Kodak Ektar vs Fuji Reala Comparison

[keithwms]

I'd much prefer to see ra4 prints, not scans, but thanks nevertheless!

 

[naugastyle]

I've been reading lots of posts about this and there's a tendency to say Reala 120 is discontinued when actually what is meant is Reala 120 is no longer being imported into the US. Is this the case here, or is Reala 120 really gone?

It sounds so, that's the understanding I got from this explanation:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

The link in my original post now is going to an error page, but it's this:
http://fujifilm.jp/personal/jan/color/35mm.html?pSch501010106

My understanding is that the (*1) means discontinued. So 35mm in 24exp and 5-packs is discontinued, as is 120. Not sure what the (*2) means next to the 5-packs of 120.

Maybe we are using it up faster here (huge population, and B&H/Adorama do supply customers outside of the US as well) so it appeared to have left the US faster while other markets haven't been as concerned.

 

[A.Colden]

I am still trying to figure out how serious the "discontinued"-ness of it is. It has been discontinued before, only to become available again, so perhaps this is one of those times. Or not. Either way, Reala's availability is less reliable than those of other colour films and this has been a source of frustration. If I am going to do a longitudinal series using a specific film, I want to be able to rely on its accessibility.

keithwms - Yes, I think I will get some prints done rather than try to mess around with the scanner and software. I am just not confident in my ability to do the latter properly, which will render the activity pointless.

 

[2F/2F]

Yes, import of the 120 to the U.S. has stopped on at least one other occasion in recent memory. I hope this is simply another of those occasions, in which case the 120 is still available if it is personally imported from Japan.

To my recollection, even when 120 Reala was not available here, 35mm always was.

I have never seen 35mm Reala in anything but 36 exposure rolls (in person, in a walk-in shop).

I would say that the aims of Reala and Ektar are diametrically opposed. One aims for natural color (more natural than Kodak NC or Fuji 160S, IMHO), and the other aims for purposefully exaggerated color and contrast. I have used both, and though they are both excellent, I would never consider one a replacement for the other, in any use.

 

[A.Colden]

I would say that the aims of Reala and Ektar are diametrically opposed. One aims for natural color (more natural than Kodak NC or Fuji 160S, IMHO), and the other aims for purposefully exaggerated color and contrast. I have used both, and though they are both excellent, I would never consider one a replacement for the other, in any use.

I agree to a point, but it depends on what sort of photos you are taking and for what purpose. Reala can give you highly saturated and almost ludicrously vibrant colours under certain conditions and that is why we have been favouring it.

 

[2F/2F]

I agree to a point, but it depends on what sort of photos you are taking and for what purpose. Reala can give you highly saturated and almost ludicrously vibrant colours under certain conditions and that is why we have been favouring it.

Yes; under highly saturated and almost ludicrously vibrant conditions.

 

[keithwms]

Wellll.. pretty much any colour neg film I have ever used can give unrealistic colours if it is overexposed. Overt the years I bracketed quite a lot in 35mm to learn the ropes, and when I compared the brackets, it was quite clear that they differed substantially.

If you rate reala at 50 or something, then, sure you will get more saturation in the primaries and less nuance overall. But that is also true of every colour neg film I've ever used. At the same time, metering technique is just as important as how the film is rated, if not even more so. It seems that the best way to compare these films is to colour meter off a neutral object.

One other issue, the importance of which I can't assess at all, is that some claim fuji films do better in fuji chems; kodak films do better in kodak. This sounds reasonable but I don't know firsthand how much of an issue it is. Some of you know, and I'd appreciate comment.

The bottom line I suppose is that you can get spectacular results from any of the modern colour neg films. It is hardly surprising that all those years of research produced these extraordinary films. That said, I still love my astia

 

[bob100684]

Wellll.. pretty much any colour neg film I have ever used can give unrealistic colours if it is overexposed. Overt the years I bracketed quite a lot in 35mm to learn the ropes, and when I compared the brackets, it was quite clear that they differed substantially.

If you rate reala at 50 or something, then, sure you will get more saturation in the primaries and less nuance overall. But that is also true of every colour neg film I've ever used. At the same time, metering technique is just as important as how the film is rated, if not even more so. It seems that the best way to compare these films is to colour meter off a neutral object.

One other issue, the importance of which I can't assess at all, is that some claim fuji films do better in fuji chems; kodak films do better in kodak. This sounds reasonable but I don't know firsthand how much of an issue it is. Some of you know, and I'd appreciate comment.

The bottom line I suppose is that you can get spectacular results from any of the modern colour neg films. It is hardly surprising that all those years of research produced these extraordinary films. That said, I still love my astia

Having worked in labs using both fuji and kodak papers and chemicals, as long as things are kept within control, there is more difference due to who is printing your film than due to the chemicals. Thats not to say there is NO difference, but its relatively minor.