Talk:Velvia

Resolution

Can anybody back up the claim of 25 megapixels worth of 'image data' in a 35mm Velvia slide with a reference? It seems not only unrealistically high, but the whole concept of 'image data' is a fuzzy one for film: while the spatial resolution is indeed high, the graininess of film is what limits the maximum enlargement size. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sander Pronk (talk • contribs)

It seems to be roughly based on the figures in List of photographic films. It works out to about 85 lp/mm:

$36*24*(85*2)^{2}=24.96$ million

Pretty high for 35mm film, which is why the statement is qualified with the statement "When shot with a quality lens...". People enamoured with digital cameras and 'megapixels' often overlook the importance of the lens. Imroy 01:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Then why is the article 12 megapixels and not 25? drjt87 08:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Because someone changed it and at the time I couldn't be bothered to change it back. There's so many digital photography fanboys here that it's almost useless bringing up anything even remotely against digital. They'll just revert it anyway. I see you've changed it to 25. Now lets see how fast someone changes it back. Imroy 08:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is citation [1] used to strengthen the megapixels argument. The pdf datasheet from fujifilm says NOTHING about megapixels and does not mention "22" or anything equivalent. I don't want to remove it myself because someone will probably be upset, but someone experienced with the article should please look into it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.219.130 (talk) 04:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Section 17 "Resolving power" on page 6 lists 80 line pairs per millimetre at a contrast ratio of 1.6:1. According to the formula given above, that works out to just over 22 megapixels. Of course, that's only what the film is capable of recording - the lens will affect the image as it is focused on the film. And to produce any pixels requires a film scanner, which will also bring its own limitations. The wording really should include these factors, instead of simply mentioning "an excellent lens". --Imroy (talk) 05:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The resolving power is based on a diffraction grating being used to find out the resolving power, not a lens. Also the article says the film can resolve 160 lines/mm. That is not correct. It can resolve 80 lines/mm, and a line is a black line and an equal white space between it and the next line. 80 lines/mm = 160 pixels if you think digital. The definition of lines/mm has been misunderstood by the writer of the article. Jrhilton19.25, 24 March 2009 (GMT)

Ah, that makes more sense. I think it would benefit the article if that explanation was given, at least in a footnote or something.129.97.219.130 (talk) 06:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

my bad i mistook the 100mp thing for 4x5 film... i would revert it but i don't know how sadly 220.237.101.223 (talk) 02:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

"Heavy green cast"

I am surprised by the mention of "heavy green cast" for long exposures (>2 minutes) with RVP 50. It's widely known that it runs purplish; certainly, that's been the case with my own long-exposure trials over 11 years. Garyh 00:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. My reading of the "characteristic curves" graph in ProfessionalFilmDataGuide.pdf from the Fujifilm site seems to agree with you. At low light levels the red density is quite a bit lower than the other two, with blue slightly less than green. Which I guess would produce a red/purple cast. Perhaps someone was reading this graph wrong when they wrote about the "green cast". I wouldn't know myself, I've only used one roll of this beautiful film and it was always well lit. --Imroy 02:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggest re-writing that bit about the cast. It's worth noting, however, for the sake of clarity, in strong outdoor lighting (fluorescent and other types of lighting) without appropriate filtration, Velvia will shift to green. At the other extreme, in say, wilderness areas, Velvia will run to purple (the longer the exposure, the more pronounced, proportional to the effect of RLF taking hold). RLF-induced purple colour shifts occur more dramatically where RVP 50 has been re-rated at EI40 or EI32 (+1/3 and +2/3 respectively). Many photographers use this colour shift effect deliberately (ie. no corrective filtration) to highten the atmosphere of long Tv moon-light exposures, even though RVP tends to playfully exaggerate it (and I have no gripes with that!). My experience with RVP 100F is that its reduced contrast is most welcome in scenes where you must photograph in bright mid-day sun or where there are lots of shadows; it delivers far better shadow clarity and good highlight resolution than the equivalent results on RVP 50, which is simply asking for trouble in contrasty light (RVP, incidentally was designed for use in diffuse [not point] light sources, hence the reason it looks so good in fine art imaging made in considered light).

