ampguy
Veteran
Thanks again Raid
Thanks again Raid
for the HU on this. Mine was dated by 6 or 9 months, but still a great deal on a great film when shot at ISO 50 or so, also works great for b/w conversion. With good light, I really like the Reala over the Superia 400 which I was previously using from Costco at $1.25/roll - though I haven't done much b/w with the Superia 400 yet.
Thanks again Raid
for the HU on this. Mine was dated by 6 or 9 months, but still a great deal on a great film when shot at ISO 50 or so, also works great for b/w conversion. With good light, I really like the Reala over the Superia 400 which I was previously using from Costco at $1.25/roll - though I haven't done much b/w with the Superia 400 yet.
urban_alchemist
Well-known
Neither... 160VC is just too saturated for me, and does some really weird things to skin tones.
My general 160 of choice is Fuji Pro 160S. Lovely low-saturation colours, and creamy whites, although for some reason I find myself leaning to Pro 400H more often, even if I don't need the speed.
That being said, I've never tried 160NC as it is impossible to get here in Israel, and in London I'm just too lazy to order any in...
My general 160 of choice is Fuji Pro 160S. Lovely low-saturation colours, and creamy whites, although for some reason I find myself leaning to Pro 400H more often, even if I don't need the speed.
That being said, I've never tried 160NC as it is impossible to get here in Israel, and in London I'm just too lazy to order any in...
IK13
Established
For the choices give, I vote Reala. It is by far my most used all around, great even in bright sun film (I can't make my scans to look nowhere near the scans I get from Costco, but that's a different story...anyone willing to help here?).
I prefer "contrasty" lenses, which coupled with the contrast and saturation of 160VC tend to produce an output that's a bit "too much" for me.
Now, if we throw Kodak 160NC or Fuji 160S, I can vote with two hands for certain applications...
I prefer "contrasty" lenses, which coupled with the contrast and saturation of 160VC tend to produce an output that's a bit "too much" for me.
Now, if we throw Kodak 160NC or Fuji 160S, I can vote with two hands for certain applications...
Uncle Fester
Well-known
Which one will you choose and why?
If none of these two which one?
Negative films only
I enlarge my own color photos in my darkroom and I have always had an easier time gettng good prints with Kodak films, so I continue to use what works best for me.
Last edited:
uhligfd
Well-known
Why not use Ektar 100?
funkaoshi
Well-known
Because it didn't exist when this poll was created, would be my first guess.
Thardy
Veteran
Reala now.
I used some 160 and it was too red/warm. Maybe it was the VC version?
I used some 160 and it was too red/warm. Maybe it was the VC version?
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
Reala Superia 200 - a nice compromise film that actually does like it's supposed to at 200. Since I rate XP2 and/or BW400CN at 200, I don't have to resent my brain/eye light meter, no matter what I have in my camera.
(OT- How many of you are like me, forgetting what's in what camera? I hate getting old.)
(OT- How many of you are like me, forgetting what's in what camera? I hate getting old.)
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
Right you are. There is a magenta cast to the Fuji line, I find! Glad someone else noticed. And no, it is not the scanner. I have 2 scanners. Same diff.
raid
Dad Photographer
I have been using Kodak Portra 160NC for quite some time. The colors are neutral (accurate). I also like using Reala 100. Is it the scanning that sometimes creates some extra magenta?
Last edited:
morback
Martin N. Hinze
Same here. Neutral colors please.
IK13
Established
I don't think there's such beast as Reala Superia 200.
There's Superia 200, but it is most definitely not Reala.
oldoc
oldoc
VC, by far.
I still prefer Velvia to anything.
I still prefer Velvia to anything.
daveywaugh
Blah
I have found it much easier to scan Portra than Reala personally. I really want to love Reala (cheaper here too!) but IMO Portra is a much smoother, accurate, and pleasing film to work with.
alcaraban
Established
For ideal conditions of light, I love Reala, but I find VC more versatile, as it is faster and adds some color to otherwise rather dull scenes. My scanner prefers VC, so we voted for it. Never use it for people shots, though.
charjohncarter
Veteran
I use the one that I find the easiest to post process.
Ben Blacket
Established
That's a very vague statement!
Which film & why is it easier to post process?
Which film & why is it easier to post process?
steamer
Well-known
I've only used reala a few times, it's called reala ace in Japan, liked it well enough, but it is a little high priced here. Took some landscapes in Mongolia this summer with an old uncoated tessar on a Zeiss folder (531 A) and was amazed with the results, a very strange painterly rendition of colors.
I've only used reala a few times, it's called reala ace in Japan, liked it well enough, but it is a little high priced here. Took some landscapes in Mongolia this summer with an old uncoated tessar on a Zeiss folder (531 A) and was amazed with the results, a very strange painterly rendition of colors.
amazing colours. did you scan these yourself, steve?
i've tried scanning a few rolls of reala on my coolscan, but the scans all had a green caste to them.
fbf
Well-known
Jon, reala is one of the hardest c41 films to scan from my past experience. 160VC, NC on the other hand, are a lot easier to do right.
My friend posted a few samples of reala ace before and i don't think it is the same formula as reala. Not 100% sure though.
My friend posted a few samples of reala ace before and i don't think it is the same formula as reala. Not 100% sure though.