Film Comparison

[timparkin]

Thought you might like to know I've posted a comparison between different Fuji films on my blog..

http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/velvia_ ... 60_digital

I promised I'd tell people after the recent Astia discussions

Tim

[Dave Tolcher]

Tim, a really big effort must have gone into that. Thank you.

Results are interesting and consistent with my own observations. Usually where I have multipled I come back to the velvia slide as a favourite. The cyanic sky on the Astia slide right at the end is horrible, I see why you dont like it if that is the colour from the film rather than ph.

[jennym]

Many thanks for the very helpful comparisons Tim. A huge amount of thought and work went into that. I have decided to use Velvia 50 as my 'usual' film, but in getting to know it well I hope to get a feel for its limitations and it is helpful to have an idea about the alternatives for times when Velvia is not a good choice.

It will be interesting to see if your conclusions change once you have compared the labs....

Thanks again,

Jenny

[joolsb]

Another vote of thanks for all the hard work in putting this together, Tim! It's confirmed what I already knew from gut feeling but it's good to see rigorous side-by-side comparisons. Now magazines have all but stopped covering film, this information is no longer so easily available.

[Matt_Bigwood]

Excellent informed article. I would be interested to see the comparison of processing by different labs of the same shot.

[dennis]

I wonder how much difference scanning & making the image digital makes?
I prefer Provia 100, but must admit I have only tried Velvia 50 which did not work for me. It was a lot slower than 50 for me. Is Velvia 100 better in this respect?
Geoffrey Crawley wrote in the AP some time ago that neg film was better for scanning, yet agencies still prefer trannies - or do they still? I guess if they are taking digital images it may be better to use neg film. Dennis.

[dave_whatever]

It'd also be interesting to see a comparison of velvia (50, 100, 100f) and provia against E100VS.

[Thingy]

Thanks Tim for an interesting and most informative comparison.

I think you've confirmed that Velvia 50 (& 100) (plus Acros, of course) will be my films of choice. I will be trying out some Pro 160s QL film in Norway in July plus the Velvias so if I produce anything interesting, will post it later in the Summer.

[timparkin]

Thanks Tim for an interesting and most informative comparison.

I think you've confirmed that Velvia 50 (& 100) (plus Acros, of course) will be my films of choice. I will be trying out some Pro 160s QL film in Norway in July plus the Velvias so if I produce anything interesting, will post it later in the Summer.

I'd be interested in the 50/100 side by side comparisons if you can do a couple.. !

[timparkin]

I wonder how much difference scanning & making the image digital makes?
I prefer Provia 100, but must admit I have only tried Velvia 50 which did not work for me. It was a lot slower than 50 for me. Is Velvia 100 better in this respect?
Geoffrey Crawley wrote in the AP some time ago that neg film was better for scanning, yet agencies still prefer trannies - or do they still? I guess if they are taking digital images it may be better to use neg film. Dennis.

Hi Dennis... I checked my scanning against the transparencies on a colour managed screen and it looked pretty good. The only thing I would say is that the shadows are lot darker and less saturated than on the trannie..

Also, Velvia 50 does need to be overexposed by third of a stop to make it come out the same as the other films..

Tim