Shooting with Fuji Velvia 50

[Erich Stevens]

I have read that nature photographers who still shoot film (even occasionally) prefer Fuji Velvia 50 for its outstanding saturation and warmth. However, its being such a slow film would seem to make it most suitable for bright daylight because of the high shutter speeds required to freeze fast moving subjects like birds. What about overcast days and subjects in shaded areas? Is there a technique for overcoming these less-than-ideal situations when shooting the Velvia? Or is there a faster slide film that'll work as an acceptable compromise? Resources on the internet and in bookstores are understandably scarce about shooting any kind of film, slide film included, so any tips are greatly appreciated.

[Geurt Bloem]

Eric,
A lot of us cut our teeth so to speak on the Fuji slide film.
The Velvia 50 can be successfully pushed for a full f-stop ie to ISO 100 with big success. Also, these days there is Velvia 100F and a lot of us used Provia 100F which again can be successfully pushed to 200 ISO. So we made up by using fast lenses and by pushing our slide film when the demand was there for more speed.

Hope it helps

[Erich Stevens]

Geurt,

Did you ever push Velvia 100F to 200 with good results?

[Alfred Forns]

Hi Eric

Geurt is correct on pushing Velvia Would recommend.

I used to do all my own darkroom work and tested Velvia It comes out to 40 (not 50) that is why you hear most people saying it was good to underexpose a third :) I would suggest pushing one stop and rating it at 80 for optimal results.

The pushed (one stop) film will be very close with the original with just a slight increase in contrast. Going to 200 is a different matter, will work won't look bad but can't see the point. Best to use a 200 speed film. Also remember you will be paying an extra fee for the pushing so it will be expensive.

[Cliff Beittel]

Geurt,

Did you ever push Velvia 100F to 200 with good results?
If you don't mind another opinion, yes, you can get good results with RVP100 pushed to 200. But understand that even with RVP at 80 (where many people rated it for a one-stop push) or RVP100 at 100, you will be at a competitive disadvantage with otherwise similar digital originals made at ISO 100, 200, 400, 640, 800 . . . , etc. Resolution won't be as good, and especially in blacks, skies, and out-of-focus backgrounds, grain will be readily apparent unless you select those areas and smooth them with grain-reducing software.

[Cliff Beittel]

. . . its being such a slow film would seem to make it most suitable for bright daylight because of the high shutter speeds required to freeze fast moving subjects like birds. What about overcast days and subjects in shaded areas? . . .
P.S. Actually, RVP was a superb landscape and wildlife film, for landscapes often used with long exposures in subdued light on a tripod with mirror lock-up. For wildlife, any film is at a big disadvantage to digital, with low ISOs for image quality making for shutter speeds much lower than what is now common with digital cameras.

[Rocky Sharwell]

One year at Bosque I accidentally shot a roll of Velvia at ISO200---really contrasty

[Erich Stevens]

Cliff,

I am no stranger to the advantages of digital over film. I shoot products in a studio setup at my work with Nikon digital equipment and love it. But I am shooting film for bird photography because, first, I cannot afford a digital SLR and fast, autofocusing supertele for myself at the moment, and second, I have a perfectly good FM2n and Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 ED-IF at home – both considered some of the best equipment available back in its day! Yes, digital's great, but my older setup is fine for me right now. Bird photography is a new hobby that I find very challenging and educational. I just want to have fun and learn. And what better way to hone good skills like exposure, composition, and steady reflexes than on a manual film system, without the benefit of instant feedback?

[Cliff Beittel]

. . . Bird photography is a new hobby that I find very challenging and educational. I just want to have fun and learn. And what better way to hone good skills like exposure, composition, and steady reflexes than on a manual film system, without the benefit of instant feedback?
Erich,

No disagreement there, and given those goals, there's even less reason not to go to ISO 200 when you need the shutter speed.

[Erich Stevens]

go to ISO 200 when you need the shutter speed.

But I'd at least like to make usable images, just in case I have beginner's luck. :)

[Geurt Bloem]

At the time I changed to digital, we (in South Africa anyway) still did not have Velvia 100F so I never tested it at all. I did use Provia 100 and pushed that to 200 and worked, a tad grainy though but very usable.

[Roger Clark]

Cliff,
But I am shooting film for bird photography because, first, I cannot afford a digital SLR

How much do you spend a year on film? At about $1.50 /slide (velvia purchase + development), it can add up fast and a DSLR can actually save you money.

Having said that, I have shot 35mm and 4x5 velvia for years, but I no longer do 35mm film (digital has surpassed it long ago). I have 20 rolls of velvia in the freezer if someone wants it for very low cost, contact me off list.

For me velvia 100 is OK, but I like the colors of 50 better.

Roger

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hi Erich,
I used all of the films but preferred Kodaks E100VS. Great reds and blues while Velvia ruled in greens. I have pushed the Kodak to 200 with very good success......so it is a nice option.
Now for the cost.......if you shoot more than 200 rolls of film a year.......than digital will pay for itself very quickly......especially with the mid range equipment. If only 50 or so rolls......not at all. You have to add the peripherals to digital.......seems like I'm always paying!!!!

