Much Happier with Reala

[RattyMouse]

Awhile back I posted a photo made from Fuji Reala 100 that didnt look too good. The colors were flat and ugly. I changed labs and the latest film I have back from them really looks better. I'm still not sure whether or not I like Kodak Porta better or Reala. I want to standardize on one so have to keep experimenting until I can make up my mind.

[markbarendt]

Glad it's working for you.

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

Ratty Mouse,

I was thinking since you first posted junk processed films. If you found a good lab , try Portra. Reala colors looks like plastic , especially I did not like the colors of reflection and highlights. Colors looks like IKEA plastic water jug for gardeners.

You will get elegant colors with Portra and real sky. I dont never use Fuji when there is Kodak. Well we have maximum 1 year together with Kodak films like their countdown to Kodachrome. I found 400 speed Portra is dense and makes the picture darker , it would be fit to your lens , processing and lightmeter.

I am getting horrible pictures here , processing and scanning is cheap but makes it completly mess.

Umut

[markbarendt]

Umut,

I hardly know where to start.

First you seem to basing your info on "horrible pictures".

Second, increasing the density of the negative creates the opposite in the positive. Dense in negative = light in positive. Also, 400 ISO is 400 ISO.

Third, I'm glad you like Kodak, sorry your not happy with Fuji. So what. I like Kodak too. I like Fuji's films too. Both provide great results for me.

[RattyMouse]

Ratty Mouse,

I was thinking since you first posted junk processed films. If you found a good lab , try Portra. Reala colors looks like plastic , especially I did not like the colors of reflection and highlights. Colors looks like IKEA plastic water jug for gardeners.

You will get elegant colors with Portra and real sky. I dont never use Fuji when there is Kodak. Well we have maximum 1 year together with Kodak films like their countdown to Kodachrome. I found 400 speed Portra is dense and makes the picture darker , it would be fit to your lens , processing and lightmeter.

I am getting horrible pictures here , processing and scanning is cheap but makes it completly mess.

Umut

Here's some of my results using Kodak Porta 400 film.

[Andre Noble]

I have already made up my mind. 290 rolls of 120 format Fuji Reala, arrived today from Adorama. That should last a while. Will likewise stock up on Kodak Portra 160. Either of these films could be gone tomorrow from the marketplace for good.

[perkeleellinen]

Wow! 290 rolls!

I bought 30 rolls of 35mm Reala before it was cut and my wife is giving me grief for taking up space in our freezer with them. I should show her that picture and tell her she's lucky!

[RattyMouse]

I have already made up my mind. 290 rolls of 120 format Fuji Reala, arrived today from Adorama. That should last a while. Will likewise stock up on Kodak Portra 160. Either of these films could be gone tomorrow from the marketplace for good.

I'm guessing you like Reala then.

How long do you think 290 rolls will last you?

[railwayman3]

I'm totally convinced that 90% of the success of prints from color negative is down to the lab's standards and particularly the quality of the printing, rather than the actual brand of film used.
I'm sure that there are no "bad" films from any of the main manufacturers,

[benjiboy]

Portra and Reala are both excellent colour negative films that I use a lot, but for general photography that isn't specifically portraiture I prefer Reala, because it has more punch and is good for portraits too.