heiyu
Member
Hello guys, as I don't us fast films alot I dont have much experience with it. I'm planning a trip to hongkong and I need to stock up some fast film with these sunny weather conditions.
I like high contrast films like Fuji sensia slide which I normally use. Which will give me better high contrast, but not overly saturated results? I also find it harder to expose correctly with my Leica M6@160ISO as I only can use 1/2 stops instead of 1/3.
I'm also bringing some Velvia 100F with me, so that is covered. I'd like to hear about some experiences... with those films.
(the best option is to buy alot provia100, but that film is so expensive)
I like high contrast films like Fuji sensia slide which I normally use. Which will give me better high contrast, but not overly saturated results? I also find it harder to expose correctly with my Leica M6@160ISO as I only can use 1/2 stops instead of 1/3.
I'm also bringing some Velvia 100F with me, so that is covered. I'd like to hear about some experiences... with those films.
(the best option is to buy alot provia100, but that film is so expensive)
Ben Blacket
Established
I used Reala 100 & now 160S. They're relatively the same & the extra speed of 160 is handy. 160C is the saturated version. I scan all my stuff for printing & neg film gives me much more latitude & I can bump up the contrast/saturation later in Photoshop. It's just harder to edit/proof negs than slides. Are you scanning your film?
infrequent
Well-known
reala is beautiful.
raid
Dad Photographer
I used mainly Reala 100 and Kodak Portra NC160 in my last trip. Both are superb.
heiyu
Member
I've shoot quite a couple of rolls with Fuji Pro400H (low contrast en low saturation) and Fuji Pro800 (high contrast en high saturation) and find them both quite nice. I still have a couple of reala in the fridge so I'll take that with me. But I'm gonna stock up with the Pro160C: after I checked some pics on Flickr. I mus say the Reala is nice also!
Yes, I scan all my negatives and edit them a little bit in Photoshop; mostly curves and levels. I like to keep the charasteristics of the film.
Yes, I scan all my negatives and edit them a little bit in Photoshop; mostly curves and levels. I like to keep the charasteristics of the film.
Last edited:
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
"I'm planning a trip to hongkong and I need to stock up some fast film with these sunny weather conditions. "
you mean slow film, i guess?
iso 100-160 is not that fast, nowadays
NPC i.e. pro160C is quite nice, but in my experience reala is sharper and more contrasty in 35mm format.
If u go for npc, make sure it is fresh. I had BAD experience with expired NPC.
you mean slow film, i guess?
iso 100-160 is not that fast, nowadays
NPC i.e. pro160C is quite nice, but in my experience reala is sharper and more contrasty in 35mm format.
If u go for npc, make sure it is fresh. I had BAD experience with expired NPC.
Monte920
Established
I'm kind of agree with Pherdinand. Reala is at the saturated end. It is sharp, contrasty, but still retains a very beautiful skin tone.
Pro series are less saturated. I should say Pro 160C and Pro 800Z are more vivid and colorful among the "less saturated group". But they are still less saturated than Reala in the absolute term. As a result, Pro 160C seems to be less contrasty, the color is clearer and lighter, and it generates an extremely cutish and sweet skin tone. Pro 160C is definitely different from Kodak's 160VC. The latter is much more vivid and saturated, making it a good choice for landscape, but not so ideal for the portrait skin tone.
Anyway, I think Reala and Pro 160C have very different personalities. But they both generate very pleasing results, both for landscape and portrait. I can't say which one that I really prefer. I will suggest that you try both. Although with the price of Reala being only 60% of Pro 160C, Reala is hard to beat!!!
Pro series are less saturated. I should say Pro 160C and Pro 800Z are more vivid and colorful among the "less saturated group". But they are still less saturated than Reala in the absolute term. As a result, Pro 160C seems to be less contrasty, the color is clearer and lighter, and it generates an extremely cutish and sweet skin tone. Pro 160C is definitely different from Kodak's 160VC. The latter is much more vivid and saturated, making it a good choice for landscape, but not so ideal for the portrait skin tone.
Anyway, I think Reala and Pro 160C have very different personalities. But they both generate very pleasing results, both for landscape and portrait. I can't say which one that I really prefer. I will suggest that you try both. Although with the price of Reala being only 60% of Pro 160C, Reala is hard to beat!!!
heiyu
Member
@pherdinand: Yeah, I made an error: I meant: I don't use SLOW films alot, because of the mostly bad weather conditions here in Netherlands 400ISO is the most versatile. The worse part is, Reala costs about the same as Pro160C the price isn't much different. I do have a roll of Reala that i've exposed but still haven't got the chance to get it developed so I don't know how the results are.
Because of the Dutch EURO2008 soccer match of today, the shops were closed early and I couldn't get any film. So I'll gonna get it tomorrow. Still in doubt....
But people seems to like Reala alot more here =)
Because of the Dutch EURO2008 soccer match of today, the shops were closed early and I couldn't get any film. So I'll gonna get it tomorrow. Still in doubt....
But people seems to like Reala alot more here =)
infrequent
Well-known
if you really want that extra bit of speed, maybe get the 160c. reala doesn't push well at all. i usually rate reala at EI80 and develop at box speed.
the skin tones with reala are very pleasant. its hard to explain but it really adds something to a scene. ; )
have a few rolls of 400H. will give that a go sometime.
the skin tones with reala are very pleasant. its hard to explain but it really adds something to a scene. ; )
have a few rolls of 400H. will give that a go sometime.