[Erich Stevens]

How much do you spend a year on film?

Hi Roger,

I just got started, actually, and have shot only 1 roll of the Velvia so far. I haven't even had it processed yet. (The only pro lab in my area is closed for the entire week!) In 2 weeks I'll be vacationing w/my family in Beltsville, MD where there are some secluded wooded areas. I'll probably shoot 2 or 3 rolls there. A few weeks after that I'll be in east Tennessee where we will spend at least 1 day in Cades Cove, so I'll shoot another 2 or 3 rolls. But normally when I'm home I'm just a weekend shooter, and usually for only an hour right after sunrise. So it's not like I'll be using up a huge volume of film.

I have also been borrowing the Nikon D80 from work on weekends to photograph birds, and most of what I've shot has been with that, obviously. So it's not like I've decided NOT to shoot digital. The D80 makes OK images; good enough for a beginner I guess. But I love my old FM2 and love shooting all manual. Hopefully when I finally get my first roll of Velvia processed I won't be too disappointed with my exposures and composition. I still believe shooting slide film is a great way to learn how to nail those exposures when the action starts and there isn't time enough to check the meter or the histogram.

With all that said, you'd better believe I am already saving my money for a pro or semi-pro quality Nikon DSLR.

[Erich Stevens]

I used all of the films but preferred Kodaks E100VS. Great reds and blues while Velvia ruled in greens. I have pushed the Kodak to 200 with very good success......so it is a nice option.

Roman,

Thanks! I'll try a few rolls.

[Desmond Chan]

And what better way to hone good skills like exposure, composition, and steady reflexes than on a manual film system, without the benefit of instant feedback?

Well, I don't see how without the instant feedback necessarily makes you a better photographer. It's just a matter of whether you can correct the mistake and re-shoot now or do the same a week or so later. You can make mistakes either way when you photograph.

[Alfred Forns]

Erich if you end up shooting E-6 slide film ... should do your own processing.

Easy and can get a kit for just six roles or if you do a bunch can get a gallon ... btw that stuff doesn't last long after it has been mixed. The short kit only has three steps and I believe you can use half at a time !!!

[WIlliam Maroldo]

I came from the old 35mm days as well, though pretty much Kodachrome and various types of negative film. Occasionally, on other forums, I read of some young guy getting a good deal on Ebay on a 35mm camera, and really thinking 35mm must be wonderful! It makes me cringe.
I can not see any advantage in 35mm over digital, especially for a beginner.(OK, there are advantages, like ASA 25 slide film, but I'm looking it from a beginners point of view) For a beginner there are plenty of inexpensive digital cameras, that allow manual exposure, and are much like dslrs without interchangeable lenses. Sure, they don't have all the bells and whistles, but if you are learning? Photography is identical in both digital and 35mm, the exact same principles apply.
Instant feedback, being able to take lots and lots of pictures, changing ISO instantly, not having to wait for film processing(there wasn't always 1 hour photos!), no EXIF data so you have to write down camera settings, and most important the ability to view a photograph on a computer monitor and analyse mistakes. There are many more advantages.
Ever use a light table, or spend money for 8x10s and realize that you messed up?
Once computers were up to the task, before the 10 mp barrier, I would shoot 35mm negative film, get it processed only, run it through a scanner, then edit on the computer. Removing dust specs does help you learn the clone-stamp tool, but is that what you want to do for hours on a few rolls of film? I've shot something like 100,000 digital images since. Less than 1/10th that in the previous 30 years. Calculating the processing and film cost if I'd stuck with 35mm and gone the cheapest way possible, which is only counting film and processing cost(and not counting scanning or editing time) , it comes out to well over $20,000, and no prints!
Get an inexpensive digital camera!
regards~Bill

[Erich Stevens]

Get an inexpensive digital camera!

Bill,

I am already saving my money for one!

[David Kennedy]

I'd agree with Alfred: Velvia is really ISO 40, so tell your camera that it's shooting 40 (but have the lab process it normally--you are not really "pulling" the film.

I always sent mine to Fuji for processing, but heard great things about A&I. It's probably worth paying for the best processing you can get (least number of scratches yield the best scans).

[Daniel Belasco]

I read this entire thread and will add my 2 cents on a vote for digital.
I went digital in 1998 after 30+ years with film. I had a complete darkroom and gave it away in 2001.
I don't think bird photography would be popular if everyone used film--we couldn't get the action shots and great poses.
I remember Mr. Morris saying he only got 3 good flight shots in all his years with film, but with digital great flight shots are common.

[Cliff Beittel]

. . . I remember Mr. Morris saying he only got 3 good flight shots in all his years with film, but with digital great flight shots are common.
I suspect you are thinking of something Arthur said about manual focus, not film; it wasn't hard to get good flight shots with film, and Arthur got plenty of them.