Velvia 100F first test

[Sanford]

This is from my first (and probably last) roll of the new Velvia

100F. A nice rendition, but not the "knock you on your b-tt" punch I

get from Velvia 50. Not a Leica photo, but a 105mm Nikkor which is

very close to the Summicron in my opinion. Just used auto levels,

auto contrast, and a little unsharp mask. Please feel free to

critique the photo if you wish.<div></div>

[radu_liviu]

What is that you do not like about the colors?

[Sanford]

I prefer brighter, more saturated colors of Velvia 50. The old film is also sharper. Why shoot with a Leica and use anything but the sharpest possble film? The new stuff is a little kinder to skin tones though.

[Rob F.]

Sanford, how would you rate the speed of this film? Do you think it should be downrated a bit, to 80 or 64, the way some downrate Velvia 50 to 40 or 32?

 

Also, do you think it is any less contrasty than Velvia 50?

 

I'm going to shoot it on vacation over the next couple of weeks. It might be helpful to benefit from your experience.

[Spearhead]

It's been my experience that it takes at least four or five rolls to know how a film behaves in a variety of conditions - I can't imagine dropping a film after one roll.. I didn't like Ultra 100 after my first two rolls, maybe because it was "different" than Ultra 50, which I used for years. Now I find it to be very useful.

[Sanford]

Rob - I put my Nikon FM3A on ISO 100 and, using manual exposure, some pictures were too light, some pictures were too dark, and a few were just right. I'm always trying to outguess the meter. ISO 100 seems to be the true speed, but every camera is different and a new film should be tested before the vacation.

[cd thacker]

Is this this Nikkor the 105/2.5? In any event, the photo is interesting. And it (the lens) does seem to handle the highlights in a Leica-like way. It's difficult to tell from one frame (especially one frame where there is no green), but the film does appear more subdued than Velvia 50.<P>

 

On a tangential note, I <I>liked</I> my first roll Agfa Ultra 100. Then I shot several rolls of it at a colorful event and saw how much it blocks up the reds - and that was it for me.

[a._j._valys]

Sanford, my man, how can you say the film does not kick butt with its color. You gave us an sample with predominantly hues of blue color, which in themselves may not be that kick-but blue either. I have yet to try the new Velvia myself but, I can't believe that Fuji would put a dog out there and ruin their reputation. Then, you have to consider that we are not looking at a slide but a "remanufactured" picture on a computer screen. So give us some samples with kick-butt colors. It may not be that bad after all.

 

It is not my intention to run you down, so thanks for your input regarding this film. It is impossible to please 100% of the people all the time.

 

All the best,

 

Tony

[Sanford]

Doug - Yes, the 105 f2.5 late version. Tony - I'm not saying the film is a dog, in fact it's the second best Velvia out there.

[budc]

Looks like Provia F to me. The skin tones are more natural than Velvia 50.

 

I'm off to Vancouver Island with Velvia 50, Provia F, 100S, 100G, 100GX and some precious Kodachrome 25. I'm leaving my M3 home and taking only the SL and SL/2. If I have good weather, I'll be able to settle on an E6 film to replace K25.

 

BTW, I've owned both versions of the 105. The first version was a reworked Sonnar and the second was a Double Gauss. When I owned the first version, I also owned the first 90 Elmarit. The Elmarit was sharper and more neutral. I can't decide which I like better, the second version of the 105 or the original 90 SummicronR. I know which camera I like better so that's why I don't own a Nikkor anymore.

[steve_barnett2]

There is a review of Velvia 100 here

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/velvia100f.shtml

 

I think it pretty much bears out Sanfords view.

[stephen_jones4]

Nice shot (notwithstanding the use of a nikkor!) I wonder if it's the next Great American Novel or a coursework assignment he's writing...

[paulr]

Sanford-

Met the Fuji rep and he shipped me a some sample film. Like drugs, free at first until you get hooked. Fuji is a great marketing machine. Their literature for the new film must have cost a fortune.

Any rate, I am going to shoot about ten rolls or so and go from there.

I'm a E100GX "user" and have used the E100 films since they were introduced.

[ilkka_nissila]

I think it's a blessing if the 100F doesn't produce the Velvialike colours as in Velvia 50. But if you like the 50, then you are free to keep using it, or try the new Velvia 100 (not 100F), which is supposed to have colors like the original velvia.

 

Of course it's not as "sharp" as the original Velvia. Velvia 50 has artificially exaggerated edge contrast (like using too much unsharp mask) and that's why it looks sharp. It doesn't necessarily have that much detail, nor it it grain-free. The new Velvia 100F has finer grain, more detail and less exaggerated edges. If you want to punch the edges, you can always do it it Photoshop.

 

As to why use Leica unless with the sharpest film ... with ANY decent film, you can still see optical differences, it doesn't have to be Velvia.

[terry_rory]

A little OT maybe but I loved Agfa Ultra 50 and still like the 100 version. Yes the the old 50 used to block reds, make fair haired people look like lobsters, give blue skies that look like lapis lazuli rather than sky etc etc. BUT it was meant to do all that. It was an outrageous, fun film. (Especially the 120 roll film variant for use in my Zero 2000 pinhole camera.) The Agfa Ultra 100 is now a little tamer (on a good day you can even get grass to look realistic!) but it has lost a little of the 'fun'.

 

For 'sensible' use I now stick to Reala 100 and Portra 400 UC. I will try out the Velvia 100f when it becomes available here in the UK but I predominantly use print film. Maybe Velvia 100f will help 'convert' me.