New Velvia 100

[ssparbanie]

Is anyone shooting the new velvia? Opinions?

Fuji's press release claims the reciprocity failure is less significant than the old 50, but I haven't found that to be true. In fact, some shots, the color just seems...odd.

Anyone else have similar experiences?

Good, bad - post em if ya got em!

[xpan]

Velvia 100 IMAGE
http://www.pbase.com/xpan/song

[jhuddle]

I made a sad discovery for me this weekend. I compared a Velvia scanned image to an duplicate image taken with my Panasonic DMC FZ10 4mp digital P&S. The scanned image was done with my dedicated Minolta Dual Scan IV set to it's highest resolution and with 16x multipass. The resulting scan was a 83 mb file. While the Velvia image had better color the actual detailed resolution was much worse than with the digital shot. I am bummed as I don't really want to go digital. I'm going to do some more testing to see if maybe messed up on the focusing or something but I think I'm even closer now to being forced into the digital world.

[madhatter]

jhuddle,

I took a look through some of your galleries. The pictures were a bit small, but I didn't notice any focus problems. What do the slides look like? I don't know anything about scanning, but you might want to have some professional scans made before you decide to give up on film.

[jhuddle]

madhatter- I have had professional scans done but I like being in control of the total process. Plus, it gets harder and harder to find places to handle film especially slides. Add in the time to send the slides out for processing plus the time to have scans made and it starts taking way to long for my liking. I've got another batch of slides due in this week that I am going to test with again. I'm also considering an aftermarket scanning software like Vuescan vs Minolta's to see if I can get better results.

[dkfenn]

I've used both Vuescan and Minolta's own DiMage IV software and found little difference. Let me know if you have any significantly better scans...perhaps I wasn't using it correctly.

Dave

[wolfeye]

I think there are multiple possibilities here. If the film was developed poorly there could certainly be a loss of detail. Someone else asked you to look at your slides - I have often "seen" a nice, sharp slide when looking at it on a lightbox but under a loupe it doesn't hold up very well. In scanning, what I've seen is that what you took is what the scanner resolves, so if there is a lack of detail or sharpness, the scan will lack it too.

So, what if the slide image is a bit misfocused or lacks detail? Then we're comparing lenses and cameras. Panasonic made a brilliant choice partnering with Leica, and the lens on the FZ10 is a killer. It compares nicely with lenses costing several hundred dollars. If you're comparing the FZ10 to a kit lens that are often included with 35mm SLRs, the FZ10 will win. Oh, and if your camera is misaligned in any way, the focus could be off. Even a great lens can't help there.

While the Velvia image had better color the actual detailed resolution was much worse than with the digital shot.

[jhuddle]

Well, let me add more on this subject. I do love the color of the FZ10 lens but the noise of the sensor kills the camera's practical use at any iso above 100. Now on the other issues. I view/judge all my slides by close examination on a light table using a high quality Mamiya loupe. If they aren't sharp they go in the trash unless this was the desired result. Now for the lens, here's what I now use. Minolta maxxum 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2.0, 50mm f/1.7, 85mm f/1.4, 100mm f/2.8 macro, 300mm f/4.0. I've also got two Tokina's a 80-200mm f/2.8 ATX and a 20-35mm ATX along with a Sigma 400 f/5.6 APO (softest lens). So, as you can see I'm shooting quality glass on two different bodies. Both bodies were initially tested for focusing errors by me when purchased with an assortment of my lense at the cost of a few rolls of slide film. I have scans ranging from my basic Dual Scan IV scanner to a high end dedicated professional scanner and finally a few from a drum scanner. I compared one of those just the other day to an image from my newly purchased Minolta Maxxum 7D 6mp DSLR. The drum scan of a Velvia slide barely edged out the digital image. Price and convenience wise I don't see a reason to go the 35mm slide-drum scan route over the DSLR. Oh yeah, and the other day I ran a roll of Reala through one of my Hi-matic 7sII rangefinders. These little babies are revered for their sharp little lens. The resolution of the scanned images in this case were just awful. But I put that down to poor processing at the lab as I know from experience what I can get from that camera. But, all my slides get sent to a pro lab although those are getting harder to find also.

[xiaoding]

Digital out-resolving film is not news.

I don't take pictures for resolution, however. After two years with a digital, 4mp camera, I have gone back to slide film and a Nikon scanner.

The colors in digital are crap. The "look" of digital is cold, lifeless. Film is alive. People actually look like people!

I suspect this has to do with the interpolation that occurs with the bayer sensor, though I'm sure bit depth and color space is a factor as well. The Foveon is better than the Bayer, but it is too small. I demand my depth of field!

Digital was fun, and I will still scan my film, but it didn't take with me.

[sikario]

I have taken many shots with Velvia 100 and Velvia 100F in my galleries...

[mesullivan]

Although I haven't had my scanner very long, I've learned a few things from trial and error and tips from different sources on the net. Some slides just scan better than others due to their subject matter, exposure, etc. Some scanners do better with little details like putting the emulsion side down, aligning the slides the same way they would be if the negs were scanned (sounds crazy but it works). Sometimes you have to scan slides individually as the holder contains slides that have different levels in them.

Don't give up just yet. Or, you could do as some of us and use digital and film.

[diamondblast]

Although I haven't had my scanner very long, I've learned a few things from trial and error and tips from different sources on the net. Some slides just scan better than others due to their subject matter, exposure, etc. Some scanners do better with little details like putting the emulsion side down, aligning the slides the same way they would be if the negs were scanned (sounds crazy but it works). Sometimes you have to scan slides individually as the holder contains slides that have different levels in them.

Don't give up just yet. Or, you could do as some of us and use digital and film.

You mentioned you did some reading.
If you still got them can you please add your links.
I need some sources too .... kind of helpless actually.
Thank you so much.btw I want to recommend these sites workout routine, head coach.

[madlights]

I don't know if this makes any sense...and yes the Minolta glass is very good (although I always shot manual focus). I've found that it seems the resolution or clarity is higher in digital for everyday shots...and not some tests where everything is controlled...because the ones(tests) I've seen are very close between 35mm and digital. The thing is I've been toying with the idea of going back to film,(at least somewhat back) especially for B&W. It seems to me that much like when music switched to digital (dating myself here) the sound was very 'clear' but lacked some warmth and depth - maybe people can really sense the missing info? I've listened to very high resolution sound 24bit - 192khz where only 10-12 selections would fit on a DVD and can still sense that empty area - and with bad hearing. It seems visually that there is also some of that in photography. Digital is very clear...but think it lacks a certain warmth..It's a lot handier though and cheaper after the camera is paid for. Sometimes though think it's too handy..a person can go out and shoot digital like a machine gun. With film a person almost had to plan every shot, or close to it. So each sort of has it's strengths and weaknesses. I 'think' Minolta glass will fit Sony's DSLR (don't quote me) That's just all my opinion...although I shoot digital now, I'm glad I didn't sell away my film cameras...'cause I miss that certain warmth and depth of film...and how each shot sort of meant something, which is an intangible. (When I shot slides I always found that Kodak seemed somewhat more consistent at that time than Fuji, although when Fuji was 'on' it was great...maybe the "run" of the new Velvia wasnt' quite "on" too. The last time I shot slides was with Fuji color corrected (Tungsten) and was for photofloods on a copy stand and the color was so far off I threw them away...think the processing was drastically off...