fuji superia 400 in 36 exp, B&H says discontinued!

[CGW]

Always thought Superia Reala shared the 4th layer technology common to the rest of the Superia line, along with not being available in 120. There are multiple threads on this over at photo.net. Reala 120 always looked less saturated and contrasty than Superia 100, which produced a crayola, Pokemon-like palette in 120--truly ugly stuff I don't miss.

 

[2F/2F]

As far as I can tell from the data sheet, Superia Reala does not have a fourth color layer.

It is interesting that the data sheet states that it is only available in 135 format. I have many rolls of Reala 120 in my freezer, and they can be purchased from B&H and Freestyle. I never noticed a difference between the results from 120 and 135 versions, so I assumed they were of the same design. But I guess not, or else they would probably be on the same data sheet.

 

[CGW]

As far as I can tell from the data sheet, Superia Reala does not have a fourth color layer.

Not sure about that:

http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/film/35mm_print/superia_reala/index.html

4th layer was baked-into all the Superia line. "Reala" apparently doesn't have it. Edge codes aren't same, which is usually how to tell which is which:

http://gastonline.free.fr/Files/Film frame 35mm/FujifilmNotchCodes.pdf

 

[2F/2F]

You're right; I missed the skinny little cyan sensitive layer when I was looking at the cross section in the data sheet. Makes sense considering how easy the film is to work with.

 

[perkeleellinen]

I think the fourth layer has now been dropped from 35mm Reala, the latest boxes I've got with 2012 expiry make no mention of it and I'm sure there was a thread last year about the layer being dropped from the Superia line. Regardless of what happens to the 35mm version, who knows if the 120 has / had the fourth layer or not; the data sheet is rarer than hens' teeth so who can check?

 

[CGW]

I think it's there. All that vanished was mention of it on the packaging. I think the consensus is that 120 Reala and 35mm Reala, Superia or otherwise, are not the same material, if the pdf I posted is to be believed. Check out the multiple threads on photo.net, too.

 

[perkeleellinen]

Perhaps the difference is subtle enough to be missed by my untrained eye. They really do look and act the same to me.

 

[CGW]

Perhaps the difference is subtle enough to be missed by my untrained eye. They really do look and act the same to me.

I shot some Superia 100 in 120 a few years ago and hated it(the only Superia available in 120, I think).Just too much saturation and contrast. Sadly, Fuji never spooled Superia 200 in 120--by far my favorite, next to 800, of the Superia consumer line. Reala, though, was very different in 120, probably my favorite 120 C-41, followed by Ektar. The new Portra 160 is something I'm looking forward to shooting.

 

[perkeleellinen]

That's interesting that you found a large difference. I'm with you on the 200 & 800 Superias, mind, they're both favourites of mine. I'm going to have another look at my Reala prints when the sun's out later on and see if I can spot any difference. Over here in the UK we get Superia 400 in 120 but sadly Reala 35mm is no longer being imported into the EU.

 

[2F/2F]

There is definitely a highly visible difference between Superia 100 and Superia Reala 100. The latter behaves like a Fujicolor Pro film in every way. But they do not designate it as such. I don't dislike Superia 100, but IMO it acts like a consumer film, while Reala acts like a pro film.

The question is whether there is a difference between Superia Reala 100 in 35mm and Reala 100 in 120 (also available in 220 in Japan last I checked). From what I can tell, there is not a difference. However, the data sheet for the 135 version being separate from the medium format data sheet would suggest that there is.

 

[perkeleellinen]

It would be nice to see / find the 120 data sheet.

 

[CGW]

There is definitely a highly visible difference between Superia 100 and Superia Reala 100. The latter behaves like a Fujicolor Pro film in every way. But they do not designate it as such. I don't dislike Superia 100, but IMO it acts like a consumer film, while Reala acts like a pro film.

The question is whether there is a difference between Superia Reala 100 in 35mm and Reala 100 in 120 (also available in 220 in Japan last I checked). From what I can tell, there is not a difference. However, the data sheet for the 135 version being separate from the medium format data sheet would suggest that there is.

The edge codes appear to be different, which would mean a different emulsion.

 

[henryp]

B&H seems to use the term "discontinued" to refer to items that they no longer carry, not to items that have been discontinued in manufacture. While the product may be gone entirely, I would not use B&H's, or ant retailer's, "discontinued" descriptions as a marker of what is being manufactured and what is not.
Unfortunately, info directly from Fuji tends to be no better.

While it does happen from time to time, we try not to confuse "We can't get this and don't know when we will," from "The manufacturer or our supplier says this is history." The problem is every so often a buyer or web programmer inadvertently selects the wrong code and every so often after we've been told an item's been discontinued it gets undiscontinued. That's beyond our control.

 

[michaelbsc]

While it does happen from time to time, we try not to confuse "We can't get this and don't know when we will," from "The manufacturer or our supplier says this is history." The problem is every so often a buyer or web programmer inadvertently selects the wrong code and every so often after we've been told an item's been discontinued it gets undiscontinued. That's beyond our control.

I get the impression that both Fuji and Kodak have been more than a little bit incoherent to the distribution channel the past few years. I know nothing about Kodak internally, but I do know a few folks internal to Fuji North America. They used to be friendly and share information; now that's changed. Things apparently aren't desperate, but they certainly aren't good on the inside. And I don't know anyone well enough to just outright ask what's happening.

So my guess has been that the layoffs and the plant closings in the NA site are indicative of the same things going on in Kodak, and the results aren't always something that seems sensible from the outside perspective.

The things we don't know are numbers like licensing, overhead or depreciation figures that move what "should" or "could" be a profitable product into an unprofitable column, and then it gets whacked. Fuji is very closed mouthed about specifics for things like that to outsiders like me.

MB

 

[CGW]

I get the impression that both Fuji and Kodak have been more than a little bit incoherent to the distribution channel the past few years. I know nothing about Kodak internally, but I do know a few folks internal to Fuji North America. They used to be friendly and share information; now that's changed. Things apparently aren't desperate, but they certainly aren't good on the inside. And I don't know anyone well enough to just outright ask what's happening.

So my guess has been that the layoffs and the plant closings in the NA site are indicative of the same things going on in Kodak, and the results aren't always something that seems sensible from the outside perspective.

The things we don't know are numbers like licensing, overhead or depreciation figures that move what "should" or "could" be a profitable product into an unprofitable column, and then it gets whacked. Fuji is very closed mouthed about specifics for things like that to outsiders like me.

MB

That's news?

 

[michaelbsc]

Well, no. It isn't exactly news.

But it is a bit of justification why the distribution channel seems so screwed up sometimes. They get garbage info from the manufacturers, and so they feed is the garbage back out.

 

[michaelbsc]

And then we beat them for telling us the same lies they have been told.

it's as bad as politics!