Talk:Velvia

message: Can anybody back up the claim of 25 megapixels worth of 'image data' in a 35mm Velvia slide with a reference? It seems not only unrealistically high, but the whole concept of 'image data' is a fuzzy one for film: while the spatial resolution is indeed high, the  graininess of film is what limits the maximum enlargement size.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sander Pronk (talk • contribs) 
:It seems to be roughly based on the figures in List of photographic films. It works out to about 85 lp/mm:
 36 * 24 * (85 * 2)^2 = 24.96 million
:Pretty high for 35mm film, which is why the statement is qualified with the statement "When shot with a quality lens...". People enamoured with digital cameras and 'megapixels' often overlook the importance of the lens. Imroy 01:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because someone changed it and at the time I couldn't be bothered to change it back. There's so many digital photography fanboys here that it's almost useless bringing up anything even remotely against digital. They'll just revert it anyway. I see you've changed it to 25. Now lets see how fast someone changes it back. Imroy 08:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Section 17 "Resolving power" on page 6 lists 80 line pairs per millimetre at a contrast ratio of 1.6:1. According to the formula given above, that works out to just over 22 megapixels. Of course, that's only what the film is capable of recording - the lens will affect the image as it is focused on the film. And to produce any pixels requires a film scanner, which will also bring its own limitations. The wording really should include these factors, instead of simply mentioning "an excellent lens". --Imroy (talk) 05:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, that makes more sense. I think it would benefit the article if that explanation was given, at least in a footnote or something.129.97.219.130 (talk) 06:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

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

message: I am surprised by the mention of "heavy green cast" for long exposures (>2 minutes) with RVP 50. It's widely known that it runs purplish; certainly, that's been the case with my own long-exposure trials over 11 years. Garyh 00:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. My reading of the "characteristic curves" graph in ProfessionalFilmDataGuide.pdf from the Fujifilm site seems to agree with you. At low light levels the red density is quite a bit lower than the other two, with blue slightly less than green. Which I guess would produce a red/purple cast. Perhaps someone was reading this graph wrong when they wrote about the "green cast". I wouldn't know myself, I've only used one roll of this beautiful film and it was always well lit. --Imroy 02:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: The following: "Velvia was introduced in 1990 and quickly replaced Kodachrome 25 as the industry standard in high-definition color film. It had brighter and generally more accurate color reproduction, finer grain, twice the speed, ....
Should read: Velvia was introduced in 1990 and quickly joined Kodachrome 25 as another high-definition color film. It had generally more saturated color reproduction, finer grain (questionable), twice the speed....
Kodachrome 25 was always the standard by which other color films were judged. Its demise is the result of poor administration and restructuring within Kodak. Sure people like the saturated (unrealistic) colors of Velvia. If Kodak would have continued promoting Kodachrome and most importantly, had developed a consistent 1-2 day turnaround in processing, they would still be outselling the green box guys. E-6 can provide instant gratification, which is it's only advantage. If Kodak would have continued R&D with Kodachrome imagine what could have been. They could have easily added saturated dyes to the processing, and tweeked the miniscule amount of grain.
I've used my share of Velvia, infact I just picked up a few rolls of 120. It's OK for certain applications, tho I generally find Provia a better overall E-6 film. Velvia can't come close the grain structure and resolution of even Kodachrome 64. Flame suit on!
*There's no need for the flame suit, but I don't agree with your assessment.  I can't find it now in my stacks of trade magazines, but I remember reading about the massive shift from Kodachrome 25 to Velvia within a few years of its introduction, based on sales numbers and submissions to professional magazines, etc.  (This would have been in the mid-late 90's that I read about it.)  Your objections are well-taken but amount to speculation... "if only Kodak had done this or that..."  The fact is that Velvia did quickly replace Kodachrome 25 as the film of choice for most landscape work, as well as many other applications where caucasian skin tones weren't present.  The line as written in this article is accurate, though perhaps the "more accurate color reproduction" should be qualified.  As for the rest... well, I shot plenty of both films, and it is not "questionable" that Velvia 50, shot at ISO 40, had finer grain.  It's a fact.  I still have an affinity for the Kodachrome 25 "look."  I miss shooting both Velvia and Kodachrome (as well as many other films) now that I'm shooting digital for 99% of what I do. -- Moondigger 14:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kodachrome processing was never subcontracted at that time, being pretty much the most complicated and most expensive photographical process ever. Kodak kept on doing all Kodachrome processing, it's just that in the US (and maybe Canada), you had to buy the processing separately even though it was still Kodak doing it, due to an old anti-trust/competition ruling since around the early 70s, not 1988. It took until 2006, when they axed the stock, for Kodak to subcontract Kodachrome processing for the first time ever. Up until 2006, the only two remaining  Kodachrome labs in the world (at Lausanne, Switzerland and Rochester/NY) where both run by Kodak, and from 2006 until the end of 2009 (or was it the end of 2010?), you had to send all your Kodachrome to Dwayne's Photo/Kansas for processing. --79.242.222.168 (talk) 09:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

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

message: It appears that velvia 50 has not been obsoleted.  Can the formats of 16mm and Super-8mm be added to the format available box?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.129.88.30 (talk • contribs).
:I added Super 8 and 16mm formats to the infobox. And yes, that's right, Velvia 50 is being resurrected. --Imroy 13:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: Anonymous user  wrote this after the paragraph about Velvia replacing Kodachrome:
It's totally unsourced and is more POV opinion and conjecture than the paragraph it follows. In fact, the only part of the previous paragraph that it could be in response to is "Many photographers credit Velvia with ending the Kodachrome era". Can we find sources for any of this? Can we find a way of presenting it in a NPOV manner? --Imroy 22:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unsourced or not, the above opinion pretty good reflects my own observations (except for the quality) that Kodak more and more de-emphasised Kodachrome over time. While it is a bit difficult to find out what was the cause and what the reaction, Kodak's acting in the nineties did not help strengthen Kodachrome's position in the market. There was a time in the eighties when even a Kodachrome 64 type 120 was introduced, and when development was available inside Germany. That film is gone, as well as KC 25, as well as development in DE (or in the EU at all), as well as development without framing option. Kodak has removed options, slowed development and has raised prices. Factually (though not formally) it has now become more or less unavailable in the EU. At least, I am unable to see any efforts on Kodak's part to promote Kodachrome. Thyl Engelhardt 213.70.217.172 08:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

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

message: I just edited the article to remove 'discontinued' from the Velvia 50 infobox and updated the 'speeds' section to note that it started showing up around the middle of the year. I meant to do that a few weeks ago but didn't get around to it and ended up forgetting the matter. I remember seeing on my occasional eBay perusals some Velvia 50 rolls being sold with expiry dates of "09/2008". I presume this is the new stuff. Does anyone have a more accurate sighting of the new Velvia 50, or even better, a source? --Imroy 17:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's on the Fujifilm website now. Phytism (talk) 11:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  When exactly did Velvia 50 return? 

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

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

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion