I looked in my freezer this morning and noticed I
had only three rolls left :(

"Not a problem", I say and hit B&H's web site where
I discover they are "out of stock" on *all* Provia 100.
(They now have Provia 400X listed, though.)

Ack! I haven't been following the Fuji news.
They haven't quit producing Provia 100 yet, have
they?

Can someone suggest another vendor in the US who they
trust to sell them fresh film and who also uses US
Mail to ship?
--
John Thurston
Juneau Alaska
http://stereo.thurstons.us

I looked in my freezer this morning and noticed I
had only three rolls left :(

"Not a problem", I say and hit B&H's web site where
I discover they are "out of stock" on *all* Provia 100.
(They now have Provia 400X listed, though.)

Ack! I haven't been following the Fuji news.
They haven't quit producing Provia 100 yet, have
they?

Can someone suggest another vendor in the US who they
trust to sell them fresh film and who also uses US
Mail to ship?
--
John Thurston
Juneau Alaska
http://stereo. thurstons. us

It looks like Calumet and Adorama have 120 Provia 100F, although I
don't know about their shipping rates to AK. Perhaps John should
phone B&H (perhaps tomorrow am after they reopen from the recent
holiday) to inquire when they expect to get more in? Or Velvia 100
might be a substitute. -Linda

Bob Schlesinger said:

> I am going to be interested in this as well. I bought some Provia
> 100 from B&H last fall. What I received in October had a February
> 2007 expiration date on it, not exactly fresh film (I've now used
> it all). I also bought some Velvia at the same time with a nice
> fresh August 2008 date. I haven't bought any Provia from them
> since.
>
> Bob Schlesinger
> Portland, Oregon

> On 5/24/2007 at 8:26 AM John Thurston wrote:
> I looked in my freezer this morning and noticed I
> had only three rolls left :(
>
> "Not a problem", I say and hit B&H's web site where
> I discover they are "out of stock" on *all* Provia 100.
> (They now have Provia 400X listed, though.)
>
> Ack! I haven't been following the Fuji news.
> They haven't quit producing Provia 100 yet, have
> they?
>
> Can someone suggest another vendor in the US who they
> trust to sell them fresh film and who also uses US
> Mail to ship?
> --
> John Thurston
> Juneau Alaska
> http://stereo.thurstons.us
>
>

Linda Nygren writes:

> Velvia 100 might be a substitute.

My opinion is a resounding NO on this one. I admit I have not used Velvia
100 in 120, but I tried plenty of it in 35mm and I really don't like it
unless you have total control over the lighting in image. It just has way
too little exposure latitude - read that blown highlights and no detail
shadows toegther in most shots.

I have been shooting the new ProviaX 400 and I must say that I am liking
it. I just returned from a photo shoot in a cave last weekend, and
although I don't have the images mounted yet the shots look really good.
Of course I don't have any expanse of single color or texture so any
problems with grain are totally masked.

This weekend I will make a big scan of one of these images and post it to
my site for review.

Thanks,

David W. Kesner

John Thurston writes:

> Can someone suggest another vendor in the US who they
> trust to sell them fresh film and who also uses US
> Mail to ship?

As has been suggested, Adorma is a good second choice.

Thanks,

David W. Kesner

David W. Kesner wrote:

> John Thurston writes:
>
>> Can someone suggest another vendor in the US who they
>> trust to sell them fresh film and who also uses US
>> Mail to ship?
>
> As has been suggested, Adorma is a good second choice.

Yeah, I've looked at Adorama and Calumet
who will both sell me the film but will charge
me $37 postage :( I was hoping to hear the
name of somewhere other than these.

I think I'll wait and see if B&H restocks it
as their postage charge will be only $4 for
the same order.
________________________________________
John Thurston
Juneau, Alaska
http://stereo.thurstons.us

Linda Nygren writes:

> Velvia 100 might be a substitute.

My opinion is a resounding NO on this one. I admit I have not used Velvia
100 in 120, but I tried plenty of it in 35mm and I really don't like it
unless you have total control over the lighting in imge. It just has way
too little exposure latitude - read that blown highlights and no detail
shadows toegther in most shots.

I have been shooting the new ProviaX 400 and I must say that I am liking
it. I just returned from a photo shoot in a cave last weekend, and
although I don't have the images mounted yet the shots look really good.
Of course I don't have any expanse of single color or texture so any
problems with grain are totally masked.

This weekend I will make a big scan of one of these images and post it to
my site for review.

Thanks,

David W. Kesner

I have to disagree.  I LOVE Velvia !

The kind of shot is going to dictate the kind of film to use.

 

Velvia is my film of choice for most outdoor landscape and foliage situations.

Sure, the latitude is tighter, but that just means being more diligent with proper metering.

Blown highlights means that it wasn't metered properly.  Also sometimes you don't want to or need to capture the detail in shadows.

 

It all depends on what the photographic intent is and what kind of lighting you are working with. 

One kind of film is not going to fit all situations.  There are trade-offs with any kind of film.

 

Bob Schlesinger

Portland, Oregon

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

On 5/24/2007 at 5:51 PM David W. Kesner wrote:

Linda Nygren writes:

> Velvia 100 might be a substitute.

My opinion is a resounding NO on this one. I admit I have not used Velvia
100 in 120, but I tried plenty of it in 35mm and I really don't like it
unless you have total control over the lighting in imge. It just has way
too little exposure latitude - read that blown highlights and no detail
shadows toegther in most shots.

I have been shooting the new ProviaX 400 and I must say that I am liking
it. I just returned from a photo shoot in a cave last weekend, and
although I don't have the images mounted yet the shots look really good.
Of course I don't have any expanse of single color or texture so any
problems with grain are totally masked.

