5x7 Velvia 100

"Max Freidberg" wrote in message
...
You'd REALLY discern between original Velvia and Velvia F????????????????



You REALLY wouldn't? They're not the same, not at all.

Calling 100 "original Velvia" is a bit misleading too: Velvia 50 was the
original, then came 100F, and Velvia 100 is the newest version.


Peter

In article ,
"Max Freidberg" wrote:

Who is this Michael Benveniste anyway? How the heck would anyone (outside
of chemists employed by Fuji or their patent attorneys) know that a"dye set"
in one film is the same as another. What is a "dye set". Is this a term
Benveniste made up? I am getting SO tired of all these self-appointed
experts like Benveniste (with no credentials) who give us "facts" in the
newsgroup.

Michael: Support your position with real, hard FACTS or shut up.


"Gregory Blank" wrote in message
...
In article V5ngh.11202$Q36.6468@trnddc08,
"babelfish" wrote:

"Michael Benveniste"
You'd REALLY discern between original Velvia and Velvia
F????????????????

Short answer? Yes. So does Fuji, otherwise they would have
discontinued Velvia 100F when Velvia 100 was introduced to avoid this
very subject. At least in medium format, I found that Velvia 100
closer
to Velvia 50 in both color and contrast than 100F.

That's right. 100F is the odd one in that it has a similar contrast to
Provia. The dye set is the same as 100 however.

No its not.
--
George W. Bush is the President Quayle we never had.

Actually it was babelfish that made that statement. To my eye Velvia
100F produces a lot less blue saturated than 100 Velvia. 100 is less
yellow warm bias.
--
George W. Bush is the President Quayle we never had.

Someone should tell the E6 film scientist at Fuji who told me that, and I'm
only reporting what I was told by a reputable source. Apparently, the people
on this list know more than he does and he worked with the film designers
personally in the creation of these films. Kenji Yooku was the emulsion
scientist who invented Velvia and patented the means to make it. He spent a
few days in my lab to do testing before they introduced it. Kenji is retired
and back in Japan now, but the E6 specialist I spoke with regarding the
differences between Velvia 100 and 100F was a close associate of his and
shared an office with him in Hollywood. He's now in charge of knowing such
things for Fuji in the US and he instructs Fuji's sales and marketing people
here in their technology. What they do with it is then out of his control.

So to clarify once again, I never said they were the same film. One has more
subject contrast than the other. Otherwise, they're the same film in that
they have identical coupled dyes, the same dmax and dmin and the same amount
of possible color saturation. The rendition of the scene will, however, be
different due to the different sensitivity curves of the silver in the
emulsion, so the same color in the scene will be more saturated and possibly
even a different hue on one film than the other and contrast will be greater
on one than the other. Yet, the coupled dyes are still the same, capable of
the same range of color and they process and scan alike.

john


"Gregory Blank" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Max Freidberg" wrote:

Who is this Michael Benveniste anyway? How the heck would anyone
(outside
of chemists employed by Fuji or their patent attorneys) know that a"dye
set"
in one film is the same as another. What is a "dye set". Is this a term
Benveniste made up? I am getting SO tired of all these self-appointed
experts like Benveniste (with no credentials) who give us "facts" in the
newsgroup.

Michael: Support your position with real, hard FACTS or shut up.


"Gregory Blank" wrote in message
...
In article V5ngh.11202$Q36.6468@trnddc08,
"babelfish" wrote:

"Michael Benveniste"
You'd REALLY discern between original Velvia and Velvia
F????????????????

Short answer? Yes. So does Fuji, otherwise they would have
discontinued Velvia 100F when Velvia 100 was introduced to avoid
this
very subject. At least in medium format, I found that Velvia 100
closer
to Velvia 50 in both color and contrast than 100F.

That's right. 100F is the odd one in that it has a similar contrast to
Provia. The dye set is the same as 100 however.

No its not.
--
George W. Bush is the President Quayle we never had.

Actually it was babelfish that made that statement. To my eye Velvia
100F produces a lot less blue saturated than 100 Velvia. 100 is less
yellow warm bias.
--
George W. Bush is the President Quayle we never had.

In article eschh.154$pr5.150@trnddc01,
"babelfish" wrote:

Someone should tell the E6 film scientist at Fuji who told me that, and I'm
only reporting what I was told by a reputable source. Apparently, the people
on this list know more than he does and he worked with the film designers
personally in the creation of these films. Kenji Yooku was the emulsion
scientist who invented Velvia and patented the means to make it. He spent a
few days in my lab to do testing before they introduced it. Kenji is retired
and back in Japan now, but the E6 specialist I spoke with regarding the
differences between Velvia 100 and 100F was a close associate of his and
shared an office with him in Hollywood. He's now in charge of knowing such
things for Fuji in the US and he instructs Fuji's sales and marketing people
here in their technology. What they do with it is then out of his control.

So to clarify once again, I never said they were the same film. One has more
subject contrast than the other. Otherwise, they're the same film in that
they have identical coupled dyes, the same dmax and dmin and the same amount
of possible color saturation. The rendition of the scene will, however, be
different due to the different sensitivity curves of the silver in the
emulsion, so the same color in the scene will be more saturated and possibly
even a different hue on one film than the other and contrast will be greater
on one than the other. Yet, the coupled dyes are still the same, capable of
the same range of color and they process and scan alike.

john

Other factors you did not share to begin with.
--
George W. Bush is the President Quayle we never had.

Exactly my point. If people who post opinions/facts/statements here would
back it up with WHERE or WHO they got the information from, it would make
their original posts much more credible.


"Gregory Blank" wrote in message
...
In article eschh.154$pr5.150@trnddc01,
"babelfish" wrote:

Someone should tell the E6 film scientist at Fuji who told me that, and
I'm
only reporting what I was told by a reputable source. Apparently, the
people
on this list know more than he does and he worked with the film designers
personally in the creation of these films. Kenji Yooku was the emulsion
scientist who invented Velvia and patented the means to make it. He spent
a
few days in my lab to do testing before they introduced it. Kenji is
retired
and back in Japan now, but the E6 specialist I spoke with regarding the
differences between Velvia 100 and 100F was a close associate of his and
shared an office with him in Hollywood. He's now in charge of knowing
such
things for Fuji in the US and he instructs Fuji's sales and marketing
people
here in their technology. What they do with it is then out of his
control.

So to clarify once again, I never said they were the same film. One has
more
subject contrast than the other. Otherwise, they're the same film in that
they have identical coupled dyes, the same dmax and dmin and the same
amount
of possible color saturation. The rendition of the scene will, however,
be
different due to the different sensitivity curves of the silver in the
emulsion, so the same color in the scene will be more saturated and
possibly
even a different hue on one film than the other and contrast will be
greater
on one than the other. Yet, the coupled dyes are still the same, capable
of
the same range of color and they process and scan alike.

john

Other factors you did not share to begin with.
--
George W. Bush is the President Quayle we never had.

"Max Freidberg"
Exactly my point. If people who post opinions/facts/statements here would
back it up with WHERE or WHO they got the information from, it would make
their original posts much more credible.

Well it would also help if you'd asked me if I got my information from a
reliable source before telling me to "shut up". We don't always have the
time to tell the entire story complete with footnotes, a bibliography and
list of credentials and do this every time we say what we know everywhere we
speak. There is an awful lot of blabbering misinformation on the web though
so I know where you're coming from.

So now it's MY fault because YOU didn't back up your statements with
support? I believe psychiatrists call that transference...


"babelfish" wrote in message
news:b%ghh.580$mT6.337@trnddc07...

"Max Freidberg"
Exactly my point. If people who post opinions/facts/statements here
would back it up with WHERE or WHO they got the information from, it
would make their original posts much more credible.

Well it would also help if you'd asked me if I got my information from a
reliable source before telling me to "shut up". We don't always have the
time to tell the entire story complete with footnotes, a bibliography and
list of credentials and do this every time we say what we know everywhere
we speak. There is an awful lot of blabbering misinformation on the web
though so I know where you're coming from.

Excuse me! Why do I have to prove myself to you? People post here all the
time without backing them up, including you. I didn't see anyone challenging
those statements that called me flatly wrong when there was no supporting
evidence for those comments. Is it because you agreed with those statements
and not mine? And why do you consider everyone a liar because he doesn't
flash his credentials to you before he's allowed to speak? I'm sure
psychiatrists have names for that too.

"Max Freidberg"
So now it's MY fault because YOU didn't back up your statements with
support? I believe psychiatrists call that transference...


"babelfish" wrote in message
news:b%ghh.580$mT6.337@trnddc07...

"Max Freidberg"
Exactly my point. If people who post opinions/facts/statements here
would back it up with WHERE or WHO they got the information from, it
would make their original posts much more credible.

Well it would also help if you'd asked me if I got my information from a
reliable source before telling me to "shut up". We don't always have the
time to tell the entire story complete with footnotes, a bibliography and
list of credentials and do this every time we say what we know everywhere
we speak. There is an awful lot of blabbering misinformation on the web
though so I know where you're coming from.

"Max Freidberg" wrote

So now it's MY fault because YOU didn't back up your statements with
support? I believe psychiatrists call that transference...

You mean he's now relating to you as he would his father?

Hmmmmm..... (stroking beard)

Leave the guy alone. He apparently knows what he's talking about, and we
should be appreciative of that.

Wow - you really need to see a therapist. Soon.

"babelfish" wrote in message
news:0kxhh.4238$od6.2829@trnddc04...
Excuse me! Why do I have to prove myself to you? People post here all the
time without backing them up, including you. I didn't see anyone
challenging those statements that called me flatly wrong when there was no
supporting evidence for those comments. Is it because you agreed with
those statements and not mine? And why do you consider everyone a liar
because he doesn't flash his credentials to you before he's allowed to
speak?