[PRCo] Color Films Tested (fwd)

[prcopcc at p-r-co.com]

Sent this 12-hours ago - might show up again.
.
Digital not unlike going from dialUp to Broadband  --  once there one 
wonders why he didn't make the move sooner!!!!!!!
.
 From A Railroad Man::::::: 

http://www.grumpysworld.com/photoguide/film.htm 

Grumpy's Railroad Photography Guide - Film Selection & Use 


	Film Selection & Use
Copyright © 2002 Grumpy's World
Last Revised 15-November-2001 	 

Which Film is the Best?
That's an easy one — Fuji Provia 100F. Is it perfect? Of course not, but it 
is the best film for railroad photography. Why? There are lots of reasons, 
and you can read all about them in the section devoted to this film below. 
But wait, you say, everyone else is telling me that serious railfans only 
shoot Kodachrome. The trouble with railfans is they all live in the past. 
Many of these geezers are members of the Kodachrome Kult.
The Kodachrome Kult
A lot of railfans have been brainwashed about film selection, and hold very 
strong (read that, narrow-minded / ignorant / fanatical / self-righteous / 
etc.) feelings that Kodachrome is simply the film. Twenty years ago, I would 
have agreed with them wholeheartedly. It seems many railfans (including 
myself) got started with good old Kodachrome 64. Historically, it made sense 
to use Kodachrome, just like it made sense to use a typewriter to write 
papers. Today, Kodachrome is a dinosaur, nearing extinction. Kodak hasn't 
been a major force in photography for a long time now. They were far more 
interested in maintaining the status quo of ancient history than they were 
in advancing the state-of-the-art in film technology. Kodak is a company in 
trouble, and likewise, Kodachrome is a film in trouble. Just last year, 
Kodak discontinued the professional version of K25, and now they've 
discontinued the consumer version of it as well. It wouldn't surprise me at 
all if K64 and K200 are discontinued in the near future. There simply isn't 
any demand or need for these films. Now that the mail is at risk of being 
irradiated, I'm more certain than ever that Kodachrome is a dead duck. To be 
fair, it served us well over the last 60 years, but it's now time to move 
on. Wake up man, this is the new millennium. People who shoot Kodachrome are 
fossils living in the past, and their days are numbered.
Slides or Prints?
In general, most serious railfans shoot only color slides (or B&W 
negatives). Slide films have a number of advantages over print films. Here 
are the most important ones:
•	prints are hard to show to a large audience
•	slides last far longer than negatives
•	slides can record far more contrast (i.e. higher dynamic range) than 
negatives
•	publishers have historically preferred slides (and the serious ones still 
do)
•	slide film is usually less grainy than print film of the same speed
•	for the most part, only railfan wannabees shoot color print film
Of course, slides do have a few disadvantages that negatives do not:
•	slide film has virtually no margin for exposure error (little exposure 
latitude)
•	slide film is generally more expensive than print film
•	print film can be purchased everywhere - slide film can sometimes be hard 
to find
•	negatives can be developed (and ruined) just about anywhere in less than 1 
hour
Should I Buy Professional Film?
Consumer grade slide films are identical to professional grade films with 
one very important difference: aging. In order to yield the best color 
balance, slide films must be properly aged or ripened. Consumer grade 
Kodachrome is notorious for having an ugly green cast. Outdated Kodachrome 
will have a magenta cast, often mistaken as pink. I strongly suggest you 
stay away from consumer grade Kodachrome, especially if it has an expiration 
date far in the future. For that matter, I strongly suggest you stay away 
from all Kodachrome. Fuji slide films do not seem to vary as much with age 
as Kodachrome does, but Provia 100F is not available in a consumer version. 
Sensia is the same as the old Provia, and Sensia II is the same as Astia, 
but neither of these films is as nice as Provia 100F. Since film is the 
cheapest part of photography, why skimp on film or processing? Spend the 
extra bucks now and thank yourself later.
Do I Even Need Film Anymore?
I've been wondering this myself, and at some point in the not-so-distant 
future, the answer to this question will certainly be 'no'. Digital imaging 
is advancing at an exponential rate, and is clearly the future of 
photography. Someday, we will look back and wonder how people ever managed 
to take pictures using something as primitive as film. We're not quite there 
yet, but we're getting closer. I feel confident that by 2005, I will have 
completely abandoned film in favor of a totally digital solution. Many 
consumers have already ditched film cameras, and with good reason. A 6 
megapixel digicam can easily make snapshot prints that are as good as film. 
Before I can abandon film, I require a digicam that can produce 16x20 inch 
prints as good as those I can make with 35mm Provia 100F. That's still a few 
years down the road, but it will happen, and when it does, I'll be the first 
one there. In the mean time, I'm still shooting 35mm slides, but only for a 
little while...
Grumpy's Choice
I use only one film: Fuji Provia 100F. From October 1997 until October 2001, 
I shot Fuji Astia, and a few of the more enlightened Kult members are now 
using and even recommending Astia. Astia is a great film, but Provia 100F is 
even better. If you're already using Astia, making the switch to Provia 100F 
is quite simple. They both use the same exposure settings. If you're already 
shooting Astia, I suggest you switch to Provia 100F right now. If you're 
still shooting Kodachrome, you have my sympathy. When you come to your 
senses, try Provia 100F.
Proper Exposure of Provia 100F
One thing you need to know is how to expose Fuji slide films correctly. I've 
seen many people underexpose them, which does not yield pleasing results. In 
full sunlight (EV 15.0), you should shoot Provia 100F at 1/500 f7.1 (1/3 
stop open from f8), or the equivalent. I use an incident light meter to 
determine the correct amount of light falling on my subject. I set my meter 
to read the light in 'exposure value' (EV) units. Full sun is EV 15.0, and 
EV has the same increments as f-stops, so one full stop down from full sun 
would be EV 14.0. If you establish your standard full sun exposure, all you 
need to do is open up by the number of stops below 15.0 that your meter 
tells you to. Based on lots of experience, and my personal preferences, here 
is my table of exposures for Provia 100F (or Astia):
•	EV 15.1 to EV 14.9 = full sun
•	EV 14.8 to EV 14.5 = open up 1/3 stop from full sun
•	EV 14.4 to EV 14.2 = open up 2/3 stops from full sun
•	EV 14.1 to EV 13.9 = open up 1 stop from full sun
•	EV 13.8 to EV 13.5 = open up 1 and 1/3 stops from full sun
•	EV 13.4 to EV 13.2 = open up 1 and 2/3 stops from full sun
•	EV 13.1 to EV 12.9 = open up 2 stops from full sun
•	EV 12.8 to EV 12.5 = open up 2 and 1/3 stop from full sun
•	EV 12.4 or less = hang it up, it's too damned dark!
Confused yet? This system isn't nearly as difficult as it seems at first 
glance, and it does yield perfect results every time. I do prefer reading my 
meter in units of exposure value instead of having it translate the results 
into shutter and aperture based on film speed (which most meters do by 
default). In case you're not mathematically inclined, I've included this 
table of equivalent full sun exposures for Provia 100F (ISO 100):
•	1/3200 sec @ f2.8
•	1/2500 sec @ f3.2
•	1/2000 sec @ f3.5
•	1/1600 sec @ f4.0
•	1/1250 sec @ f4.5
•	1/1000 sec @ f5.0
•	1/800 sec @ f5.6
•	1/640 sec @ f6.3
•	1/500 sec @ f7.1
•	1/400 sec @ f8.0
•	1/320 sec @ f9.0
•	1/250 sec @ f10.0
•	1/200 sec @ f11.0
•	1/160 sec @ f13.0
•	1/125 sec @ f14.0
•	1/100 sec @ f16.0
Just don't underexpose Fuji slide films and you won't be disappointed.
Fuji Provia 100F
•	my first choice in films, and the only one I use
•	simply the best film for railroad photography, action or roster
•	the finest-grain slide film there is - way better than K25
•	essentially grainless, even when scanned at 4000dpi
•	amazingly sharp - much sharper than Astia, which looks soft in comparison
•	excellent color rendition, much better than Astia for blues
•	very pleasant deep-blue rendition of the sky - much better than Astia
•	excellent for use in low light situations such as sunrise/sunset
•	much better than Astia for use under hazy skies or high cirrus
•	standard full sun action exposure: 1/500 f7.1
•	more forgiving of exposure errors than most slide films (especially for 
overexposure)
•	never underexpose Provia 100F - the results are horrible
•	this is not the same film as the old Provia 100 or Sensia
•	best with blues and greens
•	weaker with yellows and reds, but still very good
•	may suffer headlight blob problem for head-on telephoto shots
Fuji Astia (100)
•	if you aren't shooting Provia 100F, you should shoot this instead
•	exceptional color rendition - very close to Kodachrome 25
•	Astia looks more like Kodachrome than Kodachrome does!
•	very fine grain - nearly as fine as K25 & much better than K64
•	more forgiving of exposure errors than most slide films (especially for 
overexposure)
•	very easy film to use for all sorts of shots - excellent for beginners
•	overall slightly soft image due to lower contrast and very fine grain
•	may suffer headlight blob problem for head-on telephoto shots
•	standard full sun action exposure: 1/500 f7.1 (f8 opened up 1/3 stop)
•	never underexpose Astia (or any Fuji slide film) - the results are 
horrible
•	weakest with blues and greens
•	best with reds and yellows
•	Sensia II 100 is identical to Astia in case you're a cheapskate
Fuji Velvia (50)
•	strictly a special purpose film, not suitable for railroad subjects
•	Disneyland color rendition which is usually disastrous
•	so-so grain - Astia has better grain, K64 has worse grain
•	can be rated at ISO 50, 40, or 32 depending on your taste
•	overwhelming color saturation, looks ridiculous for railroad subjects
•	works ok on grungy green BN junk, especially those damned Grungestain 
SD70MACs
•	never use it on UP/CNW/SF as red & yellow render very unrealistically
•	useful primarily for special effects like punching up dull subjects
•	don't use this film on anything you care about
•	standard full sun action exposure: 1/500 somewhere just above f4.0 
(towards f5.6)
•	standard full sun roster exposure: are you crazy or what? (hint: use K25)
•	I never use this film (but did in the past just to see how bad it really 
is)
•	you can do some really cool special effects with Velvia, but it takes 
practice
•	when pushed to 100, it makes a so-so cloudy day color film (if you're into 
clouds)
•	I cannot recommend this film to you, as it is just too weird for railfan 
uses
Kodak Kodachrome 25
•	this film has been discontinued and will soon be unavailable
•	K25 was probably the best color film Kodak ever made
•	excellent color rendition (very similar to Astia)
•	fine grain, high resolving power, fairly sharp
•	extreme contrast (sometimes a bit too much)
•	the film of choice for roster shots, freight car shots, & other stationary 
subjects
•	not really useful for action shots due to its slow speed (motion blur will 
kick your ass)
•	claimed (& proven so far) to be the longest lasting color film available
•	very slow and severely limited in its potential uses
•	will reveal even the slightest flaw in your focus or exposure
•	highly susceptible to motion blur and poor depth of focus
•	highly vulnerable to scratches due to its extreme thickness
•	requires full sunlight with no exceptions
•	standard full sun action exposure: are you nuts?
•	standard full sun roster exposure: 1/250 f5.6- varied as needed based on 
subject color
•	I love K25, but never use it due to its numerous disadvantages (I don't 
shoot rosters)
•	some friends of mine can work magic with K25, but I always had problems 
with it
•	it will take a lot of practice for you to become proficient with K25
•	if you're exclusively a roster shooter, K25 is the only film you'll ever 
need
•	if it can't be shot on K25, it can't be shot! — true enough, but shoot 
Provia 100F instead!
Kodak Kodachrome 64
•	probably used by more railfans than any other film (hello, is anyone awake 
out there?)
•	I hate this film and never use it under any circumstances
•	so-so color rendition - frequent problems with a nasty green cast, even on 
pro-film
•	very low color saturation - everything looks faded and washed out
•	acceptable grain - sky is very grainy (and frequently white) on K64
•	higher grain gives an illusion of high sharpness (this is good)
•	does not have a headlight blob problem & thus works well for head-on 
telephoto shots
•	turns to complete mud (color washes out) in anything less than full 
sunlight
•	makes your shots look like they were taken in the 1940's
•	never overexpose K64 - it looks washed-out enough even when correctly 
exposed
•	standard full sun action exposure: 1/500 f5.6