I am not aware that RVP 100F is the replacement for RVP 50 and no information from Fujifilm is available on that point. I suspect RVP 100F is simply offered as an alternative stock to smooth over a long-standing gripe among professionals with RVP's very high contrast. Garyh 00:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Velvia 100F is not the replacement for Velvia 50, Velvia 100 is (no 'F'). Velvia 100 and 100F are different films. I believe Fuji has stopped production of Velvia 50 now, so it's going to be in increasingly short supply. About re-writing that section, go ahead. Do you intend to just change the colour of the cast or add more information? --Imroy 01:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the "heavy green cast" is a bit misleading. As I stated, the colour cast depends on the exposure conditions: it can be green or purplish. I would say a "marked colour shift" is a sharper way of putting it. The blue cast commonly found on RVP is often viewed by less experienced photographers as a fault with the film, which it is not—it's a characteristic of most E6 reversal films that can be put to creative use or to emphasise (typically) a cold (low colour temp.) environment eg. Antarctica. I only mention this "blue" response because it is a normal characteristic of the film, not due to be confused with RLF. Garyh: Silent Street Photography, Geelong, Australia 04:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

And I think that whoever spoke of "fluorescent" as the natural outdoor light above in order to justify their claim of a green cast above just confused sunlight with fluorescent tubes, actually. Fluorescent tube lights are known to cause green casts on any stock whatsoever. And the usual Velvia cast in daylight is not "purple" but magenta. --79.242.222.168 (talk) 09:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Clarification of wording

I have changed heavy green cast to "marked colour shift" as per heading above. Whatever happens with Velvia is relatively circumstantial and that's as much as can be said really. Garyh: Silent Street Photography, Geelong, Australia 02:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions

The following: "Velvia was introduced in 1990 and quickly replaced Kodachrome 25 as the industry standard in high-definition color film. It had brighter and generally more accurate color reproduction, finer grain, twice the speed, ....

Should read: Velvia was introduced in 1990 and quickly joined Kodachrome 25 as another high-definition color film. It had generally more saturated color reproduction, finer grain (questionable), twice the speed....

Kodachrome 25 was always the standard by which other color films were judged. Its demise is the result of poor administration and restructuring within Kodak. Sure people like the saturated (unrealistic) colors of Velvia. If Kodak would have continued promoting Kodachrome and most importantly, had developed a consistent 1-2 day turnaround in processing, they would still be outselling the green box guys. E-6 can provide instant gratification, which is it's only advantage. If Kodak would have continued R&D with Kodachrome imagine what could have been. They could have easily added saturated dyes to the processing, and tweeked the miniscule amount of grain.

I've used my share of Velvia, infact I just picked up a few rolls of 120. It's OK for certain applications, tho I generally find Provia a better overall E-6 film. Velvia can't come close the grain structure and resolution of even Kodachrome 64. Flame suit on!

• There's no need for the flame suit, but I don't agree with your assessment. I can't find it now in my stacks of trade magazines, but I remember reading about the massive shift from Kodachrome 25 to Velvia within a few years of its introduction, based on sales numbers and submissions to professional magazines, etc. (This would have been in the mid-late 90's that I read about it.) Your objections are well-taken but amount to speculation... "if only Kodak had done this or that..." The fact is that Velvia did quickly replace Kodachrome 25 as the film of choice for most landscape work, as well as many other applications where caucasian skin tones weren't present. The line as written in this article is accurate, though perhaps the "more accurate color reproduction" should be qualified. As for the rest... well, I shot plenty of both films, and it is not "questionable" that Velvia 50, shot at ISO 40, had finer grain. It's a fact. I still have an affinity for the Kodachrome 25 "look." I miss shooting both Velvia and Kodachrome (as well as many other films) now that I'm shooting digital for 99% of what I do. -- Moondigger 14:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Historically speaking, Kodak went through a huge paradigm shift in the very late 80's or perhaps it was the early 90's, they regionalized many of their services. Photographers who could normally get their kodachrome film back same day or next day now had to wait 2-4 days, and they were not happy. Irrespective of whether or not Velvia was considered "better", it was kodak's decision to regionalize their processing that allowed Velvia to make an impact. An additional argument can be made that facial tones shots are going to be at least half of the photographic market anyways, so even if Velvia is better in non skin-tone situations (which it probably is), that still leaves a substantial part of the market that would not have shifted to Velvia. The conclusion can logically be made that Velvias rise in prominence was directly related to Kodak's reduction in processing options for Kodachrome. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.129.88.30 (talk • contribs).

