Much Happier with Reala

[RattyMouse]

Awhile back I posted a photo made from Fuji Reala 100 that didnt look too good. The colors were flat and ugly. I changed labs and the latest film I have back from them really looks better. I'm still not sure whether or not I like Kodak Porta better or Reala. I want to standardize on one so have to keep experimenting until I can make up my mind.

 

[markbarendt]

Glad it's working for you.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

Ratty Mouse,

I was thinking since you first posted junk processed films. If you found a good lab , try Portra. Reala colors looks like plastic , especially I did not like the colors of reflection and highlights. Colors looks like IKEA plastic water jug for gardeners.

You will get elegant colors with Portra and real sky. I dont never use Fuji when there is Kodak. Well we have maximum 1 year together with Kodak films like their countdown to Kodachrome. I found 400 speed Portra is dense and makes the picture darker , it would be fit to your lens , processing and lightmeter.

I am getting horrible pictures here , processing and scanning is cheap but makes it completly mess.

Umut

 

[markbarendt]

Umut,

I hardly know where to start.

First you seem to basing your info on "horrible pictures".

Second, increasing the density of the negative creates the opposite in the positive. Dense in negative = light in positive. Also, 400 ISO is 400 ISO.

Third, I'm glad you like Kodak, sorry your not happy with Fuji. So what. I like Kodak too. I like Fuji's films too. Both provide great results for me.

 

[RattyMouse]

Ratty Mouse,

I was thinking since you first posted junk processed films. If you found a good lab , try Portra. Reala colors looks like plastic , especially I did not like the colors of reflection and highlights. Colors looks like IKEA plastic water jug for gardeners.

You will get elegant colors with Portra and real sky. I dont never use Fuji when there is Kodak. Well we have maximum 1 year together with Kodak films like their countdown to Kodachrome. I found 400 speed Portra is dense and makes the picture darker , it would be fit to your lens , processing and lightmeter.

I am getting horrible pictures here , processing and scanning is cheap but makes it completly mess.

Umut

Here's some of my results using Kodak Porta 400 film.

 

[Andre Noble]

I have already made up my mind. 290 rolls of 120 format Fuji Reala, arrived today from Adorama. That should last a while. Will likewise stock up on Kodak Portra 160. Either of these films could be gone tomorrow from the marketplace for good.

 

[perkeleellinen]

Wow! 290 rolls!

I bought 30 rolls of 35mm Reala before it was cut and my wife is giving me grief for taking up space in our freezer with them. I should show her that picture and tell her she's lucky!

 

[RattyMouse]

I have already made up my mind. 290 rolls of 120 format Fuji Reala, arrived today from Adorama. That should last a while. Will likewise stock up on Kodak Portra 160. Either of these films could be gone tomorrow from the marketplace for good. View attachment 56446

I'm guessing you like Reala then.

How long do you think 290 rolls will last you?

 

[railwayman3]

I'm totally convinced that 90% of the success of prints from color negative is down to the lab's standards and particularly the quality of the printing, rather than the actual brand of film used.
I'm sure that there are no "bad" films from any of the main manufacturers,

 

[benjiboy]

Portra and Reala are both excellent colour negative films that I use a lot, but for general photography that isn't specifically portraiture I prefer Reala, because it has more punch and is good for portraits too.

 

[foc]

When I shot weddings on 35mm film, it was always Reala that I used. I never had a complaint from a bride regarding colours being off and I found it very fine grained. I had a 20x30 inch (50cm x 76cm) canvas print make from a 35mm neg and it looked great.

I did all my processing in my minilab and printed on Fuji optical printer and then later on Fuji Frontier. It was a film I always liked.

 

[BradS]

I'm totally convinced that 90% of the success of prints from color negative is down to the lab's standards and particularly the quality of the printing, rather than the actual brand of film used.
I'm sure that there are no "bad" films from any of the main manufacturers,

Totally agree. With color printfilm, the quality of the resulting print is mainly determined by the lab. There are no bad color negative film stocks from Kodak and Fuji. All are excellent.

 

[Tony-S]

Porta's good, Reala's good. Right now I have Portra 400 in my Contax 159m and Reala in my Bronica RF645. Shooting the Tour de Fat in Fort Collins today. Film at 11.

 

[wblynch]

All color photo films are great.

 

[Steve Smith]

When I shot weddings on 35mm film, it was always Reala that I used. I never had a complaint from a bride regarding colours being off

I have commented on this before. My father used to use Reala all the time for weddings as he said it was formulated to keep skin tones accurate whilst keeping wedding dresses white.

I'm not sure if it was actually formulated with this in mind but it did work.

I think the clue is in the name Reala - real colours, not the over-saturated colour which some films deliver.


Steve.

 

[Andre Noble]

Wow! 290 rolls!

I bought 30 rolls of 35mm Reala before it was cut and my wife is giving me grief

I have no wife. And don't intend to.

I am going to get another freezer soon to store this Reala. Hoping to get 15 maybe 20 years out of it. I'm sure even with aging, it will still look better than the Chinese color film soon to come our way when Kodak and Fuji stop making color film.

 

[Andre Noble]

I'm guessing you like Reala then.