•	standard full sun roster exposure: you aren't paying attention are you?
•	vulnerable to scratches due to its thickness
•	I think you have to be crazy to use K64 - use Astia instead
•	I suspect this film will be discontinued in the near future
Kodak Kodachrome 200
•	I really hate this film and can't think of any possible reason to use it
•	poor color rendition - everything just looks wrong
•	way too grainy - almost gives an artistic textured effect
•	as with K64, the grain gives an illusion of extreme sharpness
•	does not have the headlight blob problems that Fuji films do
•	works so-so for cloudy day shots, if you're into that sort of thing
•	if you need a 200 speed film, it's probably too damned dark to shoot 
anyway
•	I suspect this film will be discontinued in the near future
Kodak Ektachrome E100VS
•	utter shite - it sucks worse than any slide film I have ever seen!
•	very poor color rendition - way too magenta
•	gray looks like purple - yellow looks like orange - everything looks like 
crap
•	fairly grainy, about like K64
•	too much color saturation, similar to Velvia
•	use this film if you want your slides to look as crappy as color prints do
•	did I mention that this film sucks?
•	if you're going to shoot E6, get your head out of your ass and use a Fuji 
product
Kodak Ektachrome E100S
•	this film is utterly useless, though not nearly as bad as E100VS
•	Ektachrome is blue, and it doesn't get any more blue than this
•	poor color rendition - too blue (didn't I just say that?)
•	I've never liked Ektachrome and this film is no better than any of the old 
stuff
•	if you're going to shoot E6, get your head out of your ass and use a Fuji 
product
Kodak Ektachrome E100SW
•	even Kodak realized that E100S blew, but this attempt didn't fix that
•	poor color rendition - too warm
•	use this film to make all of your shots look like sunset shots
•	if you're going to shoot E6, get your head out of your ass and use a Fuji 
product
Color Print Films
•	all color print films suck, period
•	I strongly suggest you use slide films instead
•	I never use color print film (use digital if you're in a hurry)
•	all color print film is grainy as hell
•	all color print film has a nasty magenta cast
•	all brands of color print film suck, so use any old brand you like
•	color negatives deteriorate very quickly and must be stored in the dark
•	exposure doesn't matter all that much, as print film is quite forgiving
•	most dimestore labs will scratch the hell out of your negatives
•	why are you even thinking about shooting color print film anyway?
B&W Films
•	I no longer see any need to shoot B&W at all
•	shoot color and use Photoshop to create a B&W image if you must
•	I used to shoot Kodak TMAX 400 in 120 size (for my Pentax 6x7) and rated 
it at ISO 200
•	I never found a 35mm B&W film I liked - the negatives are just too small 
for me
•	always expose B&W for the shadows (i.e. overexpose it a little)
•	always develop B&W for the highlights (i.e. underdevelop it a little)
•	B&W is a highly personal thing - you must experiment to find what works 
for you
•	always develop your own B&W so you have total control over all variables
•	B&W is an art, and is much more difficult to master than shooting color 
slides
Storage of Film
Always try to keep the film in the camera for as short a time as possible. 
Bad things can happen if you leave your film in the camera for long periods 
of time (see the '2nd Frame Blur Problem' section). You can throw unexposed 
film in the freezer and it will essentially keep forever; however, never 
freeze exposed film. Also, when you take rolls out the freezer to shoot, 
allow plenty of time (e.g. 1 hour) for them to thaw out before removing the 
film from the canister and loading it into your camera. Always have your 
slides processed as soon as practical after exposing them.
Processing
I use pre-paid processing mailers for all of my slide film. This used to be 
a simple process, but in recent times, there are new problems. The postal 
service is now irradiating some of the mail. If your film happens to be 
irradiated, your slides will be toast. I wish I had a simple answer for you, 
but alas, I do not. I have been accumulating exposed rolls until I have a 
fair number of them, then I ship off the batch via UPS ground or FedEx to 
the processing lab. If a decent E6 lab was available locally, I would 
probably have my slides processed that way.
Let's face it, all processing labs suck. Some suck worse than others. I had 
been using Fuji's Phoenix lab for my slides, but they finally pissed me off 
one too many times. They usually do a good job, but when they screw up, 
their customer service is virtually nonexistent. My current favorite is A&I. 
Yes, they are quite a bit more expensive than Fuji, but I think they are 
worth it. Some people don't like their mounts because the film is flat and 
it doesn't project very well. On the other hand, it scans very well, and I 
hardly ever project anything, so I don't mind. A&I's strong points are that 
they don't scratch slides or cover them with dust. I always hated getting a 
box of slides back from Kodak because they looked like someone had emptied a 
pencil sharpener on them. Here are some more hints about processing:
•	use A&I for Provia 100F or Astia (but not Kodachrome)
•	you can also use Fuji's Phoenix lab if they haven't pissed you off yet
•	use Kodak's lab in Fair Lawn, NJ for Kodachrome (why are you shooting that 
crap?)
•	do not send film through the U.S. Mail - it might get nuked
•	UPS and FedEx appear to be safe for film at this time, but that could 
change
•	print some stickers with your name & address, then attach them to the film 
canister
•	tape your mailers shut to prevent them from coming open
•	if you are really paranoid, put your mailers in a padded envelope or box
•	never let some cheap drugstore process your slides
•	most scratches in slides are caused by dirt in your camera, not the 
processing lab
•	always use air to blow out your camera back every time you change film 
(prevents scratches)
•	always try to load and unload your film in the shade
•	most local labs mount your slides in plastic mounts, which really suck
Sorting and Labeling Your Slides
Once you get your slides back, you'll want to take care of them so they 
last. You should also take the time to label and sort them while the 
information is still fresh in your mind. Twenty years from now, nobody will 
have a clue how to sort your slides if you don't tend to that now. I suggest 
the following:
•	label slides with your name, date of shot, location of shot, train #, & 
lead engine #
•	don't store your slides in vinyl sheets as these can eat & destroy them
•	a metal slide box stored in a cool, dry, dark place is best for preserving 
your slides
•	fingerprints permanently ruin slides - keeps your fingers off the film!
•	always handle slides only by the edges
•	keep slides away from sunlight (or any light) as light & heat destroy 
slides very quickly
•	don't leave your slides laying around to gather dust
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
http://www.peimag.com/pdf/pei01/pei0801/whitepei0801.pdf
.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/velvia100f.htm
.
http://www.vividlight.com/articles/2814.htm
.
http://www.photocritique.net/digest/1999-10.html
.
http://www.photographic.com/film/143/
.
http://www.ephotozine.com/equipment/buyersguide/fullbuyersguide.cfm?buyersgu 
ideid=10
.
http://www.dl-c.com/Temp/products/pmscan_intro.html
.
http://www.scubaboard.com/archive/index.php/t-85626.html
.
http://www.epinions.com/content_127083056772
.
http://64.233.161.104/search?=cache:cRPzYt6n6R0J:www.fujifilm.no/digimaker/ 
documents/NY_Velvia_info_VM0CKM336fo.pdf+velvia+provia+astia&hl=en
.
http://www.cathychurch.com/CathyChurchWeb%2003219/latestdv.html
.
http://www.nikonians.org/dcforum/DCForumID20/1932.html
.
http://www.photographyblog.com/index.php/weblog/comments/fujichrome_velvia_1 
00_professional_introduced_at_pma_2005/
.
http://www.ecopix.net/magazine/accessories/accessories1.htm
.
http://www.photographic.com/film/159/index1.html
.
http://verba.chromogenic.net/archives/2004/12/this_that.html
.
http://www.e-cards.com/biographies/doug-dolde.html
.
http://www.coastalbeacons.com/Velvia50vs100F/velvia50vs100F.htm
.
http://www.jeremydaalder.com/technique.php
.
http://www.camerahunter.com/fuji_pronet_page.htm
.
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:gjlg6XBHjIcJ:www.fujifilm.no/digimaker/ 
documents/NY_Astia_info_jMY86h333fo.pdf+velvia+provia+astia&hl=en
.
http://photoagency.com.pl/start.htm
.
http://www.normankoren.com/zonesystem.html
.
http://www.photographical.net/kodak_e100g.html
.
http://www.taphilo.com/photo/fujifilmxref.shtml
.
http://www.customvisuals.net/gallery_directories/galleries/a_Matthew_Mu.htm
l
.
.
.
.
.
More on Astia 100F
A bunch of us from our camera club went up to Vulture Mine near Wickenburg 
and took pictures of --- junk again! Most of the shots were indoors in old 
mining buildings. Most of the people were using digital cameras. I was one 
of the few film holdouts.
After the positive results I got with Astia on the trip to Jerome a few 
weeks ago, I decided to shoot a bunch of rolls of Astia on the "junk" 
subjects, thinking it would be a great film for that subject matter. I also 
shot some with Velvia 100F for comparision. I used my Pentax 6x7 
exclusively.
The verdict? Well, for sure the colors Astia 100F are more neutral, and very 
accurate. As I noticed before, Astia 100F doesn't have the tendency to go as 
blue in the shadows as Velvia 100F, and it does have a "longer" shoulder on 
the shadow side of things. However, this time around I discovered a drawback 
to Astia. Not having shadows block up as easily also means you have less 
contrast, and thus the transparencies just aren't as sharp under the loupe 
as Velvia.
The loss in sharpness is subtle. It's more of a feeling -- a feeling I've 
learned to trust. And in "blind" tests I've done with myself, it's a 
repeatable phenomenon, so I know it's real. But I'm probably the only one 
among my friends that would even notice.
I found myself liking the Velvia transparencies better -- they just had more 
pop. Along the perceived sharpness, I'm sure the slight increase in 
saturation is also a factor.
So, lesson learned. I think I'll stick with Velvia 100F unless I really want 
the softer contrast and more accurate colors of Astia. I'm sure Astia would 
make a great portrait film, although I haven't tried it in that setting yet.
In any case, the difference between these two films isn't all that much. To 
me there is less difference between Velvia 100F and Astia 100F than there is 
between the old Velvia 50 and Provia 100F. I am finding that for most 
things, the palette of the Velvia 100F is quite pleasing, and a good 
compromise between the highly saturated Velvia (which I must confess is 
still great for those scenics that need the extra color), and the neutral, 
more accurate Astia 100F.
Posted by bryan at 05:55 PM | Comments (0)
March 19, 2004
Astia 100F
I took a break yesterday from an intensive few months of programming on my 
photo/image processing software, and went out and actually took some 
photographs! Haven't done that in a while, it seems. Instead, I've had my 
head down coding as fast and intense as possible, trying to get a product 
together someday this millenia (lol).
Me and some friends went up to Jerome, AZ and took pictures in and around 
this former mining town. In my bag was some new Astia 100F, so I thought I'd 
give it a try, being mostly a Velvia 100F fan these days. While Velvia is 
great for scenics -- which is what I mostly shoot -- I was very impressed 
with Astia. I'd forgotten what neutral colors looked like. This is a very 
nice film.
While most of the picture we took were of old mining junk -- junk being the 
operative word here -- I managed to sneak in some flower shots, and even 
managed to nail some really nice photos. I was surprised to see how well 
Astia handled the colors. Normally, I would have considered flowers Velvia's 
territory, but Astia handled them quite nicely, thank you very much.
I also happened to take a few photos around my house of the spring color and 
the seemingly out-of-place greens in the desert mountain park across the 
street from my house, both with Velvia 100F and Astia 100F. The interesting 
thing is that I could detect only a little difference between the two. The 
Velvia is a little bluer in the shadows. In fact, one criticism is that the 
new Velvia is sometimes over the top on it's sensitivity to blue. Curiously, 
not all the time, but I've been noticing it more and more. It's still much 
better than the Provia 100F IMHO. I don't seem to get the weird cyan casts 
like I did from time to time with Provia 100F, and it was often too cool on 
overcast days.
Anyway, it appears I should do some more experimenting with Astia. It might 
make a nice flowers and landscape film after all. I have a feeling that 
Velvia, and particularly the older Velvia 50, will be better for those 
overcast situations where you need to pop the color.
Posted by bryan at 05:05 PM | Comments (0)
March 15, 2004 