• • True, I think it was 1988 that Kodak exited the film processing business, and subcontracted it out from then onwards. Also remember that slide-film sales began to plummet in the 1980s as people went over to negative (and prints). Due to the fall in demand the already small number of independent photofinishers that were actually willing to make use of Kodak's demanding color-diffusion development steps and formulas fell through the floor. As a result customers left in huge numbers when it became much harder to get Kodachrome processed quickly. Velvia was the nail in the coffin for K25 being used by landscape photographers though. -- Jrhilton 22:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Kodachrome processing was never subcontracted at that time, being pretty much the most complicated and most expensive photographical process ever. Kodak kept on doing all Kodachrome processing, it's just that in the US (and maybe Canada), you had to buy the processing separately even though it was still Kodak doing it, due to an old anti-trust/competition ruling since around the early 70s, not 1988. It took until 2006, when they axed the stock, for Kodak to subcontract Kodachrome processing for the first time ever. Up until 2006, the only two remaining Kodachrome labs in the world (at Lausanne, Switzerland and Rochester/NY) where both run by Kodak, and from 2006 until the end of 2009 (or was it the end of 2010?), you had to send all your Kodachrome to Dwayne's Photo/Kansas for processing. --79.242.222.168 (talk) 09:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

As a photographer who was working as a photo assistant in New York City during the time in question, the claim that Velvia replaced K25 as the standard is nonsense. Regardless of whether the actions by Kodak, Velvia was only really popular with professionals in a limited number of disciplines (landscapes being a biggy). Submissions to magazines are not a valid criteria, because that completely ignores all the commercial advertising and catalog photography being done, as well as the various types of photography that required absolute color accuracy (which Velvia clearly did not deliver). I worked with photographers shooting advertising, room sets, automobiles, cosmetics, still lifes, food, lifestyle, fashion, celebrity portraits, album covers, sports and book covers. Not one switched to Velvia for anything but a rare job where it was best suited. It certainly did not become the standard. The fact is that by that point, the wide variety of films available meant that professional photographers chose the film that best suited the job and their style. K25 wasn't the standard anymore, there was no standard. Ectachrome was used in larger quantities commercially than Kodachrome or all the Fujichrome variants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.75.94 (talk) 10:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

While it's true that Ektachrome was more color-accurate than Velvia, this is pretty much a moot point as the debate is about Kodachrome vs. Velvia, and when it comes to color accuracy, both were amateur products compared to Ektachrome. Ektachrome was the film to go to for color accuracy, whereas Kodachrome and Velvia held the leading spots in resolution and saturation. Around the end of Kodachrome in the 2000s, Kodak tried to rival Velvia in the resolution and saturation categories with newer color-accurate Ektachrome products, but could never achieve both at the same time: E100G and E100GX were high-resolution and fine grain, whereas E100S ("Saturated"), E100WS ("Warm Saturated"), and especially E100VS ("Very Saturated", formerly Ektachrome Panther) had high saturation. Around 2007/08, Kodak gave up on high resolution and re-branded their entire Ektachrome line as Elitechrome, with Elitechrome 100 being a color-accurate amateur film that was neither saturated nor fine-grained, and Elitechrome 100 ExtraColo(u)r still being color-accurate and as highly saturated as Velvia. --79.242.222.168 (talk) 09:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

It appears that velvia 50 has not been obsoleted. Can the formats of 16mm and Super-8mm be added to the format available box? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.129.88.30 (talk • contribs).

I added Super 8 and 16mm formats to the infobox. And yes, that's right, Velvia 50 is being resurrected. --Imroy 13:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Velvia replacing Kodachrome, opinion?

Anonymous user 72.129.88.30 (talk · contribs) wrote this after the paragraph about Velvia replacing Kodachrome:

“ The above is OPINION, and should not be stated as fact. In the very early 90's, higher ups at Kodak begain regionalizing kodachrome processing. Overnight kodachrome processing was replaced by 2-3 day service and this upset many people who relied on the overnight processing of kodachrome for their livelihood. The COMBINATION of the introduction of Velvia AND Kodak's questionable move of regionalizing their processing of Kodachrome at the same time put a dent in Kodachrome sales that Kodachrome never recovered from. Quality may have suffered as well when Qualux entered the picture and took over the kodachrome processing for Kodak. It was odd timing that right when a competitor brought out an excellent competing product that Kodak would actually alienate their own client base, but that's what they did, and perhaps a few higher up executives made some bonuses for creating short term profits at the expense of long term stability. ”

It's totally unsourced and is more POV opinion and conjecture than the paragraph it follows. In fact, the only part of the previous paragraph that it could be in response to is "Many photographers credit Velvia with ending the Kodachrome era". Can we find sources for any of this? Can we find a way of presenting it in a NPOV manner? --Imroy 22:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

And again today:

“ I previously contributed to this section that KODAK also had a hand in Kodachrome's demise. Kodak regionalized kodachrome processing in the very early 90's and upset MANY of their longtime Kodachrome clients who were used to overnight processing service, which suddenly turned into 3 day processing and the quality may have dipped as well. If Wikipedia would like to claim that fuji velvia singlehandedly did in Kodachrome, that would be an OPINION that is not taking into account Kodak's questionable moves in the early 90's in regards to it's processing divisions. It might be accurate to say that because Kodachrome was more difficult to process that Kodak felt it was more profitable to diminish the ease of use of Kodachrome for it's customers and focus on other divisions. ”

This time I've left a warning on his talk page. --Imroy 17:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced or not, the above opinion pretty good reflects my own observations (except for the quality) that Kodak more and more de-emphasised Kodachrome over time. While it is a bit difficult to find out what was the cause and what the reaction, Kodak's acting in the nineties did not help strengthen Kodachrome's position in the market. There was a time in the eighties when even a Kodachrome 64 type 120 was introduced, and when development was available inside Germany. That film is gone, as well as KC 25, as well as development in DE (or in the EU at all), as well as development without framing option. Kodak has removed options, slowed development and has raised prices. Factually (though not formally) it has now become more or less unavailable in the EU. At least, I am unable to see any efforts on Kodak's part to promote Kodachrome. Thyl Engelhardt 213.70.217.172 08:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I just added a reference for the claim that "many photographers ", but it's not really a very good source. Can anyone improve on it? Or kill it, if deemed too lame a source:

1. ^ http://www.epinions.com/review/Fuji_Fujichrome_Velvia_50__RVP__12301250__Film_12301250/content_119032286852

Broom (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I have seen that the debate over the claim that Velvia forced the demise of KM25 has been going for years, yet this is just totally an opinion. I took it upon myself to edit that important second paragraph. There can't be any simple single reason for the end of KM25, or any Kodachrome product. Also, for me Velvia has to be exposed at a very precise exposure somewhat slower than ASA50, At 50 it is dark, overly saturated, and has quite noticeable grain. IMO. And I do use and love Velvia for some applications, but it is not a replacement for KM25. I don't mind if someone edits my changes, but it would be better not to even mention KM25, than to disparage it, especially as an opinion with no citation.Flight Risk (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

In any case, the entire claim of regionalizing is false as it refers to an alleged sub-contraction of Kodachrome processing in the late-80s, a thing which never happened until 2006. If anything, a regionalization of Kodachrome processing *DONE BY KODAK* (as all Kodachrome processing was done by them until 2006) would've only sped up turnaround time, rather than slowing it down. --79.242.222.168 (talk) 09:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

When exactly did Velvia 50 return?

I just edited the article to remove 'discontinued' from the Velvia 50 infobox and updated the 'speeds' section to note that it started showing up around the middle of the year. I meant to do that a few weeks ago but didn't get around to it and ended up forgetting the matter. I remember seeing on my occasional eBay perusals some Velvia 50 rolls being sold with expiry dates of "09/2008". I presume this is the new stuff. Does anyone have a more accurate sighting of the new Velvia 50, or even better, a source? --Imroy 17:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It's on the Fujifilm website now. Phytism (talk) 11:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Sample picture error

The sample photo on the right - unfortunately that was taken with a polarizing filter, so it's a false example. George Slivinsky (talk) 06:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Temporarily discontinued (again)?

Wasn't Velvia discontinued (again?) around 2012/13 (along with all other Fuji reversal stocks), with the last production batch expiring in early 2016, and only recently brought back in spring 2016? Together with Kodak's simultaneous axing of their last Ektachrome line branded Elitechrome (and Kodak filing for chapt. 11), it was taken by the media as "the death of (amateur) film". I remember that hence, single rolls of Velvia got up to 80 and 90 bucks on eBay in the meantime because everybody thought that this time, it was gone for good. And this spring, it's suddenly back even on Amazon, with later expiry dates, now costing circa 16-20 bucks per roll. --79.242.222.168 (talk) 09:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Quarry Velvia.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Autumn house Velvia.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)