with 160vc I've found that I can overexpose even 2-3 stops and still get a good, printable negative. Albeit, VERY flat(compared with normal 160vc), with pretty blocked up highlights...
most of the time I rate it at box speed, unless my subject has super high contrast, say in strong sunlight with hard shadows. I then expose(putting the shadows on Zone 3/3.5), and reduce development generally 1/4-3/4 stop.
I'm now shooting color films like I would b/w. Zone system for color so to speak.
my vote for a really nice replacement for Reala 120 would be either Fuji's 160S(rated at 100, or even 80) or 160vc(rated at 160, or 125 for a little more punch). the 160S has a little more saturation than Kodak's 160NC, which is a really nice film, but a little more 'normal' in color palette.
personal testing is your friend in this regard though. I would suggest starting to test films immediately, and find results that give you what YOU want.
we all have different opinions on the best replacement, but film is cheap, and your time is not. I hated wasting time testing my film and developing time combination, but now that I have that down pat, I am getting results that are TOTALLY predictable, just like with b/w.
if you take your film to a lab, it might be a little harder due to chemistry fluctuations(if the lab isn't too consistent, and doesn't monitor their chemistry)
best of luck though! but believe me, spend some money, test all the emulsions that you can get your hands on, even if you think it won't get you results you like, then compare them against each other. preferably, shooting in a situation allowing you the freedom to burn through a few rolls(landscape).
Last edited by DanielStone; 01-16-2010 at 02:10 PM. Click to view previous post history.
OK, Unique Photo is good. I just received my order of Reala with an expiration date of 2012.
I found some in Yokohama, Japan this past December. Picked up 3 rolls, exp 10-2011. They had plenty in stock, in both 120 and 35mm. I don't know what's up with the shortage on this side of the pond, however. Next time I'm over there, I'll have to get more.
I would have thought the U.S. is the largest single film market in the world so it seems strange that Fuji should have stopped selling Reala 120 there when as Benjiboy has shown it is still freely avaialble in the U.K.
Hopefully for all the U.S. users this is a local supply problem that will be resolved.
The problem is that each Fuji film has to come from Japan now. Also in Europe they stopped all Fuji film production. The EU plant in Tilburg (the Netherlands) was closed for all film production. So sometimes there is a short in supply and adding the local warehouses costs 6 weeks from Japan.
So if a supply is low in the Netherlands it will be the same in Germany, Belgium because they are sharing the same Fuji stock and warehouse.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I would try Fuji 160c or 160s in place of Reala. The colour palette of the Kodak films are different, the speed of MF lenses are generally slower so you'd probably want a faster film whilst keeping similar colour and contrast. The grain of Reala is great, but if you are shooting 120 you probably don't need to worry about it. If a 200 speed consumer film was made in 120 by Fuji, that would be the way to go...
Fuji 160s. I prefer the way the skies stay blue in the Fujifilms whereas the Kodak films do shift towards cyan. 160s images are easily digitized and highly malleable in Photoshop. I do recommend punching the exposure up a little bit by downgrading the film to 100 or 125, but but otherwise the film is pretty well ideal as-is.
For wedding and portrait work I prefer the Provia NC films, but they really are too flat for most outdoor work.
Pro 160S. Nothing else will come as close.
Pro 160S is as sharp as Reala with slightly finer grain.
To follow up, here is a test shot we took with Ektar:
This is a detail from a scan. No adjustments were made.
The camera used is a Hasselblad 500 C/M with an 80mm CF lens.
It was about 3pm and overcast, but the sun poked out just before the photo was taken.
Sun was coming from the right.
The sky does look cyan here, as does the water - but that actually works for this project.
We want the colours to be exaggerated and a little unreal, so this is good.
I cannot quite tell whether the skintone is right or not.
For example, that red thing poking out of the hair if you look closely, is an ear.
Is it red because it was freezing cold, or because of the Ektar?
Not sure and will need to take more shots. But otherwise, this film is everything I hoped for.
I would guess some of both, plus that part of the negative is probably underexposed from being under the hair and all. I have found Ektar to be a little like Velvia, which, although everyone says 'don't use it for people!', I like as long as the skin is not flushed due to cold, exertion, sunburn, or whatever. Then Velvia can exaggerate the ruddiness to a distracting degree. In Ektar, I haven't seen the effect as severe, but then I haven't shot nearly as much Ektar as Velvia.
Originally Posted by A.Colden