This weekend I will make a big scan of one of these images and post it to
my site for review.

Thanks,

David W. Kesner

Bob Schlesinger writes:

> I have to disagree. I LOVE Velvia !

Ah, but which Velvia are you talking about? There are now three:

1) The original Velvia 50, which was dropped but is supposed to be back
in production.

2) VelviaF 100, which has been around a while.

3) Velvia 100, which is new and was supposed to be the replecement for
Velvia 50 when it was dropped.

I was specifically talking about #3. This is the film that has such a
narrow exposure lattitude.

I have never tried #1.

I have and still use #1 for my macro shots and landscapes. I'll bet this
is the film you are praising, and for good reason.

Hope that clears things up.

David W. Kesner

Bob Schlesinger writes:

> Sure, the latitude is tighter, but that just means being more
> diligent with proper metering. Blown highlights means that it wasn't
> metered properly. Also sometimes you don't want to or need to capture the
> detail in shadows.

I am answering this in a separate email because I think it is another
subject.

I agree that proper metering is essential to get the best shot. However
it cannot compensate for a scene with eight stops of difference and a
film that can only capture two.

The only thing you can do in that situation is wait for better lighting
or use a film with wider lattitude.

Thanks,

David W. Kesner

David Kesner writes:

> I have never tried #1.

That should say I have never tried #2 which is VelviaF 100.

Sorry,

David W. Kesner

Bob Schlesinger writes:

> I wanted to add one more note to my comments below. One doesn't need to
> "control" the lighting to use Velvia, just use it in lighting situations
> that are appropriate. Sometimes a scene will have too much contrast, for
> example trying to do a photograph on a bright sunny day. If shadow detail
> is important, then it won't work of course. However, Velvia can't be beat
> in my opinion for outdoor photos on overcast days

Looks like I posted my last comment to soon as you seem to be saying what
I just did.

Just to clarify Velvia 100 has was less exposure lattitude than Velvia 50
making it a very niche film for very exacting conditions. I do not
believe it is a good replacement for ProviaF 100 which is what was being
suggested by Linda Nygren.

By the way I have used it very effectively for macros where I totally
controlled the lighting.

Thanks,

David W. Kesner

David W. Kesner said:

> Bob Schlesinger writes:
>
>> I wanted to add one more note to my comments below. One doesn't
>> need to "control" the lighting to use Velvia, just use it in
>> lighting situations that are appropriate. Sometimes a scene will
>> have too much contrast, for example trying to do a photograph on
>> a bright sunny day. If shadow detail is important, then it
>> won't work of course. However, Velvia can't be beat in my
>> opinion for outdoor photos on overcast days
>
> Looks like I posted my last comment to soon as you seem to be
> saying what I just did.
>
> Just to clarify Velvia 100 has was less exposure lattitude than
> Velvia 50 making it a very niche film for very exacting
> conditions. I do not believe it is a good replacement for ProviaF
> 100 which is what was being suggested by Linda Nygren.
>
> By the way I have used it very effectively for macros where I
> totally controlled the lighting.
>
> Thanks,
>
> David W. Kesner

David W. Kesner said:

> Just to clarify Velvia 100 has was less exposure lattitude than
> Velvia 50 making it a very niche film for very exacting
> conditions. I do not believe it is a good replacement for ProviaF

100 which is what was being suggested by Linda Nygren.

>
> By the way I have used it very effectively for macros where I
> totally controlled the lighting.

To further clarify, I actually said that "Velvia
100 might be a substitute" if Provia 100 were not available. I did
not say (and I do not believe) that it is a "good replacement" for
Provia. Sorry if my comment was misinterpreted as an endorsement.

I love Velvia 50 which I use for 35mm macro stereo, with flash. I
use Provia 100 as my general purpose film for both 35mm and MF
stereo. And I have tried both Velvia 100 and 100F in 35mm in the
past and didn't care for either, although some people like them. I
didn't care for the high contrast/low latitude, and I also seem to
recall that the color balance was not to my liking. The greens
looked very odd to me with at least one of these emulsions. -Linda

Bob Schlesinger writes:

> I have to disagree. I LOVE Velvia !

Ah, but which Velvia are you talking about? There are now three:

1) The original Velvia 50, which was dropped but is supposed to be back
in production.

2) VelviaF 100, which has been around a while.

3) Velvia 100, which is new and was supposed to be the replecement for
Velvia 50 when it was dropped.

I was specifically talking about #3. This is the film that has such a
narrow exposure lattitude.

I have never tried #1.

I have and still use #1 for my macro shots and landscapes. I'll bet this
is the film you are praising, and for good reason.

Hope that clears things up.

David W. Kesner

Not sure if this came out. What I heard is that the original Velvia
50 was discontinued because one of the ingredients was not available,
and for the new 50 they found a subtitute.
John Thurston, I can't believe that shipping charge to AK from
Adorama! May be cheaper to get directly from Japan!

Rod S


--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, "David W. Kesner"
wrote:

>
> Bob Schlesinger writes:
>
> > I have to disagree. I LOVE Velvia !
>
> Ah, but which Velvia are you talking about? There are now three:
>
> 1) The original Velvia 50, which was dropped but is supposed to be

back

> in production.
>
> 2) VelviaF 100, which has been around a while.
>
> 3) Velvia 100, which is new and was supposed to be the replecement

for

> Velvia 50 when it was dropped.
>
> I was specifically talking about #3. This is the film that has such

a

> narrow exposure lattitude.
>
> I have never tried #1.
>
> I have and still use #1 for my macro shots and landscapes. I'll bet

this

> is the film you are praising, and for good reason.
>
> Hope that clears things up.
>
> David W. Kesner
>