Best modern color neg film

<p>Richard, you're still posting that example? It looks like a scanner focusing error. No color neg. film is that grainfree in my experience and sharpness differences are generally modest compared to that. Can you post another example?</p>

<p>To the OP, personally I use Reala and Fuji 160C.</p>

<p>Michael, you're scaring me! It's still on the Fuji Global site:<br>

<a href="http://www.fujifilm.com/products/consumer_film/color_negativefilms_35mm/superia_reala/">http://www.fujifilm.com/products/consumer_film/color_negativefilms_35mm/superia_reala/</a></p>

<p>Also, link for Reala is shown on this USA page, just not working, but the link for Superia 1600 isn't working either.<br>

<a href="http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/film/35mm_print/index.html">http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/film/35mm_print/index.html</a></p>

<p>Oops, forgot for a sec we were talking about 120. But the Fuji site doesn't seem to make much distinction about 120 in the films that are definitely available either, so I don't think that should matter.</p>

<p>Er, and now I'm scaring myself because I started looking at data sheets and the Reala one does not say it is available in 120. Checked against their Acros sheet, which does list both 35mm and 120. Hmm. I really only started shooting more 120 a few months ago so Reala in 120 is not something I'd ever looked into.</p>

<p>Nancy - doesn't look good for Reala... no new stock is for sale on eBay either. Everything I found (which wasn't much) was dated to expire mid-2010...</p>

<p>Hi Roger... I posted my comments and comparison in the hope it would help someone and in order to learn from responses. Frankly, I was worried about the result myself, because of the high praise for Ektar 100, and because it's Kodak's latest. Maybe someone can post a counter-example.</p>

<p>My standard of evaluation is the print, I prefer that over pixel-peeping on screen. I can see in an 8x12 print better resolution by the Fuji. I showed prints to others to confirm.</p>

<p>To see if I had a bad scan, I had the Ektar frame scanned on an Imacon by a pro shop (Boston Photo Imaging). I compared this to my own scan of the Fuji, and the comparative result was the same. I shot the comparison on a tripod with the same lens minutes apart, but maybe something changed. Does anyone else have head-to-head comparisons between Ektar and other films? </p>

<p>Grain? I should have said these are after a noise reduction step which I always do with scanned film.</p>

<p>I just looked at the prints again... I will give Ektar the nod for color quality, the Fuji looks a little flatter. This doesn't show in the small crops. </p>

<p>To the OP, I like the current films. I wish you good shooting!</p>

<p>Michael...I spoke too soon. Emailed Henry Posner at B&H and your suspicions were correct. Off to buy some over-inflated film now.</p>

<p> <br /> Portra 160nc @ 125 I find nice. this pic was shot with a P and S set @ 125asa and it had solid results.<br>

http://triggerfingerphoto.com/artwork/1006584_glendo.html</p>

<p>No problems getting Reala in <strong><a href="http://www.silverprint.co.uk/ProductByGroup.asp?PrGrp=2615">London</a> </strong> ..... and better not be either. It's my all time favourite colour neg film.<br>

Nothing else is <em>better</em> , just different.</p>

<p>If you are having concerns about getting it in the USA or anywhere else, there's no point just bitching about here or on other forums. Put it in writing to Fuji in the states, with copies to Japan, and start slamming your fist on the counters of all the major outlets, with letters to them too. Make sure they hear you. If they have any in stock, <strong>buy it</strong> , and tell'm there'd better be more on the shelf when you come back.</p>

<p>Excellent post from <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1663928">Richard Karash</a> above on Jan 12, 2010; 08:23 p.m.<br>

And if I were giving awards for Photos on the forum, shortlisted for my top favourite would be for Nancy's Reala image under Richard's post:<br>

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1132845">Nancy Chuang</a> , Jan 12, 2010; 11:42 p.m.</p>

 

http://photo-net-production-static.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/attachments/00VX7c-211295584.jpg

<p>Greg says:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Sorry guys, I just don't understand comments about "...the unpredictability of Ektar..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well I'm sorry Greg, to say that I feel your versions are decidedly lack luster in every way.<br>

What you are trying to do is make a silk purse out of a sours ear, and for me at least, it just doesn't work.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Well I'm sorry Greg, to say that I feel your versions are decidedly lack luster in every way.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I was using a posted 8 bit JPEG which the photographer had complained had over-saturated reds. So I desaturated it just to show that it can be done. I agree that the result is indeed lack luster, but my aim was to simply move away from the original image.</p>

<p>My point is that if you start with a good scan (i.e. a 16 bit TIFF) you can take it anywhere you want to go. Attached is an example I put together for another forum:</p>

<p>When I tried to post my image I got:<br>

"The requested URL cannot be accessed due to a system error on this server. "<br>

So see it here: <a href="http://GregPetersonPhoto.com/Mondavi4Up.jpg">http://GregPetersonPhoto.com/Mondavi4Up.jpg</a></p>

 

<p>That was pretty interesting to read. I read sometime ago on Fuji site that the films are good for portraits ( this was a while ago and I hope I have not missed anything).<br>

It looks like its good for landscapes. what would be a good film (negative) for nature and wildlife?<br>

would appreciate your thoughts.</p>

<p>My vote is for Reala 100. Very fine grain and natural colors, like someone before me said it's much easier to add color and saturation than to remove it. This film does well in post-processing.</p>

<p>Thanks for the compliment, Kevin.</p>

<p>A post on APUG pointed me towards Unique Photo in New Jersey. I just received my order of Reala 120 with an expiration date of 2012. With an order of at least 20 rolls plus shipping it's about a dollar per roll more than Adorama/B&H were charging including tax (for in-store purchases), but cheaper than the 2010 Reala on eBay and only a dollar or so more than 2007 expired (including shipping in both cases). I just ordered more to stock up.</p>