 

Reviewed by: NATEG, Intermediate
Photography Experience:
2-5 years, Outdoor
Summary:
I bought Fuji Astia attracted to the reviews on this site. My thoughts were 
that the fine grain structure would be attractive and wanted to use a film 
designed to render skin tones accurately. I suppose that the results do show 
that skin tones are good, but everything else came out dull. I primarily 
shoot outdoor shots and love the velvia line - this film is just too dull 
for me. The results came out with a yellow cast, which may be a result of my 
exposure being slightly off.
Strengths:
Accurate skin tones - great for people
Weaknesses:
Overall, the film has a dull cast with very neutral color rendering
Similar Products Used:
Fuji Velvia, Provia - although not really similar to Astia 


Reviewed by: Stewart Bootles, Professional
Price Paid: $4 at Discount Films Direc
Photography Experience:
6-10 years, People
Summary:
I use this film exclusively for portraits and have beautiful 12X8 prints 
made from it.
Skin tones are perfect and grain is non existent.
Though you have to be right on the money with exposure though whats new with 
slide film.
Strengths:
EVERYTHING!
Weaknesses:
What with this baby?
Similar Products Used:
Kodak Portra 


Reviewed by: ethanolson, Intermediate
Price Paid: $560 at Pictureline
Photography Experience:
11-20 years, Outdoor
Summary:
I've used primarily color negative film for most of my work (because of my 
desired proofing methods). But, I wanted something that would make my 
wintertime snowfield shots extraordinary. I heard Astia was great for 
whites, so I gave Astia 100F a try. 

Well... 

It's amazing! There is more highlight detail than I have seen in any film. 
The shadow detail is plenty also, which tells me that the colore dye 
couplers used in the film render flat exposure curves. 

The colors are about as true to life as I've seen. There is the hitch where 
a flower might be reflecting UV and the film puts a tinge of magenta into 
the mix if it's a deep red or purple flower. Violet (which is not purple) 
renders much better than on Velvia. 

I shot some pictures of my baby girl, blossoms, bicycles, etc. and found 
nothing but brilliance.
Strengths:
Best color reproduction I've ever seen. It's so good, that you don't need to 
go looking for a punchy film to compensate for midtone crush often seen in 
other films. The grain pattern is way better than in Provia, so sharpness 
and clarity are superior.
Weaknesses:
Expensive stuff. From beginning to end, it costs me 35.7 cents per 35mm 
slide. That's the price for the best, I guess.
Similar Products Used:
Provia 100F 

 

Reviewed by: silvereye, Professional
Price Paid: $0 at N/A
Photography Experience:
21+ years, People
Summary:
since I switched to usinf Canon EOS, I have been looking for a slide film to 
take advantage of the superb smoothness and gradation of the lenses, and 
which would be suitable for landscape and portraits with the accent on 
editorial work.i was given a couple of rolls by the Fujifilm rep to try.
I expected that it would be somwhat soft and pallid for landscape. Compared 
to Velvia it is. But then, not everybody wants that sort of saturation. I 
notice that it holds both the shadows and highlights with a superbly smooth 
tonal gradation. Primary colours are rendered with accuracy and vividness( 
although reds tend to have that Fuji inclination towards magenta). if there 
was ever a slide film with a tonal range similar to neg. film this must 
surely be it!
Strengths:
grain-what grain!
superb in N+ light
subtle in N-light
sharp
Weaknesses:
watch the exposure!
Similar Products Used:
Yo name it 

 

Reviewed by: Brian, Professional
Price Paid: $0 at Venice Camera
Photography Experience:
2-5 years
Summary:
I was disappointed, using Provia 100F filme, as it mad skin tones a bit 
blueish or reddish, which bothered me. Upon recommendation of two labs, I 
switched to Astia 100F. Skin tones are correct and there is almost no film 
grain even on photos enlarged to 8x10, made from the original slide.
Strengths:
Accurate skin tones, and ideal contrast. Slides are very sharp.
Weaknesses:
None.
Similar Products Used:
Provia 100F 

 


Reviewed by: cristi_manasoiu, Intermediate, from CT, USA
Price Paid: $6 at BHPhotoVideo
Photography Experience:
2-5 years, People
Summary:
I waitted for this film, my expections were rewarded with a perfect film for 
me. Scanned at 4000dpi this film shows almost no grain, better than Provia 
100F and perfect, accurate colors. For scanning, you need to rate it at ISO 
80, not 100. To me, sharpened pictures look as good (or better) than digital 
Canon 1Ds.
Strengths:
NO grain
Perfect, accurate colors
Weaknesses:
Price could be lower
No ISO 400 version yet
Similar Products Used:
Provia 100F, Velvia 50, Kodak 100SW/100G/GX, Reala 100 

 


Reviewed by: Jim007, Professional, from Rochester, NY
Price Paid: $0 at B&H
Photography Experience:
6-10 years, People
Summary:
I have been looking for a suitable film for high resolution scanning of 
fashion images and nudes for some time. After trying over 10 other films, 
I've finally settled on the new Astia F. Even with slight overexposure 
(Rated at 80) there is a great deal of useful information even in the 
brightest whites which my scanner can easily resolve. Exposing at 80 is also 
great for maintaining shadow detail. However, like many pro slide films, 
exposure control is critical and I can not recommend this film for weekend 
shooters. 

