Fuji Reala, is ISO80 the best exposure?

[ClaremontPhoto]

It's often said in here, and I've passed it on, that Reala gives best results at ISO80. So in the past six months or so I've used ISO80 (1/3 stop overexposure) too.

But looking back at negatives from a year or two ago when I used Reala at ISO100 I can't see any difference at all.

What should I be looking for?

 

[Byuphoto]

I/3 stop is not much but it does even out the grain. The reason I don't go lower, to a full stop, is the slow speed. Conversely I accidently exposed a roll at ISO 400 with no ill effects. The photos had a definate warm tone but as they were shot outside in early morning they still look quite natural albeit a little saturated.

 

[wlewisiii]

I've always shot it at 100 and been happy. I haven't seen anything shot slower that makes me feel I'm missing anything.

William

 

[furcafe]

It's often recommended that C41 films be overexposed a bit to reduce grain, particularly in the shadows, but 80 v. 100 may not be a big enough difference to show in your negs (e.g., if you're using a camera w/a mechanical shutter, like a Leica, the difference could easily be swamped by variations in shutter speeds, etc.). Perhaps ISO 64 would provide more of a visible difference.

It's often said in here, and I've passed it on, that Reala gives best results at ISO80. So in the past six months or so I've used ISO80 (1/3 stop overexposure) too.

But looking back at negatives from a year or two ago when I used Reala at ISO100 I can't see any difference at all.

What should I be looking for?

 

[dmr]

I've questioned this too. I shoot this at 100. I sure can't tell 1/3 stop difference in most cases, and I'm sure any real difference is buried in the margin of error of the exposure system and such.

 

[sockeyed]

Perhaps one can consider it a bit of insurance against underexposure. While you might not see a difference in properly exposed negs at 80 or 100, you will see some degradation if you expose at 125, 160, or 200 (increased grain, washed-out colours). A bright light source or reflection in your image could affect your meter reading, but if you're already over-exposing a bit, things could even out in the end.

BTW, I love the look of Superia 800 at 640 or even 400. It becomes very smooth, fine grained and 'pops'.

 

[nayanan]

I set ISO 80 when shoot with Reala, but I agree with others that
the difference is not that much noticeable with this particular film.
It is there IMO, however.

Reala is relatively tolerant with exposure errors among the films
I'm (or used to be) regularly shooting with. (e.g. Superia, Centuria,
Ultra...)

 

[Todd.Hanz]

I shoot it at ISO 50

Todd

 

[camera chipmunk]

I suggest trying a roll with a one stop difference, ie 50 iso.

 

[amateriat]

Standard operating procedure with me is to take an sample of a film type I plan to stock up on and shoot an exposure test over a range of EI, including the standard rated speed; whatever speed hits the overall "sweet spot" gets used for that whole emulsion batch. This method is somewhat more useful when shooting slide film, but I think it has a bit of relevance for color neg as well.


- Barrett

 

[Avotius]

hm.....I guess according to all of you im shooting pretty much all of my film wrong. I traditionaly underexpose all of my film for even highlights and saturation. I dont care about grain at all so I traditionaly underexpose everything except slides by half a stop.

 

[Kat]

I don't deliberately underexpose, but I did notice I also tend to lean towards underexposure (at least when I'm looking at the LCD in my digicam) because I like the colors better. *shrug*