Aargh! Fuji Reala drives me Nuts!!

[RFFan]

Just got a couple of processed Reala films back and looking at the pictures I reckon this film is going to drive me bonkers! I started using Reala about six months ago, partly based on many favourable reviews and partly because I just wanted to try something new. What frustrates the h*ll out of me is that within a single role this film can produce gloriously detailed images with excellent ‘natural’ colour but at the same time can produce some of the most insipid, pallid, lifeless prints ever to grace a camera.

I’ve read that Reala is not recommended for use in overcast, dull conditions and yet I’ve had excellent results in that situation. I’ve also had excellent results in bright sunlight. What irritates me is that I can’t figure out what conditions generate the ‘lousy’ prints. It’s nothing to do with equipment / technique and I can’t discern a pattern. The way things are going I’m gonna switch to my old colour negative staple, Fuji Superia 400 – some people moan about colour being too saturated (I don’t agree) and at least the results are far more predictable than Reala.

Any one else out there suffering the trials and tribulations of using Reala? Any other contenders for ‘Most Frustrating Film on Planet Earth’?

 

[rover]

I tried it and like you wasn't won over. I much prefer Kodak Porta VC, either 160 or 400.

 

[P C Headland]

I've never had any problems with Reala whatsover. However, I use it in 120 (6x6 and 6x9) and only have it developed. It scans beautifully.

I know it's not the easiest thing to evaluate, but have you looked at the negatives of the shots? Could it be a problem in the printing stage? Have you tried scanning the offending shots to see how the scans come out? Is there any sort of theme to the cr@p shots - into the sun, dull conditions, tricky lighting?

I know you say the other film type was OK, but is there a possiblity that the camera has an intermittent fault?

Good luck!

Paul

 

[rover]

My experience is that Reala is inconsistent, dull and unsharp, printed, scanned ... I was disappointed. I bought a 5 roll pro pack to try it out and the results were consistently inconsistent.

 

[captainslack]

Wow!! I've never have any problems with Reala. In fact, it's probably my favorite neg film. I get wonderful shots 9 times out of 10 with it.

 

[RichardS]

Why are you blaming the prints on the film? Blame them on whoever is making the prints.

Dick

 

[dkapp]

I'll have to agree with the original poster. Calling Reala is an understatement. On the same roll, I get dull flat images for no good reason along with overly saturated images for no good reason. I've had them printed, and scanned them myself with the same results.

Dave

 

[RFFan]

Thanks for the feedback about your own experiences with Reala.

Seems like I'm not the only one getting inconsistent results. What's annoying is that when it's good it's VERY good but when it's bad it's AWFUL! I'm starting to wonder whether it has something to do with Reala's sensitivity to certain colours. It seems to be great with greens (foliage etc) but may be it handles some other colours / tones less well. I tend to get more consistent results when I put this film thru' a Konica C35 / Yashica 35 ME but thay may be because the 38/2.8 lens on those cameras has an inherent ability to deliver 'glowing' prints and that probably helps to boost an otherwise dull Reala print. I think I'll double up for a while and shoot on both Reala and Fuji Superia 400 to allow me to compare prints of the same scene and make a decision about which film to use.

 

[wlewisiii]

Interesting comments about Reala. Like PC, I use Reala in 120 for 6x6 and it is by far my favorite color neg film. When I do get bad shots, it is a certainty that it is me and not the film that has been the problem.

I wonder, is the Reala for 135 marked Reala only or Reala CS? I've heard there is a significant difference and all of the 120 I've shot is Reala CS.

William

 

[pvdhaar]

I used to be a big fan of Reala in the mid-nineties. That was when the film base was still somewhat purple instead of the current orange. Then Fuji switched to 'New Reala' and it wasn't as good anymore. Later on Fuji switched to 'Superia Reala' and things went downhill further. The raves about Reala were justified IMO for the original Reala. They're not for the current one (neither 35mm nor 120 rollfilm). I've since switched to NPH for my colour work. It's very consistent with excellent colour accuracy.

What I do know from my endeavours with all three versions of Reala though, is that it has a very small exposure lattitude compared to other colour negative films. A slight underexposure, and the colours already become very saturated, a slight overexposure and everything becomes grey. It's almost like slide film in that respect. This is one film not to over/under rate. This is why many may prefer plain Superia. It has such a wide lattitude, that the saturation doesn't really suffer from under/over exposure.

Still, under controlled circumstances (like studio), Reala is able to gve very small grain and good results. It's just not really an outdoors film..

 

[StuartR]

You might try NPS or NPH (I guess they are Pro NS and Pro NH now). They are pro films and made to be consistent. Consumer film is not officially subject to the same level of oversight, so it might actually be that you are getting good and bad rolls of reala. Perhaps it has been sitting on the shelf way too long at your store? The pro films are usually refridgerated and generally are good on arrival.

In any case, NPS is a really awesome film, you might want to try it anyway. It is the only neg film that I have tried where I was really happy about the colors:

 

[pvdhaar]

... Consumer film is not officially subject to the same level of oversight, so it might actually be that you are getting good and bad rolls of reala...

Stuart, this perception of professional versus consumer film isn't entirely correct. Both professional and consumer films are produced to very tight tolerances. They're both really high-tech products. Nothing about consumer film is inferiour, it's just different..

The main differences are:
- Latent image retention. Consumers let exposed film sit in the camera for months, professionals send off film the day it's shot to be processed. The films are optimised for this difference.

- Temperature sensitivity. Professional film is more sensitive to temperature variations, but also more consistent in colour rendering. Consumer film is the opposite. It'll sit happily in a hot car for days and will still give adequate prints.

- Colour respons. Consumers want photo's with punch, professionals need flattering skin tones (go figure which is most accurate). Besides, some professional films are tuned to scanning and subsequent CMYK separation.

- Contrast handling. Professional films cram the whitest white and blackest black into the linear respons area. Consumer films do the opposite, they expand the response to emphasize contrast.