I've already shot over 800 220 rolls and I'm still happy.
Strengths:
Excellent skin tones
Accurate color palette
Great for high res scanning (2500+)
Tight grain
Weaknesses:
Critical exposure control required
Similar Products Used:
All reversal films by Kodak, Fuji, Agfa 

 


Suggestions for Color Film
Category: Film and Holders
Jump to bottom
I''ve used b&w film exclusively for many years. I've decided to try some 4x5 
color slide and negative film on a trip to Oregon next month to see how I 
like it. I know next to nothing about color films especially slide films. 
Could someone suggest a good general purpose (mainly landscape) slide film 
and a good general purpose negative film along with a suggested EI for each? 
Film speed isn't critical but I'd prefer something in the 100 ASA range or 
faster. The intended use is scans and prints of about 11x14 inches if that 
matters. I'm not a big fan of that super-saturated look I see so much of, I 
tend to like more muted colors but that isn't critical for this experiment.
 --Brian Ellis, 2005-08-29 07:00 PM
Replies 

Dear Brian,
Your Choices are: Portra 160 NC and VC. Portra 400 NC. Fuji NPS. They're all 
good.
 --Neal Wydra, 2005-08-29 19:16:51
________________________________________ 

For neg film, I really like Kodak Portra VC 160 - I usually rate it around 
140. The NC is fairly nice and less saturated as well, I typically rate this 
at 125.
For landscape work, I personally have never been a fan of shooting 
transparencies. Not enough local control of the contrast range.
 --Will Strain, 2005-08-29 19:17:06
________________________________________ 

Brian, I can echo the NPS (or the new Pro 160) from Fuji for neg films. For 
slide, the latest Astia is neutral in color and a grain RMS of 7. I expose 
NPS @ iso 125 on sunny days and 100 on cloudy days. Astia I find works well 
at rated speed of 100. If the contrast of the scene is low, then it's safe 
to rate @ iso 80.
Enjoy!
 --Dave Luttmann, 2005-08-29 20:07:40
________________________________________ 

Brian,
To a large extent film is a matter of personal choice. If you don't want the 
saturated look then you will want to start with either Astia or Provia in 
the Fuji films and E100G or maybe EPP from Kodak. These are all transparency 
films, I seldom shoot color negative film. I have used all of these anf 
generally gravitate toward the Fuji emulsions with a general preference for 
Astia as the most natural and neutral (I do prefer the saturated look a lot 
as well but not discussing it here per your preferences) which I find works 
well for most landscapes, especially coastal. Provia, OTOH, gives you the 
widest exposure latitude of any of the transparency films and I find it 
works well when I want some warmth in the scene, especially with fall 
foliage if I am not using Velvia. Kerry did a good article for View Camera 
on all the current color transparency films ... think it was about a year 
ago ... and well worth looking at although I don't recall if it covered the 
current new Velvia and Astia 100F.
 --Ted Harris, 2005-08-29 20:12:52
________________________________________ 

Brian, I find myself oscillating between several films for landscapes. Each 
has its own areas of strength and its own shortcomings. For this reason I 
find myself with some of each of the films in Quickload and Readyload 
formats in my backpack, plus the two holders of course.
In slide film, I use Fuji Astia 100F, Kodak E100G, and a little Fuji Velvia 
50 or 100 (not Velvia 100F, which is best left at the shop). Overall, I find 
that Astia 100F fits my style the best. It's rich enough but subtle too. 
Kodak E100G I find generally too warm, although there is an even warmer 
variety too (GX), but it works nicely just after dawn, say the first ten 
minutes, when the light is very weak. In predawn or twilight, I find E100G 
has a schizophrenic magenta tendency that swings wildly with half-stop 
exposure variations. I don't E100G's greens either. Contrary to many, I only 
use Velvia in extremely low contrast situations, where I find that, 
perversely, so long as you don't underexpose, it can produce transparencies 
of considerable delicacy. I have also used Provia 100F in the past, but 
found it tends towards a steely blue in some subdued lighting situations.
In colour negative film, I use Fuji NPS simply because it's available in 
Quickload. I find it quite similar to Kodak Portra NC, which I would 
otherwise happily use except Portra is only available in the VC version in 
Readyload. That brings me to the other consideration with neg films. As 
someone who scans and prints digitally, I see no advantage in using the 
higher contrast versions of the neg films, such as Portra VC or Fuji Reala. 
I use neg film when the latitude is just too great for slide film + grad ND 
filters, so I'm looking for a low contrast rendering.
Others will have different opinions of course, as Ted has already 
illustrated with Provia :-)
If you want to see some examples of each of these, I can email you some 
links to photographs on my website illustrating what I've described.
 --Leigh Perry, 2005-08-29 20:26:45
________________________________________ 

Brian,
I like Fuji NPS for neg and Provia for transparency... Velvia is nice but it 
seems better fitted for studio shooting where you can control the contrast.
I've also used Portra 160 shot at 125... very nice as well! :)
Generally, I shoot Provia at 80 and NPS at what it's rated at.
I think the true film speed will be dependent on your own gear... largely 
the shutter speed settings and meter. :)
Overall, IMHO, there's a lot of choice out there and they all do the job 
very well... :)
Cheers
 --Henry C., 2005-08-29 23:20:34
________________________________________ 

If you are used to shooting B&W then you are in for a shock with colour 
film, especially transparencies. I suggest you invest in some graduated 
filters to try and bring some control over your images - if you are used to 
using the zone system you are going to have to work with a 3 stop range.
 --mark blackman, 2005-08-30 00:35:33
________________________________________ 

Thanks for all the suggestions. I can see that it's going to take more than 
1 10 sheet box of slide film and 1 of negative to figure out what I like 
best, assuming I stick with this strange stuff, but this gives me a place to 
start.
 --Brian Ellis, 2005-08-30 05:20:04
________________________________________ 

I'm surprised there was just one vote for the Provia F 100. A very forgiving 
slide film with the finest grain of them all! The latest generation too.
 --gps, 2005-08-30 05:49:20
________________________________________ 

Well, Brian asked for a general purpose slide and print film and Astia or 
E100G fits the request for G.P. Provia’s contrast is about the same as 
Velvia 100F, so it can’t really be called a G.P. film.
There were some great responses. As Leigh pointed out it's important to 
consider the scene you are shooting when selecting the film to use. 
Fortunately LF lets you pick each sheet. I try to match the color of the 
subject and the lighting to the film choice. For greens, browns, and reds I 
like Provia a lot. It is slightly less saturated than Velvia 100F and a lot 
less saturated than Velvia 50. If I were shooting scenes with lots of green 
foliage, then Provia would be in my camera.
On the beach is a different story. Provia doesn't handle yellow or blue very 
well. It tends to block up yellow. So, scenes with golden light are better 
shot with something else--Astia, Velvia, E100G.
 --David Roossien, 2005-08-30 06:18:30
________________________________________ 

GPS,
According to Fuji, the RMS for Provia 100F is 8, while Astia 100F is 
7.....making Astia the finest grain as yet for their chrome lineup.
 --Dave Luttmann, 2005-08-30 07:10:53
________________________________________ 

Astia for a more natural response, Provia 100F for a more saturated but not 
as much as Velvia. I prefer provia. It fits me.
I like NPS and NPH, as well as 160 and 400 NC. Not a big fan of VC
It is a real personal choice. One 10 sheet box and some testing will give 
you enough to know if you like the look of a particular film. No need to go 
the 20 shot or 50 shot box.
I would rather shoot with readyloads or quickloads. Don't know why but I can 
load and unload a film holder with BW with not a scratch. Put color film in 
and I scratch the hell out of it. The quick load and ready load gets rid of 
this problem for me.
 --mark, 2005-08-30 07:33:25
________________________________________ 

Since you won't be making large prints, I don't think you'll see much 
difference between many of the emulsions mentioned above, so you have quite 
a bit of leeway here.
Since you're not a super-saturated kind of guy, I would suggest shooting 
color neg film. I've been using Portra 160VC (a bit more color saturation 
than NPS), but I am very curious about the new Fuji 160S (I have a box on 
order). Ctein in the latest issue of Photo Techniques magazine rates 160S as 
the best color print film available. Calumet has it in stock (both in 
standard sheets and Quickloads).
Transparency film limits you to shooting either early or late in the day, or 
in shade. If you were gung-ho on color saturation and contrast, then putting 
up with this limitation might be worth it, but since you prefer more muted, 
natural colors, I don't see the point. Color neg film is also more tolerant 
of warm/cool light temperatures when shooting in shade or reflected light. 
The most color neutral transparency film I've worked with is Astia 100F.
 --Eric Leppanen, 2005-08-30 10:12:17
________________________________________ 

Dave, thanks for the update.
 --gps, 2005-08-30 12:09:01
________________________________________ 

