Fuji Reala 100 vs Kodak 160 VC

[le vrai rdu]

I love fuji reala, in 135 but also in 120 (fantastic in 120)

I don't use VC films because they are VC , The question of the topic is odd to me, comparing a VC film and a neutral one

Comparing it to the portra 160 NC would be more logical

Portra films are fantastic but , oh my god, very expensives

 

[btgc]

I like Reala.
Sorry, exposure is crap but I didn't want to abuse you with abstract shots.

 

[mathomas]

Ektar 100.

 

[barnwulf]

I prefer Ektar 100 or if I were to choose from the two options above I would use 160VC. I like 160VC also. Just use Ektar most of the time. I love it's color and sharpness. Jim

 

[whitecat]

I use Reala with great results but I have to try the 160.

 

[Monochrom]

I love reala, didn´t like ektar becasue it casts many times some magenta colours on the frame...portra is super fien and that 60 iso + helps to get faster pics.

 

[k__43]

Reala for the money.
In the moment I prefer portra 400 (new) over anything else in 120 format.
The resolution is great the grain not much worse and I'm not much for shallow DOF anyway.

 

[stompyq]

Both of these suck compared to portra 400

 

[Dirk]

Now that Reala is no longer (at least in 135), it's Kodak Colorplus 200 or, when I feel spendy, Portra 400 or 160. But I miss Reala like hell. My favorit color negative film of all time.

 

[Eugen Mezei]

I never understood why they stopped Reala in 135.

 

[BlackXList]

Really wish they'd bring it back, I hadn't paid attention to it until just after it got canned, and I've regretted my own slackness ever since.

It seems popular enough in 120, and they still have Reala modes on their X series cameras (I think) so there's clearly a market for it, and they clearly view it fondly, I just wish I'd get a chance to use it in 35mm.

 

[wblynch]

Fujicolor 200 in 35mm is close enough to Reala to make a good substitute. Actually, I like the Fujicolor better. It seems slightly warmer and richer to me.