Velvia 100 vs 100F in terms of ease of scanning

[philipus]

For the purposes of ease of scanning (with a Coolscan if that is relevant), is there any difference between Velvia 100 and Velvia 100F?

I only have experience with Velvia 50 (original and current version).

I am wondering because I understand the two versions (F/non-F) have somewhat different colour rendering.

TIA
Philip

 

[furcafe]

Having scanned both, never noticed a difference. Both are, however, easier to scan than the original.

 

[brbo]

I recently shot Velvia 100 and 100F. Wasn't expecting much from 100F as I heard it's really not good. Well...

I didn't even bother scanning Velvia 100. 100F on the other hand looked very good and scanned beautifully (as every other slide film).

Canon F-1, 35/2.8 TS, Velvia 100F:

 

[alienmeatsack]

I've only cross-processed 100 and 100F and scanned it. So my only input here is based on how easy/difficult it was to actually scan. I had no issues with bowing down the middle or anything. And I found that once it was scanned it was easy to adjust (remembering that I xpro'd it). I've had a few cheap older expired slide films that resulted in awful, bowed films and were difficult to scan.

This is 35mm I am referring to.... Never had any issues with 120 of any of the Velvia series. But I run across those in usable condition so rarely that I covet them usually.

 

[stompyq]

I have shot both in 4x5 form. Never noticed a difference when it comes to ability to scan. I just preferred 100 as it was closer to the original velvia. Never was a fan of 100F

 

[philipus]

Thanks everyone, this is great news. I'm very pleased to hear both scan well and will now order a bunch of each type. Since I stopped using Velvia 50 several years ago my colour work has been on colour negative film, but I'm a bit tired of the grain I get in the shadow areas and also in areas like sky so I'm eager to shoot more slides.

Borut, brilliant images, the colours look great to me. I do see a slightly more muted tone in some colours as compared to the 50 I used to shoot (though I should add that I consistently pushed it one stop), but they are - by far - not as insanely terrible as some online writers would claim.

cheers
philip

 

[alienmeatsack]

I think that a lot of the variance that people claim to see in the films, like the differences between 100 and 100F is something that is not that big of a deal except to the person who nitpicks, or is something that could vary from developer to developer and scan to scan. Or even changes based on the color temperature of the light itself when exposing the film.

I don't see all the little things others see though, so I may not be seeing something huge others see. I am used to variance when I develop at home and I may get very different results between two different batches of the same film due to temperature during developing or the few extra seconds it took me to pour out and rinse, etc.

Hopefully you will not have any issues and can just shoot happily with 100F and just enjoy the film for what it is.

 

[philipus]

Well my order of 100 and 100F is on its way. I will make a thorough comparison over the hols and will post back pix on my Flickr.

I have a feeling, though, that I will be happy with both. I rarely manage to keep the exact same colour balance from scan to scan on one roll and that doesn't bother me much. How the individual image turns out it all that counts, imho.

cheers
philip

 

[heller]

Velvia 50 and Velvia 100 are two fundamentally different films.
They are both easy to scan IMHO, but the Velvia 50 has a lot more "pop", very saturated deep colors, whereas the Velvia 100 is more subdued.
At my website www.daniheller.com you can see one example. In the "Cityscape" gallery, image 6 from left is a Velvia 100. Pretty much all other images are Velvia 50. Look at the color of the sky in that image (not edited) compared to the deep blue skies of other images.
I guess in the end it is a matter of preferences, taste, and what one likes best.