I'd put my vote in for Astia. Since it's slide film, you don't have to worry 
about color casts introduced in printing (of course, you do stil have to 
worry about color casts just from the color of the light.)
More importantly to me though, using slide film lets me see a more or less 
finished product on the light box. You can't just look at a neg and tell 
that much about the picture.
I also love Astia's color palette, good colors but not over saturated. Nice 
fine grain. Great skin tones. And, for low light photography, no need to 
worry about reciprocity failure out to about 2 minutes. Of course, other 
people care about this factor less...
Really, I don't know that you'd go wrong with any of the color films 
available in 4x5. It's not like Seattle Filmworks is selling 4x5 film.
 --Nathaniel Paust, 2005-08-30 14:01:51
________________________________________ 

Something else to think about - consider limiting your choices to those 
available in readyload or quickload formats. Why? If you are shooting B&W 
from film holders, this cuts down on the confusion. At least it does for me. 
Otherwise you've got all kinds of things in film holders and you have to go 
through a lot of pain and effort to keep everything separated and your meter 
set to the right EI.
So... I'd consider 160PortraVC for your negative film. It comes in 
readyloads, and it's works quite well for landscape work I think. For a 
slide film, I'd try Kodak E100G in readyloads, which has had a number of 
favorable reviews.
Now, I've never used a large format slide film. I want the extra dynamic 
range I can get from negative films. Since I'm scanning, I've found that I 
can treat the color film pretty much as I treat B&W film. That is, expose 
for the shadows and let the highlights fall where they may. For both Tri-X 
and 160PortraVC, I put the shadows I want to carry detail on zone III, and 
go.
Actual EI rating will depend at least in part on the lab that processes it. 
For example, I find that an EI of 160 for the Portra works just fine with my 
lab. Others find that it needs to be downrated a bit. I can't advise you on 
an EI for E100G.
 --Bruce Watson, 2005-08-30 16:55:25
________________________________________ 

I agree with Henry's recommendation of Fuji NPS for negative and Provia for 
transparency. Some folks complain that Provia has a blueish cast in shadows 
and I have noticed this from time to time. But to me that seems to be its 
only drawback. Additionally, it is advertised as having no reciprocity 
failure and this appears to be the case.
I tried one box of Astia and was disappointed. I found it to lack contrast 
and to me the colors seemed "washed out". In April I photographed a Mormon 
temple in the small town of Paris, Idaho. It was built from pink sandstone 
that was quarried locally, and the color of the building was simply 
stunning. The resulting Astia transparency looked like ... a red brick 
church. Very disappointing.
And as for Velvia -- the world is not a cartoon.
 --Mike Lewis, 2005-08-30 18:46:43
________________________________________ 

"And as for Velvia -- the world is not a cartoon."
Yes, it is. And its a really good one with that Frog Skin brand film, paper, 
and (oh yes!) chemicals!
The Kodak E100G or E100GX film is good stuff. The colors seemed fine, 
nothing abby normal about it. The E100VS is saturated, though.
Do you own a 35mm camera? If so, just buy some different rolls of film, set 
up a still life or something, and shoot the rolls. The best comparison is 
based on what you see for yourself.
 --Brian Miller, 2005-08-30 20:19:18
________________________________________ 

I'm perfectly happy with the combination of Astia 100F and NPS. I shoot 
Astia when the contrast range allows and NPS otherwise. I use both in 
Quickloads.
 --Eric Fredine, 2005-08-30 21:16:15
________________________________________ 

 

 


http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6023& 
whichpage=2 


Posted - 26/06/2004 :  04:13:51
________________________________________
Fuji makes awesome slide film. The case is not closed yet on Kodak vs Fuji 
for pro color negative emulsions, but I think it is for slide film. Kodak 
has a few very decent E6 products, but overall the Fuji line is unbeatable. 
The Velvia/Provia/Astia line is wonderful. 

I never even tried Fuji B&W emulsions (they're said to be very good, 
however) and I've never been much of a Kodak B&W user either. I never shot a 
single roll of chromegenic film. 

You were right in holding to film you knew well while travelling. Oce in a 
lifetime travels are a BAD time to experiment. That said, I'm serious about 
this Velvia 100 (not 100F) slide film. Lots of people would like to give it 
a try. Fuji's decision not to release it in North America is a bit 
mysterious. 

 

 

http://www.naturfotograf.com/e100vs_review.html 

Bringing The Colours Back With Kodak's New Ektachromes
Review by Bjørn Rørslett
________________________________________
Old Yellow has seen hard times in its competition with the highly successful 
Japanese film giants. Nature photographers in particular have taken to Fuji 
Velvia the way ducks take to water. When more speed is called for, green 
film cartridges containing Sensia, Provia and Astia have been the choice of 
many. myself inclusive.
Fuji has aggressively priced their films on the European market to make 
Kodak's marketing position even more difficult. Had Kodak film been superior 
to the green ones, an elevated price would be easier to swallow for their 
customers. However, recent Kodak products such as the Panther/Lumiere range 
have been positively bad as far as colour rendition was concerned and 
sharpness was even worse. I myself wouldn't touch Kodachrome with a ten foot 
pole due to its lousy colours, lack of acuity, frequent development damages, 
high price and long processing delays, after such great films as Fuji Velvia 
emerged to commence the trend of today's vividly saturated colour films.
Now, although Velvia is the preferred choice of many, it's clear that this 
is not the film for all occasions. To wit, shooting Velvia in bright 
sunshine is simply asking for trouble due to Velvia's high contrast. True, 
downrating its speed to shoot at EI 40 throws a little more light into the 
shadows, but highlight areas concurrently can burn out and colour balance 
suffers.
The perfect alternative to Velvia would be a film combining its vividly 
fresh colours with high sharpness, better speed and more latitude to cope 
with high-contrast scenes. Kodak, of all, surprised me by introducing 
Ektachrome E100VS (VS = Vivid Saturation). Based on the moderately 
successful E100S concept, the VS newcomer overcomes Kodak's traditional 
reluctance to produce colour films with a rendition matching the consumer's 
needs instead of the densitometer.
They did this with a film that is truly a worthy challenge to Velvia. E100VS 
(when will Kodak understand the need for more catchy names, too?) has some 
remarkable features. First and foremost, its colour saturation helps make 
images which really shine on the light table. The balance of this film is to 
ensure a faithful rendition of the gray scale, Kodak specifications assert. 
A film speed of 100 ISO opens for a wide range of photographic applications 
while still retaining a useful image quality. The film is further claimed to 
be very tolerant to long exposures, a feature in fact shared with its 
predecessor E100S. Kodak also introduces this film in a consumer grade, 
designated Select Chrome (EBX) and being targeted at the amateur market it 
also carries a lower price. These products are very similar but not 
identical, as will be seen later on.
________________________________________
My field experience with E100VS clearly indicated this is an outstanding 
performer. For nature photographers, the introduction of E100VS means there 
now is a film that spans the whole range from harsh sunlight to deep shadows 
with an unprecedented ease. I shot with E100VS under a tremendous variety of 
weather conditions; heavy snowfall, dense fog, pouring rain, in early 
morning light, in hazy sunlight as well as under bright April skies. Spring 
conditions really are quite unpredictable here in Oslo.
I found this film slightly less sharp than Velvia, no big surprise since its 
published RMS value is 11 compared to Velvia's 9. However, we do not shoot 
our pictures the RMS way so subjective graininess is more important to most 
of us. Grain structure of E100VS is smooth and there is just a perceptible 
touch of graininess in large areas of bright sky. Sharpness of this film 
should satisfy all but the most nit-picking buffs. (They don't come out to 
take pictures anyway). The film contrast is moderate and this helps overcome 
the problems inherent with bright sunlight at the possible sacrifice of the 
ultimate in detail sharpness. There obviously is a balance to be struck here 
and Kodak may have hit the right choice when they designed VS. Its exposure 
latitude is fairly narrow, however, and one should aim for substantially 
less than 0.5 EV deviation from the optimum exposure. With modern cameras 
and their sophisticated metering designs this isn't a big challenge and even 
my trustworthy old Nikon F2 AS gave me no problems in this respect. 

E100VS captures the extreme contrast range of this blazingly sun-lit scene 
with ease. The colours sing with life, yet deep shadow detail is remarkable. 
Kodak's claim that the film is gray-scale neutral is well corroborated by 
this shoot. In fact, the scene was captured to film exactly as I saw it in 
the viewfinder!
(click on the thumbnail to see a larger image) 


At this time of the year here in south-eastern Norway, only the shoreline 
gives an opportunity to assess the rendition of green vegetation. Here I 
availed myself of a low tide to shoot these fresh green seaweeds. The algal 
verdure is perfectly captured onto the film and the shadow penetration 
ability of E100VS is again clearly demonstrated here.
(click on the thumbnail to see a larger image) 


Die-hard nature photographers of course shun direct light and thrive better 
when the light is soft. Here I found myself on a small river in spring 
spate, with fog rolling in from the sea nearby. Still, the high contrast of 
the bedrock to the sediment-laden river beyond was a formidable challenge to 
any film. E100VS handled this situation with ease.
(click on the thumbnail to see a larger image) 


Even softer light exists in early morning. At spring, the birch forests are 
not a threat to my asthmatic lungs so I prefer to do my birch photography 
this time of the year. A heavy snowfall contributed to soften the rendition 
of these birches. At 6 o'clock in the morning the Nordic spring light is 
bluish and this is faithfully documented by E100VS. Note that snow is pure 
white so film balance is strictly neutral on the gray scale.
(click on the thumbnail to see a larger image) 

________________________________________
OK, so let's move over to take a look at EBX, the cheaper of the new 
Ektachromes. This film shares basic technology with E100VS, but Kodak 
representatives told me it's an independently derived product aimed at the 
consumer market. So each film has its own personality, Kodak says. Shooting 
with EBX bears this out - they are indeed different films. To sum up, EBX 
has a warmer balance that occasionally manifests itself by a slight reddish 
tinge in the shadow areas. Grain is just perceptibly bigger on EBX. However, 
both films share a true 100 ISO speed and exposure tolerance is quite narrow 
for the EBX variety, too. 

