Fuji Reala 100 vs Kodak 160 VC

Fuji Reala 100 vs Kodak 160 VC

  • Fuji Reala 100

    Votes: 140 40.9%

  • Kodak 160 VC

    Votes: 144 42.1%

  • Other color negative film

    Votes: 58 17.0%
  • Total voters
    342
I prefer Reala, albeit for no other reason than that I like to complement it with NPH (400ISO). Together they make a nice spread. For me 160ISO isn't either here or there (and that includes the 160ISO Fuji film).
 
I like 160VC a lot, in both 135 and 120, very pleasant colors. 400UC is another favorite, unfortunately not in 120 available.
 
Since the poll referenced these two specific films, I chose Portra 160VC, although my long-time mainstay for color remains 160NC, which for me is just so darn versatile (and, finally, reformulated for finer grain, the only small knock I'd had against it. And, since the Portra "family" runs from ISO 160 straight up to 800, it's fairly easy to stay color-consistent while dealing with varying lighting conditions, which is a big deal when I'm slaving over a hot scanner late at night.


- Barrett
 
Last edited:
Ive never had much success with fuji print film. If I am going to buy colour fuji film, I'll buy one of their slide films which I like much better.

I like Kodak 160VC @ 100. I do prefer NC though.
 
This is what I would call an executive decision because the films are different. Reala has more saturated color. I just got 25 rolls back, where I used both Reala and Portra 160 NC.

Porta 160NC shots with both Leica ASPH and 120mm Zeiss Makro CFI lenses were less saturated and I preferred them over Reala. Portra is designed to be friendly with skin colors therefore for portrait work I would lean towards Portra.

I got some good shots with Reala as well. But as a body of work I would prefer less intense color. Having said this, when I want deeper colors I will shoot Kodachrome or Ektachrome. I order all at B&H NYC so I do not shop locally.
 
Last edited:
On Reala I had wrong colors couple of times, probably becouse of crappy development.
I choose Portra because I have more consistent results with it in our local lab.

Funny thing is that they use Fuji minilab, but Kodak films are better processed
 
I use Portra. Reala is excellent film, but in my workflow, Portra is much easier to get the color balance right.
 
ferider said:
Used to use both. Now only Reala. Reasons: cheaper, easier to scan, prefer ASA 100. If I need higher speed I switch to 400. Kodak VC is more saturated, of course.

Roland.
Click to expand...

same same same

Roland,

You have also spoken for me here.
 
I generally like the color and grain of Kodak print films but for 120 the Fuji stuff is just so much easier to load.
 
I used Porta 160 almost exclusively for all subjects. If bought in quantity price isn't too bad. It's by the far the best scanning negative film out there and is the most Photoshop friendly. I gave up on Fuji after fighting the great speckled bird in the shadows after scans. Pay a little more and get a lot more quality in shadow detail.
 
Speaking as expired film user, I can say that Kodak Portra -anything is better than Fuji Superia Reala when they're expired (several years expired, to be more specific).

Kodak Portra 400 UC (expired):

1361591508_6949bed0fd.jpg


Fuji Superia Reala 100 (expired):

1729827858_28b3bd63e6_o.jpg


I don't know, the Fuji has weird cyan/green cast that is very hard to remove even digitally.

But... again, this is expired film shots, fresh ones may yet tell a different story.
 
Shadowfox's shot using Reala was a difficult one. You were shooting from outside the tent into the subjects under the shade of the tent. I highly doubt that Portra would give you better results.

My own experience, the following is the ranking of saturation from high to low:
VC --> Reala = UC --> Pro 160C (NPC) --> Gold --> Superia Xtra --> High Definition (HD) --> NC --> Pro 160S (NPS) = Pro 400H (NPH).

To me subjectively, VC is too highly saturated, and NPS & NPH is too lowly saturated for my taste. Those films in between, from Reala to Portra NC, are fine with me.
 
Of the two, it has to be Reala. I don't like the VC Portra range (mulls to himself as to whether he actually has ever used it...). I use Portra 160NC sometimes, but Reala is what I'm using at the moment.
 
I like reala when it is slightly over exposed. It gets a really pretty creaminess to the light. I have never used portra VC, but I have seen a street photographer do wonderful things with it on a rainy day. On a normal day it looks a little unreal to my eyes. I guess you could say it looks "unreala".

538122540_fd1443debe.jpg

Reala overexposed by a stop.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom