some questions about FUJI film again...

[haagen_dazs]

hi hi
some help appreciated.

what is the difference between the superia reala and superia 100?

Is the whole line of superia is the consumer grade negative film right?
I am looking at the fuji website and was looking for professional grade negative film.
Would that be the Superia 100 and 200 Propack?

Does the word PROPACK make it the professional grade?

and what is the diff between the
True Definition 400 and Superia X-TRA 400 (both consumer grade) ?

 

[Todd.Hanz]

Reala produces a less saturated color, real color like what your eyes see.

Propack just means a pack of 5 rolls (or whatever).

Depending on the results you want I would try Fuji NPH, you can search fuji's site for info on the differences in their films.

Todd

 

[Terran]

I shoot exclusively with Fuji films today. I used to shoot print films when I was doing weddings and have tried everything. Today I shoot slide films because they are the only way to trully get what you saw on the scene on film in a way that you can copy correctly. If you want a print film that will give you lots of saturation in the brighter range of colors like reds and oranges and also extremely fine grain I would recomend the Fuji Reala. Fuji Superia Reala and Fuji Reala are the same film but depending on where you buy online they might just call it Fuji Reala.

My Advice when shooting color is to learn to shoot slide film it is much much better because you actually get the scene as the film saw it. Let me explain, when you use a negative film like most everything over the counter you need to be aware that what you take a picture of will be recorded on film but when you go ahead to have a look at what you took a picture of you need to have it printed. Which means you are going to have to rely on a machine which has no clue as to exactly how to print it or you're going to go to a lab which is then going to have some guys opinion about how the picture looked when he decides how to print it. This is the reason most every amatuer photographer and even professional photographers think that digital is soo amazing becuase they don't even understand that when you send a digital photo to get printed it will be as the guy saw it because the colors will come out accurately but when you do it with negative film it is a different story. I recomend you check out this Link out. It will give you a better understanding of film and digital. I still prefer film because I shoot slides which the colors are amazing.

 

[Todd.Hanz]

here is a link to Fuji's "consumer" film page, I like Reala for it's non-overly saturated look but not everyone agrees 🙂

http://www.fujifilm.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/Film35mmPrintSuperiaReala.jsp

Todd

 

[haagen_dazs]

My Advice when shooting color is to learn to shoot slide film it is much much better because you actually get the scene as the film saw it.

Terran.
THanks for your advice.
it was something at the back of my mind and you answered it.
only thing is that slide (i hear) has to be properly exposed during the time the photo was taken.
if the slide is over or under exposed, the images are yucky/bad... can cannot be fixed..
right?

 

[haagen_dazs]

seems like i am getting conflicting views about reala's saturation 🙁 😕

 

[sockeyed]

Reala is a moderately saturated film. It's not as low saturation as Fuji NPH or Kodak 160NC, which are portrait films, nor is it as saturated as many consumer films like regular Superia 100 or Kodak HD. I find the colours to be very rich, but also accurate. It is also a pretty good film for skin tones.

Here are some samples from my images on flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sockeyed/tags/reala/

 

[Berk Sirman]

There's a whole world of difference between Reala and Superia 100. The latter is a consumer grade film with jacked up contrast and may give really bad skin tones in some situations. Reala on the other hand has incredible skin tones, and pleasing contrast, and realistic colors.

Reala has a lot of overexposure lattitude and can (or in some cases should) be rated lower than 100 for better results. I use it at ISO80. I do not understand why Fuji does not sell Reala as pro film as it is definitely in a different league than the superias.

Superia 100, on the other hand, is similarly sharp as Reala and can give good results based on subject matter. But given the choice, I would always take reala.

I know you didnt as this but: Superia 100 and (Superia) Press 100 are the same film. As far as I know, the latter is sold in boxes of 20, in canisters only, without individual boxes.

Berk

hi hi
some help appreciated.

what is the difference between the superia reala and superia 100?

 

[wlewisiii]

That is correct - slide films have a much lower level of latitude about them. A bigger problem with starting with slides is - how do you intend to view them? Hunched over a light box with a 8x loupe gets old really fast and projectors are a major pain.

For your purposes, I'd suggest that the Fuji Consumer print films are the best bet if you have access to a decent lab, preferably using Fuji processing gear. Reala CS 100 is the closest thing to a true color print film out there - punchy when it should be but not blowing everything out of proportion. Also Superia, especially the 400, handles mixed lighting (natural, flourecent & incandescent) better (IME & all that) than any other color film, neg or pos. Plus you can get Fuji quite cheaply for brand name film at just about every grocery store. Buy a pile, burn it & learn... just be sure to have fun doing so and you won't go too far wrong.

HTH,

William

 

[Terran]

In regards to having problems with exposure latitude, I recomend that you just learn to use it properly. It isn't really a problem when you use a hand held meter such as a Minolta. I have never used a camera with a built in meter that was trully accurate. Exposure shouldn't ever be a problem as long as you set the exposure yourself using a handheld. In regards to the slide looking yucky, regardless if you are using print film or slide film you will get the same results on the film. In other words under and over exposure results in higher grain and loss of information on the film. If you decided to expose for the shadows and a part of the subjects face was in direct sunlight that part of the face would lack the texture of the part that is in the shadows. When shooting with print film the printer would normally try to compensate for incorrect exposure by upping or lowering the contrast in the print but he can never pull information out of areas where the information was blown away. The difference is that when you are using slide film you see all the errors of your photography and thus can correct for it next time. It isn't wise to use film or technology to disguise weaknesses in form. When it comes to being bored looking at slides with an 8x loupe please realize that you will be learning how to shoot pictures and that when you get the one that you want you obviously want a good print. When you need to print just find a Professional lab and have him print the slide on cibachrome or supergloss paper. That will show you the full beauty of your shot. Instead of having your perfect shot on print film and having jo blow in the lab think there should be more red when there really wasn't supposed to be too much red. In other words this is based on the idea that you are aren't hitting Gold in every picture you take and thus it isn't that expensive to only print your best stuff. In addition if you were taking great pictures each and every time, why would you have prints made on 4x6 paper? All my great shots are in 8x12 or larger and posted up in my room. Many times the satisfaction in photography is when you have earned the picture with all your abilities. To see that merely think about all the people who use Nikon F5 and end up thinking it ruined the fun in photography to get something fully manual like an F2 like me 🙂 There are very good reasons why professional photographers generally only shoot with slides. The founder of IBM was asked how to be successful and he said, "You must double your rate of failure."