This shoot of freshly fallen hazel catkins on a spring puddle exhibits high 
sharpness and excellent rendition of the yellow tones. A slight reddish cast 
overlays the image to indicate the warm balance of EBX under sunny skies. 

(click on the thumbnail to see a larger image) 


However, when shooting on EBX under overcast or dull skies, significantly 
more neutral images result. This is clearly evident in the close-up of old 
nails. The ability of EBX to render good details well into the shadow areas 
is similar to that of E100VS. 

(click on the thumbnail to see a larger image) 

EBX is made more attractive to hobby photographers by being packaged into 24 
instead of 36 exposure rolls, here in Norway at least (elsewhere it may be 
available in ordinary 36-exp. rolls). To the keen or aspiring professional 
photographer, however, such short rolls are a disadvantage because they 
significantly increase processing costs on a per-image basis. So, I for one 
would stick to E100VS and the fact that Kodak makes it available in 120 and 
sheet film endears this exciting new film even more to me.
Since the review first was written, I have "burned" a significant amount of 
E100VS. These have confirmed that the film is a top-notch performer in most 
areas. Spring flowers, for example, were brought out very well on VS and I 
haven't heard any complaints of lack of image sharpness either ... Greens 
are rendered with high accuracy but - of course - do lack the bluish-green 
brilliance and saturation that Velvia sports. Each to his own taste in this 
respect, however Velvia lushness often is a visual overkill in my opinion.
(Click on the thumbnail to see a larger image)
The film's assigned speed of 100 ISO seems to be spot-on when shooting under 
overcast or sunny conditions. However, I did notice that shooting in open 
shade on bright days tended to render the colours slightly washed out. So in 
this case, a deliberate underexposure by 1/3 to 1/2 stop seems to be called 
for in order to give slides with better colour saturation and density. 
Adding a mild warming filter would be justified in this case too, if you are 
not an avid fan of coolish colours. 

 


Hi Wei-Hao, 

It is great news indeed that Velvia 100F is a good deep-sky film, since it 
is one of the very few left which is available in medium and large format. 

Mr. Lu's results (and your processing) are excellent. 

But what surprises me is that this film has been around a couple of years - 
e.g. I found this description: "Fuji Velvia 100F has just been awarded "Best 
Slide Film 2003 to 2004" by the Technical Image Press Association TIPA". But 
yet, this is the first time I've seen it used in astrophotography. I wonder 
why? Has it recently been reformulated? Or had astrophotographers just been 
ignoring it, basing their prejudice on the really bad results that Velvia 50 
produced in long exposure tests? I can't remember whether it was Robert 
Reeves, Michael Covington, or someone else that published those tests, but 
Velvia 50 came out terribly for reciprocity failure and colour shift. 

I also wonder what the real differences are between Velvia 100F, Provia 100F 
and Astia 100F?; and why Fuji feel the need to produce 3 different 100 ISO 
slide films, all (it would appear) with similar properties? OK, Fuji stress 
the colour saturation of Vevia, the skin tones of Astia, and the sharpness 
of Provia...but under the stars, are they all much the same? Has anyone done 
some side-by-side, simultaneous exposure tests? 

Ray "who is glad that the number of MF deep sky film choices is holding up, 
for now" Butler 


Hi, 

The previous images are unprocessed, in order to show you how
the Velvia 100F slides look like.  Now here are the resluts of my
processing. 

1. Whoke-sky Milky Way:
small: http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~wang/misc/whole_sky_fisheye_Lu-small.jpg
large (700k): http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~wang/misc/whole_sky_fisheye_Lu.jpg 

Taken with Velvia 100F +2 push, Pentax 67 35mm/F4.5 fisheye at F4.5 wide
open, and a home made 4x5 camera.  Exposure time is 90 minutes. 

2. North America Nebula:
small: http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~wang/misc/ngc7000_Lu-small.jpg
large (1MB): http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~wang/misc/ngc7000_Lu.jpg 

Taken with Velvia 100F +2 push, Pentax 125SDP refractor at F6.4, and the
same home made 4x5 camera.  Exposure time is 90 minutes. 

Again, the author is C.-J. Lu, not me. 

Enjoy. 

Wei-Hao 

 

 

 -- Dr. Ray Butler
Lecturer, Physics Department & Computational Astrophysics Laboratory,
National University of Ireland - Galway,
University Road, Galway, Ireland.
Web: www.nuigalway.ie/physics/ 	Email: ray.butler-AT-nuigalway.ie
Tel: +353-91-493788 		FAX: +353-91-494584
_______________________________________________
Astro-Photo mailing list
Astro-Photo at seds.org
http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo 


Hi Ray, 

In the US (and perhaps Europe as well), astrophotographers love E200 and
Provia 400F.  E100S (which has far more superior color and even appeared
earlier than E200) has been ignored for years.  If E100S can be ignored, why 
can't Velvia 100F?  This is in the US.  In Japan, astrophotographers have 
perfect reasons to ignore Velvia 100F --- they still have E100S in
their freezer. 

Actually, these Fujichromes are not totally ignored.  A Japanese magazine
tested their deep sky performance right after they appeared on the market.
These include Velvia 100F, Velvia 100, Sensia 100(F?), and Astia 100(F?).
The conclusion is that they are all good for deep sky.  I also reported 
these to APML last year, I believe. 

The difference between these ASA100 Fujichromes are their colors, contrast,
saturation, and Dmax.  These differences are too subtle for
astrophotographers.
> From the test results on the Japanese magazine, I did see that Velvia has  higher contrast than others and some have slightly better grains.  However, push processing and change in sky condition can easily wipe out the small differences in grain and contrast.  I just don't think there is any real difference between these films for deep sky.

Cheers,
Wei-Hao 

 -- ________________________________________________________________
Wei-Hao Wang  :) 

Institute for Astronomy at University of Hawaii 

Address:
2680 Woodlawn Drive         Personal Website:
Honolulu, HI 96822             http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~wang
________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Astro-Photo mailing list
Astro-Photo at seds.org
http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo 

Hi, 

While the deep sky performance of Kodak E100G is still unclear, there is 
some good news for people who like fine grain color slides.  A friend of
mine in Taiwan, C.-J. Lu, took some very nice pictures using Fuji Velvia 
100F.  Here are two examples Mr. Lu provided. 

1. Whole-sky Milky Way:
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~wang/misc/940714_fisheye.jpg
Taken with Velvia 100F +2 push, Pentax 67 35mm/F4.5 fisheye at F4.5, and a
home made 4x5 camera.  Exposure time is 90 minutes. 

2. North America Nebula:
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~wang/misc/940714_NGC7000.jpg
Taken with Velvia 100F +2 push, Pentax 125SDP refractor at F6.4, and the 
same home made 4x5 camera.  Exposure time is 90 minutes. 

According to Mr. Lu, these JPG images closely represent how the slides look 
on a light box.  These images should be good references for you to
evaluate the deep sky performance of Velvia 100F.  From these images, it is 
clear that Velvia 100F has excellent H-alpha sensitivity and very good 
reciprocity property. The overall red looking of the images may be because 
of the light-polluted sky in Taiwan, or may have something to do with the 
film itself.  Since the yellow color of the summer Milky Way appears 
correctly, the green sensitivity of Velvia 100F should be also good.  The 
only thing unclear is its blue response.  We need to see more images. 

In addition, Velvia 100 had been introduced to US this month.  It
should be as good
as Velvia 100, according to the data sheet. 

Still shooting slides?  Give Velvia 100/100F a try. 

Cheers,
Wei-Hao 

 -- ________________________________________________________________
Wei-Hao Wang  :) 

Institute for Astronomy at University of Hawaii 

Address:
2680 Woodlawn Drive         Personal Website:
Honolulu, HI 96822             http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~wang
________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Astro-Photo mailing list
Astro-Photo at seds.org
http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo 

Hi, 

The previous images are unprocessed, in order to show you how
the Velvia 100F slides look like.  Now here are the resluts of my
processing. 

1. Whoke-sky Milky Way:
small: http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~wang/misc/whole_sky_fisheye_Lu-small.jpg
large (700k): http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~wang/misc/whole_sky_fisheye_Lu.jpg 

Taken with Velvia 100F +2 push, Pentax 67 35mm/F4.5 fisheye at F4.5 wide
open, and a home made 4x5 camera.  Exposure time is 90 minutes. 

2. North America Nebula:
small: http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~wang/misc/ngc7000_Lu-small.jpg
large (1MB): http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~wang/misc/ngc7000_Lu.jpg 

Taken with Velvia 100F +2 push, Pentax 125SDP refractor at F6.4, and the
same home made 4x5 camera.  Exposure time is 90 minutes. 

Again, the author is C.-J. Lu, not me. 

Enjoy. 

Wei-Hao 

 -- ________________________________________________________________
Wei-Hao Wang  :) 

Institute for Astronomy at University of Hawaii 

Address:
2680 Woodlawn Drive         Personal Website:
Honolulu, HI 96822             http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~wang 

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DMb1&unified_p=1
slide film comaparisons - input please!
Jim Lemire , aug 27, 2005; 02:08 p.m.
I am trying to decide on what types of slide film to take with me on a trip 
to South America. (a little ways back I posted about print film, but have 
come full circle back to transparencies). 

