Totally agree. With color printfilm, the quality of the resulting print is mainly determined by the lab. There are no bad color negative film stocks from Kodak and Fuji. All are excellent.
Originally Posted by railwayman3
Porta's good, Reala's good. Right now I have Portra 400 in my Contax 159m and Reala in my Bronica RF645. Shooting the Tour de Fat in Fort Collins today. Film at 11.
All color photo films are great.
I have commented on this before. My father used to use Reala all the time for weddings as he said it was formulated to keep skin tones accurate whilst keeping wedding dresses white.
Originally Posted by foc
I'm not sure if it was actually formulated with this in mind but it did work.
I think the clue is in the name Reala - real colours, not the over-saturated colour which some films deliver.
"People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.
I have no wife. And don't intend to.
Originally Posted by perkeleellinen
I am going to get another freezer soon to store this Reala. Hoping to get 15 maybe 20 years out of it. I'm sure even with aging, it will still look better than the Chinese color film soon to come our way when Kodak and Fuji stop making color film.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I honestly haven't used Reala per se that much (Instead it was Fuji 160, 400 and 800)
Originally Posted by RattyMouse
But ANYTHING is better than the new Kodak Ektar 100.
What is it that you do not like about Ektar?
Originally Posted by Andre Noble
Last edited by Andre Noble; 09-01-2012 at 11:02 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Its all relative these days with digital post-processing. If I had economical access to a wet-printing color lab w/ quality enlargers and a RT paper processor, I'd love to wet print. But these days, with scanning and photoshop, the film is just a medium to transfer an image to a file. I've been a Kodak fanboy for a long time(well, since getting into photography 6 years ago when leaving high school), but Fuji looks to be the "game in town" if Kodak goes under... I've got my fingers crossed that an individual/consortium of lucrative means will purchase the consumer film division from Kodak, and that they will continue to develop/market products that are of "Kodak quality" well into the future. Not focused on making maximum profit, but simply because they want to support the community of individuals/professionals that WANT to shoot film...
But in all honesty, I'm embracing digital capture more and more. I've got my eye on shooting commercially as a career, so digital seems to really be the only option, primarily due to client's demanding time schedules for delivery. Some jobs the clients have REQUESTED film, but its not been for commercial work, only for editorial.
I'd love to see the Kodak 400VC of 2002-2006 emulsion vintage(design, prior to later "refinements" to improve scanning compatibility) come back, but I'm 99.99999% sure it won't...
Gist of my post here is this:
Embrace Fuji, don't scorn them. They're still producing/supporting E-6(reversal) films, look @ Kodak, they killed theirs off...Too bad, but I stockpiled E100G in anticipation of it, somehow "knowing" it was coming... Unfortunate, but I'm glad I've got my stash... But hopefully Provia 100F will still be there for me when I'm out of my supply of Ektachrome, as its a "suitable" replacement, but definitely not the same. Astia was great, but too under-marketed IMO...
I'm rambling, but I hope you all can get my point. Shoot, shoot, shoot. Get out there and expose film, get it processed at QUALITY labs(people that actually GIVE A DAMN about the results)... Don't "hoard", but constantly buy. Consistent demand(even if somewhat "low") will give companies an idea of what's selling, and what to keep in their lineups if its profitable. While its great that Andre can buy 290 rolls of Reala 120, unless you're shooting a cr@pload, or re-selling it for profit overseas, just buy what you will use in the next 1-2mo... Then re-order. Simple as that...
Originally Posted by DanielStone
While this is true to a point, films (like JPEGs) impart certain baseline qualities (pallette, contrast rate, ...) that carry through and these are not easily dismissed. These baseline qualities significantly affect the result regardless of printing method.
Andre's examples in 19 demonstrate this. Ektar created a baseline that would require a significant amount of work if the intent was to make a normal portrait. Reala created a baseline that would take little if any extra work to make ready.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not suggesting Ektar is bad, just that choosing the right tool/medium for the job at hand makes sense.
Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR
"We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin