Velvia 50 really 32iso ?

[paul_c8]

<p>So I always used to shoot velvia and heard the rumour it was actually 32 or 40 iso. <br>

I never tried rating it at those iso's but I have just come into a fair amount of 35mm rolls and 5x4 sheet film that is from the last batch of the original stuff and have been in the freezer. <br>

Just curious to know what the deal is, do I rate it at 32 and develop it at 50 or am I rating it slower and letting the lab know when I put it in for development ?</p>

[diegobuono]

If you used to rate it at 50 iso and was happy with the result don't bother about the rumour. Just consider tha different

camera lightmeter behave in different way so it could depend of this last reason the differnt opinion from other

photographer.

By the way I used to rate the old velvia at 40 iso and the new one (after some comparative test with the same camera

and same subject) at 50 iso.

[david_henderson]

<p>I agree with Diego. The last incarnation of RVP50 ( after the temporary discontinuation) was IMO closer to box speed than the original. As he says if you've rated at ISO50 in the past and been happy, no reason to change that now.</p>

[danielheller]

<p>Paul, like Diego said, why not do some comparative testing, shoot a few subjects (landscape, street, or whatever you use Velvia for) at all three ASA ratings to see which one is closest to the scene, the way it was embedded in your mind when you shot it. I believe this is the right way to decide whether 32, 40 or 50 ASA is what YOU rate the film at.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Velvia's a positive not negative film so the latitude is very small. I shoot RVP box speed then bracket either + and - 1/2 or 1 stop. But then again the subjects aren't moving as I shoot landscapes. Some of these photos have people in them. I would not use Velvia for people as the skin gets too red and difficult to process in post. <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/tags/velvia/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/tags/velvia/</a></p>

[phil_brown3]

<p>I shoot it at ISO 50 and am happy with the results.</p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. C…</p>

<p>To the best of my knowledge, Velvia 50 was always properly rated at 50 when used against a gray card. Of course, some people received films that were an exception due to manufacturing tolerances and error, storage conditions, shipping conditions, and/or age by the time they bought and used it. So why the rumor that it should be rated at 32, 40, 64, and 80? My speculation is: </p>

<p>1. People’s sense of the right exposure is different. </p>

<p>2. Different subjects can fool the eye, one way or the other. </p>

<p>3. Few people photograph gray cards.</p>

<p>4. Although most modern 35 mm electric shutters have measured pretty accurately, at least with my shutter speed checker, very few mechanical shutters are right on or nearly so. The average amount out of spec is higher in medium format than 35, and higher in large format than medium format. Most pros likely to use light meters and who need to be super-critical of proper exposure used medium and large format with mechanical shutters. </p>

<p>5. Unnoted change in shutter speeds. Older cameras, especially European, time their shutter speeds for the sunny 16 rule and deviations therefrom. Film speeds in the old days (probably before you were born) were 16, 32, 64, 125, 250, and 500 with some being 10, 20, 40, 80, 160, 320 and 640. Modern film used ASA and ISO speeds of 25, 50, 100, 200, 400, and 800 etc. Changes were made in shutter speeds to accommodate this. However, the marked shutter speeds on mechanical shutters used the same antiquated numbered sequence, i.e. 125 marked on the ring was actually 100 in shutter speed. If you meter for 125 and expose at 100, the positive transparency will appear a little lighter. So if you then “rated” the film as differently on your light meter, the offset from actual film speed would help offset the mismarking of shutter speed to make the result closer to proper exposure. </p>

<p>Still, if you get a fresh batch of properly kept and currently dated Velvia and use an accurate shutter attuned to an accurate light meter, you will be assured of the very best exposed gray card you’ve ever seen. </p>

<p>A. T. Burke </p>

[donbright]

<p>Diego is correct. Old Velvia at 40, new Velvia at 50. Also the new Velvia is more consistent from batch to batch. The old Velvia had some fluctuations in my experience.</p>

[chrisnielsen]

<p>Wasn't the old 'shoot Velvia at 40' just an attempt to keep some detail in the shadows? Doesn't mean the film is actually ISO 40 though</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Didn't many pros overrate rate the ASA at a third higher not lower so that they under-exposed slightly? This would prevent burning out highlights with the added benefit of saturating colors not that Velvia needs saturation but for Ektachromes and the like.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Set it at whatever speed makes the best result for you - this will depend on how you meter subjects and/or how your camera calculates the exposure. Since people have different cameras and metering styles this accounts for the why some rate it at 32, and others at 64 etc.. It's ISO <em>is</em> 50, though, however you look at it.</p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Klein...</p>

<p>I’m one of the few remaining Photonet board users old enough to have used Kodachrome in the 1930s. The advent of 35mm color positives brought on a massive demand of slide projectors. </p>

<p>Early Kodachrome kept well in the dark but faded fast under projection. It was rated the equivalent of ASA 10 by Kodak but was really closer to 6-8 when used in the uncoated pre-war lenses that had very different F:Stops (lens opening to length ratio) and T:Stops (light transmission ratio). Additionally, most amateurs were still using the Weston exposure scale, different from ASA but close (ASA 10 = Weston 8 = GE 12 = Din 12). Furthermore, having a darker new slide insured it would not be faded out after just a few projector showings. Its “darkness” set the tone for what was considered by the film purchasing public as “proper exposure”. </p>

<p>Pros often used larger sheet Kodachrome. In 1940, pros often made Carbo prints using the three color take offs to create CMY jell layers. A pro who wanted to present a very expensive Carbo print to a commercial or wealthy customer might lighten/brighten it up a bit by overexposing Kodachrome by rating it at 4-6. </p>

<p>Black and White negative shooters had many previous years of experience for coming to a conclusion of what proper exposure consisted of. The color debate had just started (1940 + or -) but seems to continue today. Today there are no more “R” prints from positive film and practically no projecting. Even offset press film exposure consideration is fading out in the face of the digital revolution. </p>

<p>The new standard of proper exposure may well be the exposure that scans the best? </p>

<p>A. T. Burke </p>

<p>P.S. Trivia? In the text above ASA 10 was equal to 12 in both DIN and GE. However that was just coincidence. When the “FAST” Ansco ASA 32 came out the values were, Weston 24, DIN 17 and GE 40. </p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>AT: Interesting history. For my purposes I shoot Velvia box speed then bracket + and - 1 stop. I probably should use 1/2 stop but it seems to be working for me. In the end, each of our processes must work for ourselves. Twenty years ago I'd had a lab print 16"x20" pictures of 6x7 Velvia photos using 4x5" internegatives. Today I'm getting into scans and print at home digitally up to 8 1/2 x 11". I'm thinking of printing larger again and would use outside scans and outside digital printers. I also make DVD's for display on HDTV's from old 35mm slides and from my Velvia and other 120 negative and positive film. (Kodachrome and Ektachrome and others). My 35mm Kodak Ektagraphic projector sits in the closet.</p>

<p>The world has really changed! I guess so have I.</p>