionals.) I then found out that Helix had a branch store in

the western suburbs of Chicago and that was great news to me because I thought

I had a place to drop E6 film off for processing since my old E6 lab had

closed. I took my first sheets to Helix and not only were they grossly

underexposed, but they were shifted strongly to red, magenta and blue. At that

point, I suspected that Helix's processing was bad and/or the film was bad. I

contacted them but they never bothered to get back with me.

 

I shot some more sheets at E.I. 80 and E.I. 64 and sent it to a different lab.

Almost all were underexposed and unusable but the color shifts were confirming

to me that Helix probably does have a problem on their E6 line. So, last week

I tested the film in it's 120 version (so I could do lots of tests) and found

that I have to rate it at E.I. 40 when using my normal Minolta Flashmeter IV

incident readings. Something isn't right, obviously. I compared my Minolta

IV meter to my in-camera meters, one of which had just been adjusted. It

matched them almost perfectly when used in reflected mode. But my Zone VI

spotmeter, which was calibrated recently, calls for 1 1/3 more exposure than

the other meters. The Zone VI meter has always called for more exposure than

my Minolta meter but I suspected that maybe it had been calibrated wrong.

However, I recently re-did my b&w Zone System testing for my two main films and

my E.I.s are exactly what they have been for many years indicating that the

spotmeter was calibrated as it always has been. When I tested the 120 film, I

found that the spotmeter readings produced good results when the film was rated

at E.I. 125, which is exactly what I expected to find.

 

I would suspect that the Minolta meter is off but it matches my recently

calibrated in-camera meters perfectly - at least in reflected mode. Also, I did

a quick down & dirty field test that I have used in the past - that is, take a

reflected reading off of the blue north sky on a clear mid-day afternoon. (The

old "sunny 16" rule.) The Minolta meter matched the sunny 16 rule perfectly.

The spotmeter called for 1 1/3rd stops more exposure.

 

Sorry for the long post but I wanted to give any information that someone might

be able to use to suggest what might be wrong. I should not have to rate Fuji

Velvia 100 at the same E.I. that I rated Velvia 50 (40). What do you rate

Velvia 100 at in sheet film sizes? This darn Fuji Velvia 100 is all over the

place for me but Fuji Velvia was totally predictable. Has anyone else had

similar experiences?

[anthony johns]

I don't know; maybe try purchasing the film else where. It could be faulty. Or perhaps even fake!

[john_shriver]

Different reciprocity corrections needed for the two films, if you're using long exposures?

[a._t._burke]

I had the same problem with some film about a year out of date. I exposed some velvia 50 and 100 on the same day metered off the same meter. The 50 @ 50 was fine. The 100 @ 100 looked a stop (or more) overexposed. I put the blame on different lens coatings at the time. The 100 was shot with a 1950s single coated Solinar (4 element Tessar type). The 50 was shot in a Mamiya, probably triple coated from the 70s or 80s. I have a shutter checker and both were very close to spec at the 100/125th that I shot. I have no way of checking the F:Stop accuracy.

[bill_stice1]

Tom, your problem is interesting. I've been shooting Velvia 100 for months (every since it became available)in 120, 220 and 4 X 5 and have found it to be right on. I get my film at a local camera store that keeps fresh film and I use a professional local lab for processing and it has been fine. At most I think even an additional third of a stop would be over exposing for me. I use the in camera meter in a Pentax 645 AF for medium format and I use a Sekonic 500 series meter for 4 X 5. Good luck in your search.

[sumo_kun]

I can't really solve your problem, but I have used RVP100 since it came out here in Japan and it has always been used at ISO100. I meter with a standar Pentax Digi Spot and I use various cameras from 135 to 4x5.

All cameras seem to have no problem with it.

I would suggest trying another batch of film and seeing if the same happens. But then again you did try 120 size already...

[jamespjones]

I am also curious about this problem - but I think it may be somewhat subjective too. What

is perfect exposure? I tend not to like blown highlights, so I don't mind some shadow loss.

I've always shot Velvia 100 at 100 and not had problems. Is it possible that your calibration

is correct, but you prefer the look of Velvia 100 at 50?

 

James

photographyri.com

 

note: I only shoot 135 and 120 (not sheet film)

[bernard_korites]

"....not only were they grossly underexposed, but they were shifted strongly to red, magenta and blue..."

 

I had exactly the same problem with two rolls of 35mm Velvia 100 that I purchased from BH last summer. I assumed the problem was with the lab although it is a semi-pro lab that I never had problems with before. It's starting to sound like there was a bad batch of Velvia 100 floating around.

[lee_anderson]

I'm new to slide film but I just shot off 12 rolls of Velvia 100 in Africa. I tested it and manually set F stop and Shutter Speed at an animal park before I left for Africa. Horrible results - the data sheet bites. I wrote down everything and the 5 or 6 pictures that turned out well were on auto mode (P).

 

I went to Africa - shot everything in (P) and autobracketed 1/3 stop. I was using Canon V1 and top glass - 500 mm canon, 70-200, and 24-105. Velvia 100 has very good latitude with autometering on the V1, I can almost say bracketing was completely unessesary, I have some amazing pictures. I pushed it a bit to 125. 99% of the pictures came out great.

 

I also shot 25 rolls of 400X, it was very good. I think the 400X is a bit heavier on reds/orange/etc, the colors in some of the landscapes are slightly less nuanced as the Velvia 100. But still a very good film, and the red/orange saturation levels in the 400X were very good for animals.

 

All in all Velvia 100 I would say has good latitude with the equipment I was using and the lab. I assume your using a good lab.

[larry_menzin]

How about shooting some polaroids? You'd see right away if your exposure was off by a stop. When I shoot LF, I always run off a couple of FP-100C polaroids to verify exposure.

[gale]

I don't know what to say. I've switched from RVP 50 to RVP 100 last year for most shooting. I find it to be much more forgiving than the 50 and less "on drugs" look than the 50. I think it is true and honest and I found that I'm shooting it right on the money for best results. I bracket only if I have questions or concerns about the exposure.

 

Dave

[philippartridge]

My experience for the mix - I shot a lot of Velvia 100 in 220 last northern summer and got some poor results re colour shifts, although exposure was fine at 100 [camera meters plus my pentax spot]. Very difficult to balance as the colour balance was different in different density ranges. So perhaps B&H got some poor stock from Fuji.

 

On top of that, I like it far less than Velvia 50, which is more predictable and 'robust' and balances very well, and I find, like Fuji, is 50 not 40; still is a beautiful film for suitable subjects, especially in low light.

 

David's comment reminds me of Salvador Dali's quote: 'I am not on drugs, I am drugs.' Guess I must be too, but I am very careful with saturation in post with Velvias of all persuasions. Such a sharp film is the 50...glad I stocked up before they went all consumerist with the 100 speed stuff.

[terence_spross1]

couple comments:

1. I went to a camera club metting years ago, and listened to everybody's talk about braketing, manufacturers not rating film speed right and tips about what EI to use. The club was sponsored by a camera store with a repair dept. A few members ganged up on the store onwner with proof and complaints that all their meters, camera and separate that had been calibrated by the store within the year were off by a stop! Before the meeting was adjouned, the owner reluctantly agreed that he would allow free re-calibrations. could this have happened to you?

 

2. A local wedding photographer was in small claims court being sued for less than ideal results. The photgrapher kept referring to a bad batch of Fuji (don't know specific type). The judge showed no sympathy, telling the photographer that he was 'careless' using an 'obscure brand' for important irreplaceable photos. Of course, this is near Kodak territory, but I think its funny that the judge didn't seem to know Fuji is a major brand. (I'm not commenting on the photographers ability.)

Fuji has a history of very good quality control. Some film types are very susceptable to storage conditions though - come to think of it it was the same camera store as above that was caught by a pro with a warm refrigerator - they admitted "it hasn't worked right in years"

It makes you wonder. (No wonder the club members were predominatley B&W enthusiasts.)

 

I recommend you obtain your film from a different source next time, although large stores aren't likely to have a consistantly bad handling situation. Also you should do more controlled testing to better isolate the problem.