I normally use Velvia 50 for natural/landscapes, however I'm concerned about 
the harsh light I'll be experiencing, especially in the Galapagos when I 
won't have the luxury of picking the time of day to go shooting and will 
most likely be shooting during those lovely hours of 9am to 6pm. 

Specifically, I guess my questions are:
1) Which slide films work best in contrasty situations?
2) Which slide films push the best? (I' won't be bringing a tripod , though 
perhaps a monopod)
3) Which slide films for non-landscape pictures (more "travel" style I guess 
 - people, places)? 

And if you have any other advice, please share it! 

(P.S. Anyone know of an updated "film recommendation" web page - the one 
here on PN by Philip Greenspun is now several years old) 

The following keywords and/or sponsored links have been extracted 
automatically from the posts in this thread: film, tripod, monopod, photo, 
Fuji, Kodak, filter, scanner, Film, KODAK, EKTACHROME, Kodachrome, Reala, 
camera, Photo, Tri-X, Processing, photography
Answers
R.T. Dowling , aug 27, 2005; 02:22 p.m.
In general, there are two films that meet your three requirements: Fuji 
Astia and Kodak E200. Both have moderate contrast, both push well 
(particularly E200), and both have excellent skin tones.
Astia is the sharpest and finest-grained of the two, but is a bit better for 
pushing.
________________________________________
R.T. Dowling , aug 27, 2005; 02:22 p.m.
Correction to my last sentence: Astia is the sharpest and finest grained of 
the two, but E200 is better for pushing.
________________________________________
Ilkka Nissila  , aug 27, 2005; 05:44 p.m.
Elite Chrome 100 (EB-3) and Astia are my favorite slide films for contrasty 
sunlight. If you want to push, E200 is probably a good idea, but to me it is 
a little cold outdoors, so a 81A warming filter is a good idea.
Elite 100 and Astia are excellent for people photos, might I add E100GX 
also.
________________________________________
R.T. Dowling , aug 27, 2005; 06:17 p.m.
EliteChrome 200 is good too. It's very similar to E200, if not nearly 
identical. I'd say it's ever-so-slightly warmer. Grain and resolution are 
identical, and it responds just as well to pushing.
________________________________________
Albert Lui  , aug 27, 2005; 07:47 p.m.
My best slide film choices are:
ISO 100: Elite 100. Excellent quality to price ratio.
ISO 400: Provia 400F. A superlative product that scans better (on my 
scanner) than any 400 speed negative film.
Both films are very good for people pictures.
________________________________________
Graham Hughes , aug 27, 2005; 08:16 p.m.
I shot a lot of Astia 100F in Europe and liked it. It's nothing like a 
negative film in terms of latitude, but it handles landscapes pretty well 
IMHO. It's not going to give you the colors you get with Velvia, tho. As for 
pushing, E200 sounds like it does well, but I've never shot it. Provia 400F 
works pretty well but is not cheap and I have no idea how well it pushes.
________________________________________
Les Sarile  , aug 27, 2005; 10:11 p.m.
In my Film 2 Album , I have a collection of full res unretouched neutral 
scans from a wide variety of slide film including Agfa RSX II ISO50, Fuji 
Fortia 50, Fuji Provia 100/400F, Fuji Sensia 100, Fuji Velvia 50/100, KODAK 
EKTACHROME 64, Kodak E100G/SW/VS, KODAK ELITE Chrome Extra Color 100 and 
Kodachrome 64.
I'm still new to film but to the casual observer, slides seem specialized to 
the type of scene you're going to take. However, I really like Kodachrome, 
Velvia 100, Provia 100 and Sensia - no particular order. I haven't tried the 
new Astia or Velvia yet but they seem promising.
Given the scenery you expect to encounter, I would primarilly recommend 
print film such as Kodak 100/400UC or Reala 100 and then when it is 
appropriate Velvia and Kodachrome
________________________________________
Jeff Drew    , aug 27, 2005; 10:18 p.m.
I shoot lots of slides and use E100, E200, AStia, & Provia with no 
complaints, yet I would seriously recommend Kodak 400UC for your trip. it's 
somewhat of a compromise choice, but the added latitude and flexibility may 
be your buddy! What are you going to do with the results? Slideshows or 
prints mostly? 400UC does well with people & places and you may not need the 
added supports. A walking stick with a camera adapter is useful if you are 
hiking.
________________________________________
Les Sarile  , aug 27, 2005; 10:19 p.m.
BTW, you have quite an impressive collection of images on Photo.net and it 
makes it rather intimidating to give you recommendations ;-)
In anycase, good luck and good light in your trip.
________________________________________
Jim Lemire , aug 28, 2005; 02:05 p.m.
THanks all for the suggestions and the advice. I think I'll get my hands on 
some Astia and give that a test before I go. I will likely also bring some 
400UC print film with me too.
Les, thanks for the words about my photos here. I'm a natural light shooter 
and usually only shoot when the light is good, so I stick with Velvia (and 
Tri-X for my B&W). I'm venturing outside my photographic "safe zone" with 
this trip, so your help is greatly appreciated.
________________________________________
Robert Goldstein  , aug 28, 2005; 11:21 p.m.
Astia 100f is a great film that can handle high contrast scenes and scans 
beautifully. Provia 400f is much higher in contrast but looks great when you 
nail the exposure. Its grain is considerably nicer than 400UC's, IMO.
Here's a high contrast scene shot with Astia 100f. 

Horseshoe Bend
________________________________________
Bill Tuthill  , aug 29, 2005; 01:34 p.m.
Odd, doesn't the near side of the horseshoe bend look like a piece of roast 
beef?
________________________________________
R.T. Dowling , aug 29, 2005; 01:58 p.m.
Bill, sounds like you're on the Atkins Diet and you've got beef on the 
brain. ;-)
________________________________________
DAVID FIELDS , aug 30, 2005; 02:13 p.m.
Give Agfa RSX 50 a try. Set the iso for 100 if conditions are bright/sunny. 
Bracket up & down 1/3. This film has interesting greens - pastel like. Hope 
you have a good polarizer too. 

 

 

Mama's gonna take my Fujichrome away (Reply to this comment)
by sweeper,  in Electronics
Colonial,
Where'd you hear of Velvia 50's demise? I keep reading rumors but no 
official release. 

I shot a few rolls of Elite Chrome only three weeks ago during a hike at 
Point Lobos, stomping grounds of Ansel Adams and probably the greatest place 
in the country for shooting the shore. I also shot a few rolls of Velvia 50. 
While Kodak's product produced some mighty fine images, I thought they were 
a far second place to Velvia for the vivid blues, yellows, oranges, greens 
and reds of the sky, water, ice plants, poppies and other blooms of that 
clear spring day. However, I will agree with you that the Kodak film is 
acceptable in shooting people especially for those who are already tanned as 
my wife and another fellow hiker friend. I have about 30 rolls of Elite 
Chrome in my fridge but only 5 of Velvia. Man, is that upside down. I'm a 
Velvia kinda guy. 

Anyway, you got me worried about Velvia. I'm gonna stock up. Hoard. Cache. 

Very nice review. 

Dave 


Re: Mama's gonna take my Fujichrome away (Reply to this comment)
by colonialpara,  in Electronics
Dave,
.
I hope you come back and read this answer. Fuji has removed VELVIA 50 from 
their website and all a viewer will get is info on the Velvia 100.
.
I've used the ISO 100 VELVIA and I am CERTAIN that you will like it as much 
as the 50. It should be as available to you as 50 is (was).
.
You mentioned that you're a VELVIA guy, but most folks who use it admit that 
it isn't suitable for portraiture, while PROVIA and ASTIA are.
.
Fuji recently announced that they are bringing to the USA a heretofore 
unavailable here emuslion of PROVIA. I believe its a different film from the 
PROVIA 100F, so I'm curious to try it.
.
.
Paul
.
.
.
Films
.
http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/equipment.html
.
When I first started out in 35mm photography 28 years ago I used Kodak's 
Kodachrome 25 transparency (slide) film almost exclusively. Kodachrome 25 
was a fine grained film with fairly accurate color reproduction and good 
color saturation. Over the last 8 years or so I used Fuji Velvia and Fuji 
Provia F ISO 100 transparency films for almost all of my 35mm photography. 
Provia F is advertised by Fuji to be an extremely fine grained film. Provia 
F actually has a little finer grain than the slower ISO Fuji Velvia. In 
fact, I found that it was hard to see a really noticeable difference in 
grain structure between two nearly identical 16X20 inch enlargements made 
from Velvia and Provia F 6X9cm films. I suspect that the grain size 
difference might be more noticeable in 16X20 inch enlargements made from 
these two films in 35mm format. Provia F has undergone some minor tweaking 
since its introduction and the most current version has accurate color 
reproduction, maybe a bit on the cool side compared to Velvia, and good 
color saturation. My favorite film for landscape and scenic photography was 
Fuji's ISO 50 Velvia transparency film. Velvia has finer grain than my old 
favorite Kodachrome 25. Despite it's slightly larger grain structure, Velvia 
can actually resolve more line pairs per mm in both high and low contrast 
situations than Provia F. I rated Velvia between ISO 32-40. I like Velvia's 
slightly exaggerated color saturation, warmer colors and higher contrast for 
landscape photography.
I have also used Fuji's Astia slide film now and then. Astia has very 
natural colors with much lower saturation and contrast then Velvia or Provia 
F. Astia also has very fine grain for an ISO 100 slide film. For people 
photography and product work, Astia would be a good choice. Astia's contrast 
range is just a bit too flat for my tastes for landscape and scenic 
photography.
I used negative films sparingly in the past because I seldom got clean 
negatives back from the lab. For some reason C41 (print film process) always 
leaves many small spots and scratches on my film no matter what lab I take 
it to. Most people are getting 4X6 prints from their 35mm negatives and 
these little blemishes don't really show up with these small prints. 
However, with full resolution film scans these defects can be a nuisance and 
in the case of large optical/wet darkroom prints, very hard to deal with. 
Also, color balance is usually more of issue when scanning negative films 
due to the orange mask of each film brand being a slightly different color. 
Scanners have to make an educated guess when they remove the orange mask. 
The only scanning application that takes the differences in film base color 
into consideration is SilverFast. SilverFast has built in profiles for 
nearly all of the most popular amateur and professional negative films.
With E6 (slide film process) the resulting slides or film strips are usually 
reasonably clean. A lot of professionals use transparency film and there is 
probably more pressure on the labs to keep their E6 chemistry clean and 
handle developed transparency film carefully. If you want to minimize the 
possibility of side to side scratches on your film, make sure your film 
processor is using a "dip and dunk" processor and not a roller feed 
operation.
If you are scanning and printing digitally, you can remove the defects 
caused by dirty chemistry and sloppy handling in an image editing program. 
However, the amount of time involved to do this one blemish at a time in 
Photoshop can be very significant. If you are going to go the film and scan 
workflow, I highly recommend a film scanner that incorporated 'Digital ICE' 
or some other automatic defect removal solution. Scanners that have 'ICE' or 
other built in defect removal solutions will take care of spots, scratches 
and blemishes automatically during the scan.
You frequently hear it stated that negative film (print film) makes better 
scans and prints. I just haven't found this to be the case. At least not for 
my tastes. The scans I get from slide films are very luminescent and seem to 
have great depth and color range. Prints from slide scans from my home 
inkjet photo printer or from commercial digital photo printers also have 
some of these same characteristics. Negative films scan and print very 
nicely too. However, it's hard to judge the accuracy of the colors in a scan 
or print from a negative. Because of the orange mask on the negative, you 
don't have accurate colors to directly compare your output to.
.
.
.
.
.
"What slide or transparency film do you recommend?"
We are often asked, "What slide or transparency film do you recommend?". The 
answer depends these days on what your subject is. When it comes to slide 
film, there isn't a "general purpose" film anymore. As the technology 
becomes more sophisticated and the photographers more demanding, slide film 
is very much about specialization. Here are our recommendations:
.
Fujichrome Astia
Designed to be a lower contrast film so you will get fuller detail from 
highlight to shadows. Because of the lower contrast and excellent skin 
tones, this is a great "people" film. It is rated at 100 ISO and is 
considered a professional film. It is available from 35mm to 8 x 10 film 
formats. It can comfortably be push-processed up to 2 full stops without a 
significant increase in grain.
.
Fujichrome Velvia
Designed as an ultrafine grain film with superb sharpness and resolution. 
Because of these qualities, it is well suited for enlargements. It also has 
vivid color reproduction. It is a great outdoor film for landscape, nature, 
scenic, or underwater photography. You might consider this film for your 
fine art photography depending on your subject. It can be universally 
processed in E-6 chemicals unlike Kodachrome. This is considered a 
professional film and is available in 35mm to 8 x 10 film formats. It is 
rated at 50 ISO but can be push-processed up to 1 full stop without a 
significant increase in grain. However, push-processing DOES INCREASE the 
contrast.
.
Fujichrome Provia 100F
Has the finest grain of any slide or transparency film on the market today. 
Like Velvia, it is a great film for enlargement purposes. It has increased 
color reproduction accuracy and is well suited for landscape, nature, 
scenic, or underwater photography. This is also a good choice for fine art 
photography. Many of our clients switch between Velvia and Provia when the 
extra speed is beneficial. It also is considered a professional film and is 
available in 35mm up to 8 x 10 film formats. It is rated at 100 ISO but can 
be comfortably push-processed up to 2 full stops without a significant 
increase in grain.
.
Fujichrome Sensia II
This is probably the best consumer (non-professional) slide film on the 
market. It has the most exposure latitude of any of the films mentioned. 
However, its grain structure is not as fine as the other films and is not 
recommended for enlargements larger than 8 x 10. It is available is a 
variety of film speeds but only in 35mm film formats. We realize that this 
is only a brief overview of slide films and that you have lots of other 
choices available.  We chose these films because we believe they best serve 
the purposes of our clients. We would like to thank Sam Nakamura at Chrome 
Lab in San Diego for his expertise and input on the push processing. If you 
would like further information on their services, contact Chrome at 
www.chromedigital.com, or e-mail
Sam at chromedt at pacbell.net.
We hope that you find this information beneficial. If you have any further 
questions or comments, feel free to e-mail us, or give us a call at 
800-443-9701, Tuesday through Thursday, 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM Pacific
Time.
8624 Cuyamaca Street, Suite C
Santee, CA 92071
(619) 631-6348 (800) 443-9701 FAX: (619) 631-6368
http://www.wattscolorlab.com
email: info at wattscolorlab.com 


> prcopcc at p-r-co.com writes:

> Fred!
> .
> .
> Try this:
> .
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=velvia+provia+astia&btnG=Google+Search
> .
> Will try to feret out other responses from Actual Individuals when I get 
> home  --  but those responses can take a  *-Weak-*  or two!!
> .
> Thought you had a Digicam  --  if not, have you considered same?       
> Results are extremely good  --  John Bromley is sold on the
> technology.      You can always software manipulate for desired
> results.       Most recent  Canon seems extremely good with
> negligible noise.
> .
> .
> Jim__Holland
> .
> .
> I__Like__Ike.......And__PCCs!!
> .
> down with pantographs ---- UP___WITH___TROLLEYPOLES!!!!!!!
> .
> .
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: 	[PRCo] Color Films Tested
>> Date: 	Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:09:58 -0400
>> From: 	Fred Schneider <fwschneider at comcast.net>
>> Reply-To: 	pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
>> To: 	pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org, Russ Jackson <rejmhj at netzero.net>, 
>> Jack May <Jack.May at americomm.net>, Don Duke <trainbook at earthlink.net>, 
>> Rich Allman <AllmanR at einstein.edu>, Bruce Bente <bbente at cytechusa.com>, 
>> Bill Middleton <wdmiddleton at earthlink.net>, Frank Miklos 
>> <miklosfrank at comcast.net>, ALAN L SCHNEIDER <alschneider2 at juno.com>, John 
>> Swindler1 <j_swindler at hotmail.com>
> .
> .
> .
>> Subjective opinion department:
> .
>> Because of the gradual lengthening of processing times and rumors of
>> its demise, I've been looking for other films that might be suitable
>> as a substitute for Kodachrome. I understand that the yellow box is
>> hard to beat. There are slides of me romping in Lake Erie at Presque
>> Isle 64 years ago that are not noticeably faded. And then there are
>> my Ektachromes of Europe taken by me in 1960-61 that are horrible.
>> Anscocolor and Anscochrome that dad used in the period from 1946 to
>> 1956 have had similar problems with fading of the cyan and yellow dye
>> layers. I admit I am leery. But I have been told that most of the
>> E-6 compatible films are now good for 75 years and I know I'm no
>> longer good for that long, so what the hell.
> .
>> For want of something better, I started my search not with the yellow
>> box but with the green box. Having heard just too much about cash
>> losses and staff furloughs including a severe brain drain in
>> Rochester, I really wasn't too interested in replacing one Kodak
>> product with another.
> .
>> My first try was the readily available Fuji Velvia. Nice stuff if
>> you like high contrast and extreme color saturation. This is clearly
>> a film for amateurs. The first few rolls were enough to convince me
>> I wasn't all that interested. This is for people who want their
>> color to jump off the screen and into their laps.
> .
>> Second try was Fuji Provia. Ah. Now this is a lower contrast film
>> than Velvia but higher contrast than Kodachrome. My thoughts are:
>> nice film to keep in inventory for dull days. Provia to bring out
>> the foreground and a split gray filter to darken the sky and you've
>> got a pretty much unbeatable combination when the weather doesn't
>> like you. I think I'll continue to keep some inventoried. I have
>> some rather nice images on Provia of ships in the fog in Plaqamines
>> Parish south of New Orleans last March.
> .
>> The third try was Fuji Astia. Rich Allman and I went out for the
>> second day of renewed rail service on SEPTA route 15 in
>> Philadelphia. It was one of those absolutely picture perfect
>> days ... deep blue sky and fluffy clouds that create a great
>> contrast with a polarizing filter. Rich told me he had heard Astia
>> was so good that it "out Kodachromed Kodachrome." My thoughts are
>> that the contrast range is about the same except at the lower end
>> where shadow detail is actually a little better on Astia. I could
>> see detail in the white paint on Kawasaki cars and in the wheels
>> under them. Color saturation is a little stronger on Astia ... maybe
>> closer to the now discontinued Kodachrome 25 than Kodachrome 64.
>> Grain is supposed to be very fine on Astia --- exceptional for a film
>> of 100 ASA --- but I did not get out a microscope. I did not feel
>> bothered that any one color was off. I simply liked the results. I
>> bought 10 rolls the first time. Would I buy another 10 or 20?
>> Yes. But I'm going to be totally honest: I did not take any
>> comparison images on Kodachrome. This is a purely subjective
>> analysis of Fuji Astia.
> .
>> I have not tried the orange box since 1963. Even back in 1960 I had
>> less problems with fading with AGFA films than I did with any other
>> E3 or E4 processes.
> .
>> I welcome anyone else's subjective opinions.
>   
>