I honestly haven't used Reala per se that much (Instead it was Fuji 160, 400 and 800)

But ANYTHING is better than the new Kodak Ektar 100.

 

[BradS]

I honestly haven't used Reala per se that much (Instead it was Fuji 160, 400 and 800)

But ANYTHING is better than the new Kodak Ektar 100.

What is it that you do not like about Ektar?

 

[Andre Noble]

This says it all, Brad.

Versus This

 

[DanielStone]

Its all relative these days with digital post-processing. If I had economical access to a wet-printing color lab w/ quality enlargers and a RT paper processor, I'd love to wet print. But these days, with scanning and photoshop, the film is just a medium to transfer an image to a file. I've been a Kodak fanboy for a long time(well, since getting into photography 6 years ago when leaving high school), but Fuji looks to be the "game in town" if Kodak goes under... I've got my fingers crossed that an individual/consortium of lucrative means will purchase the consumer film division from Kodak, and that they will continue to develop/market products that are of "Kodak quality" well into the future. Not focused on making maximum profit, but simply because they want to support the community of individuals/professionals that WANT to shoot film...

But in all honesty, I'm embracing digital capture more and more. I've got my eye on shooting commercially as a career, so digital seems to really be the only option, primarily due to client's demanding time schedules for delivery. Some jobs the clients have REQUESTED film, but its not been for commercial work, only for editorial.

I'd love to see the Kodak 400VC of 2002-2006 emulsion vintage(design, prior to later "refinements" to improve scanning compatibility) come back, but I'm 99.99999% sure it won't...

Gist of my post here is this:

Embrace Fuji, don't scorn them. They're still producing/supporting E-6(reversal) films, look @ Kodak, they killed theirs off...Too bad, but I stockpiled E100G in anticipation of it, somehow "knowing" it was coming... Unfortunate, but I'm glad I've got my stash... But hopefully Provia 100F will still be there for me when I'm out of my supply of Ektachrome, as its a "suitable" replacement, but definitely not the same. Astia was great, but too under-marketed IMO...

I'm rambling, but I hope you all can get my point. Shoot, shoot, shoot. Get out there and expose film, get it processed at QUALITY labs(people that actually GIVE A DAMN about the results)... Don't "hoard", but constantly buy. Consistent demand(even if somewhat "low") will give companies an idea of what's selling, and what to keep in their lineups if its profitable. While its great that Andre can buy 290 rolls of Reala 120, unless you're shooting a cr@pload, or re-selling it for profit overseas, just buy what you will use in the next 1-2mo... Then re-order. Simple as that...

-Dan

 

[markbarendt]

Its all relative these days with digital post-processing. If I had economical access to a wet-printing color lab w/ quality enlargers and a RT paper processor, I'd love to wet print. But these days, with scanning and photoshop, the film is just a medium to transfer an image to a file.

Morning Dan,

While this is true to a point, films (like JPEGs) impart certain baseline qualities (pallette, contrast rate, ...) that carry through and these are not easily dismissed. These baseline qualities significantly affect the result regardless of printing method.

Andre's examples in 19 demonstrate this. Ektar created a baseline that would require a significant amount of work if the intent was to make a normal portrait. Reala created a baseline that would take little if any extra work to make ready.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not suggesting Ektar is bad, just that choosing the right tool/medium for the job at hand makes sense.

 

[Michael W]

I'm totally convinced that 90% of the success of prints from color negative is down to the lab's standards and particularly the quality of the printing, rather than the actual brand of film used.
I'm sure that there are no "bad" films from any of the main manufacturers,

I think you are correct on this.

 

[somak]

Fuji Reala is a fantastic film and for me it is the best color C41 film I've ever used. Most of my best shots are taken with Reala. I'm not a big fan of Kodak films and particularly dislike the cyan rendition of blues in some of the Kodak films like Ektar even though Ektar being a very sharp film.

It's a pity that fuji discontinued Reala in 35 mm, and that's one of the major reasons I'm gradually shifting to digital.

 

[markbarendt]

Fuji Reala is a fantastic film and for me it is the best color C41 film I've ever used. Most of my best shots are taken with Reala. I'm not a big fan of Kodak films and particularly dislike the cyan rendition of blues in some of the Kodak films like Ektar even though Ektar being a very sharp film.

It's a pity that fuji discontinued Reala in 35 mm, and that's one of the major reasons I'm gradually shifting to digital.

I have read here on APUG, some notes from PE, that the cyan issue is actually caused by Kodak's films being sensitive to UV light which results in an overexposure of the blue sensitive layer; evidently simply adding a UV filter can solve much, if not all of that problem.

Not trying to change your preference, just an FYI.

 

[somak]

I have read here on APUG, some notes from PE, that the cyan issue is actually caused by Kodak's films being sensitive to UV light which results in an overexposure of the blue sensitive layer; evidently simply adding a UV filter can solve much, if not all of that problem.

Not trying to change your preference, just an FYI.

Unless I'm using any other filter almost all the time I keep an UV filter(Hoya generally) on my lens. But so far I failed to see any difference regarding that cyan rendition of blue. I'm not talking about the blue/cyan cast here , which is a different issue.