Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/05/17

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: velvia vs. provia
From: "AWSteg" <>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 03:56:11 -0400
References: <> <v0401170ab547eb1bdd57@[]>

I'm with Hennin on this.  The E100s and SW are great.  I think I like the
E200 best.  I just shot a bunch of kitchens for the rich and famous and used
the E100 s and SW with mixed daylight and tungsten and some of the
fluorescent just to really screw with my brain.  I was amazed that the 100sw
did not come out yellow especially with the tungsten fill hot light I used.
Really amazing . .I was sweating till I saw the film!  Looked better than
the 160 NC I shot as a backup by far!

Al Stegmeyer  upstream photography &
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Henning J. Wulff" <>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 2:33 AM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: velvia vs. provia

> At 10:41 PM -0500 5/16/00, Harrison Mcclary wrote:
> >once upon a time Jim Brick wrote:
> >
> >> Provia is a mild Velvia at ISO 100 instead of 40. Less saturation, more
> >> tolerant of exposure variances, whites are cleaner, skin is truer, etc.
> >> 35mm handheld photography, I prefer Fuji MS 100/1000 at 200. My Fuji
> >> says that Provia F at 200 will be even better. He gave some to me but I
> >> haven't tried it yet.
> >
> >And even better are the new Kodak E100 films, 100SW, 100VS and 100S.  I
> >to shoot mostly 100SW and 100VS.  Velvia is just way too contrasty for my
> >tastes and I have shot untold thousands of rolls of Velvia over the last
> >years...the magazine company I worked for only shot velvia...finally just
> >before I quit I got them to start shooting some Kodak films.
> >
> >I really like those new Kodak chromes and the new Portra ain't bad
> I really dislike those 'me too' posts, but I can't pass this up:
> Velvia has no toe. It's very contrasty in the first place, and then there
> is no detail in the blacks whatsoever. On the other hand, it handles
> highlights well. That's why people shoot it at the same EI as Kodachrome
> 25, which handles shadows beautifully, but can't stand overexposure. If
> shot a contrasty scene  using the same camera settings with both Velvia
> Kodachrome 25, there would be shadow areas that would show a lot better on
> Kodachrome, in spite of the fact that it is an ISO 25 film vs. 50 for
> Velvia.
> I find the new Kodak film a great compromise between realism, reasonable
> toes and shoulders, choice of greater color saturation or more subdued
> tones, and warmer and cooler films all with the same speed and generally,
> compatible look. I don't like Provia and Velvia together; in fact Velvia
> does not do well with any other film in my estimation.
> For negative film, I use nearly only Portra now, except for some Konica
> Impresa for the sharpest and some Fuji NHGII for the fastest with decent
> quality.
>    *            Henning J. Wulff
>   /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
>  /###\
>  |[ ]|

In reply to: Message from Jim Brick <> ([Leica] Re: velvia vs. provia)
Message from "Henning J. Wulff" <> (Re: [Leica] Re: velvia vs. provia)