Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Color: Film, Paper, and Chemistry' started by RattyMouse, Jun 6, 2012.
What is the difference between Superia and Reala film? Are both available in 120 format?
Superia is hard to find in 120, but it does exist, in 100 and XTRA 400.
Reala is commonly available in 120.
Superia in 120 you will probably have to source from Europe. Though it might be over there in Asia, I've rarely seen it for sale from the U.S. I think Superia 100 may not be made in 120 anymore. One source of Superia XTRA 400 in 120, says expiry date 2014 or late. Which indicates it is quite fresh.
Superia is the consumer line of colour neg, with punchier colours and higher contrast.
Reala is still quite saturated, but it appears both punchy and natural, and is very nice with portraits and people and imho has tighter grain than Superia/Fujicolor 100.
Thank you for your reply.
So Superia is like Kodak Gold?
Reala like Kodak Ektar?
I would say regular Superia is comparable to Kodak Gold, yes.
But it is difficult for me to quantify Reala for you. Reala does everything well. It is sharp, it has fine grain, it's great for nature, landscapes, and portraits, and mixed lighting. Ektar is sharp, with fine grain, and strong, punchy colours, very nice for nature, landscapes. Can be used for portraits well in the right situation and right coloured light.
I really like Konica Centuria Super 100 in 120 for nature shots.. though you can't get it anymore. I have a nice big stash
To muddle things further, I find Superia 200 and Reala 120 closest in saturation and contrast. Superia 100 is just too saturated and Superia 400 too contrasty. If anything, Superia 800 rated around ISO 500-640 always looked better in terms of grain and contrast than Superia 400.
Ektar has ramped up saturation and contrast and, to my eye, looks more like Kodak's dearly departed E100G. Reala kills it, though, as an all-purpose film and is great for portraits.
Superia = Contrastier, but naturalish colors (I haven't shot any)
Reala = Smoother colors. I took a shot with expired Reala yesterday... http://500px.com/photo/8342369 and http://500px.com/photo/8346239
Superia is like Gold in terms of its market-placement, yes.
Reala has a bit more saturation and contrast than Portra 160, much less than Ektar. Kind of somewhere between Astia and Provia in its look but obviously without the tightly-constrained latitude of E6 and with more visible grain. It's finer than the other Fuji neg films (160S, 400H), but has noticeably coarser grain than the modern Kodak films.
Reala is very similar to Portra 400 IMHO - good saturation and contrast without being silly on either count, plus very neutral rendition with excellent skintones. Of course it looks like Fuji (blue/green emphasis) and not Kodak (red emphasis) because it has two separate green-sensitive layers with slightly different spectral response, so it can separate subtleties of foliage that Kodak films may not and is better at suppressing fluorescent-green.
Fuji states 160S is finer than Reala. They rate the sharpness the same, but the MTF appears better for 160S.
From what I understand Pro 160S should have a print grain index of 19.9 to to 22 for 8x10 out of 35mm format, compared to 59 for Portra 400, 50 for Portra 160, 38 for Ektar, and Reala should be 45.4 to 51 range.
What is this "print grain index"? In no way have I ever seen Pro 160S with smaller or smoother grain than Portra 160, let alone Ektar. In my experience, 160S, while of lovely colouring, is a bit crunchy compared to the similar offerings (Portra 160, 160VC) and much coarser than Ektar.
Print Grain Index is what Kodak uses, and describes the graininess held at a certain distance (14 inches I think). 25 is the threshold of perception of grain.
I'm just going off Fuji's data. 160S and 160C are RMS 3, which is ridiculously finer than the RMS 4 of Reala.
I like Fuji 160S or even more, 160C. I don't care for Reala since it is too blueish for Southern California and Nevada.
I prefer Kodak colors here.