Fuji Reala Replacement Recommendation? (120mm)

[jd callow]

I would try Fuji 160c or 160s in place of Reala. The colour palette of the Kodak films are different, the speed of MF lenses are generally slower so you'd probably want a faster film whilst keeping similar colour and contrast. The grain of Reala is great, but if you are shooting 120 you probably don't need to worry about it. If a 200 speed consumer film was made in 120 by Fuji, that would be the way to go...

 

[Ken N]

Fuji 160s. I prefer the way the skies stay blue in the Fujifilms whereas the Kodak films do shift towards cyan. 160s images are easily digitized and highly malleable in Photoshop. I do recommend punching the exposure up a little bit by downgrading the film to 100 or 125, but but otherwise the film is pretty well ideal as-is.

For wedding and portrait work I prefer the Provia NC films, but they really are too flat for most outdoor work.

 

[Athiril]

Pro 160S. Nothing else will come as close.

Pro 160S is as sharp as Reala with slightly finer grain.

 

[A.Colden]

To follow up, here is a test shot we took with Ektar:

This is a detail from a scan. No adjustments were made.
The camera used is a Hasselblad 500 C/M with an 80mm CF lens.
It was about 3pm and overcast, but the sun poked out just before the photo was taken.
Sun was coming from the right.

The sky does look cyan here, as does the water - but that actually works for this project.
We want the colours to be exaggerated and a little unreal, so this is good.

I cannot quite tell whether the skintone is right or not.
For example, that red thing poking out of the hair if you look closely, is an ear.
Is it red because it was freezing cold, or because of the Ektar?
Not sure and will need to take more shots. But otherwise, this film is everything I hoped for.

 

[Stephen Schoof]

For example, that red thing poking out of the hair if you look closely, is an ear. Is it red because it was freezing cold, or because of the Ektar?

I would guess some of both, plus that part of the negative is probably underexposed from being under the hair and all. I have found Ektar to be a little like Velvia, which, although everyone says 'don't use it for people!', I like as long as the skin is not flushed due to cold, exertion, sunburn, or whatever. Then Velvia can exaggerate the ruddiness to a distracting degree. In Ektar, I haven't seen the effect as severe, but then I haven't shot nearly as much Ektar as Velvia.

 

[A.Colden]

Thank you Stephen; I have not shot these kinds of photos in colour before, so the nuances are all new to me.