Discussion in 'Film and Processing' started by anthony johns, Feb 17, 2007.
Which one of these do you prefer, Kodak gold 100 or Fuji reala 100?
And why and for what?
I'd be unable to tell you why with my crappy English, but I've found Gold 100 to be inexistent comparing to reala 100, which is probably the best 100 color film available.
Really, while both C-41 films and at 100 speed, these are both good products that are not aimed at the same market really.
Gold is a consumer product, designed and sold for more of the daylight snapshot taker, usually in a less then ideal 35mm camera. A similer Fuju product would be the Fuji Super HQ film.
Reala is the top of the line Fuji film, for the serious photo taker, (better quality, less forgiving) Kodak product that would be similer to the Reala would the porta line of films that Kodak produces.
(mind you, I do have a lot of Kodak gold in my freezer, as you can sometimes get many rolls for a song, and I enjoy taking street shots with it and then in the digital darkroom making it a Black and white print. )
If Reala is the top-of-the-line Fuji film, why is it only made in 35mm format and why can't you get it with the "professional" label, which indicates that it has been kept cool during delivery to the retail location? It is a beautiful film, and it is always my first choice for 35mm format (I prefer it to the 160 pro films), but it is not considered their top of the line. It is a consumer film. It has the same sharpness and granularity characteristics as Superia 100, but reacts slightly differently to color than plain Superia. It is easier to color correct, and more neutral overall. Both are basically the same thing, but plain Superia is designed to add a little punch to the everyday point and shoot photographer's stuff, while Reala is designed to be more true to life. Yes; only a "serious" photographer might notice the difference, but it doesn't mean it's a "pro" film.
reala is available in 35mm and medium format. Gold 100 is a good film choice but reala has an edge, but it also costs more.
It is a consumer film.
Personally I don't care whether it's consumer, pro or scientifical film. For me it just works.
It has the same sharpness and granularity characteristics as Superia 100
haven't used superia100 more than couple of rolls, but even my glass-powered eyes see HUGE difference between these two films. If there's no difference in terms of sharpness, then it's spoiled Superia Reala either Superia 100 repackaged as Superia Reala by dirty hands. I go with Superia Reala for low ISO neg as Kodak don't care and Fuji films is what I can get here. I doubt I would be trying to save 10 cents buying Gold.
superia reala (35mm) is not the same emulsion as reala (120mm). Also, (direct contradition to an earlier reply) superia reala 35mm is very forgiving with regards to exposure. It performs very well if under exposed 1 (or even) 2 stops (esp when compared to gold 100 which is grainy at best and horrible if under exposed). However, they do have different colour platte as well as contrast. Perhaps an 'expert' like Scott will comment with regards to a direct comparison.
you are right, 120 was still the "original" Reala, the same as the first generation Reala in 35mm. Fantastic film, which founded the great reputation of the name "Reala". Reala Superia is a just-better-than-average-consumer-film,and does not have much in common with the real "Reala" except the name. I think it had been first released as "Nexia 100 D" in APS format, and only after some time it was also distributed in 35mm, abusing the great name.
Unfortunately, AFAIK Reala 120 had been cacelled a few months ago.
I found that using Reala in flourescent lighting gave negatives which could be printed more easily and which did not show the green cast. A large percentage of medium format film is shot by professionals. Whether the film is for a wedding or a fashion event, most of the medium format color print filns were developed to have lower contrast. It's the old white wedding dress next to the black tuxedo. Kodak and Fuji now make professional color print films in 120 and 220 sizes with different color characteristics. It would be nice to have plain Kodacolor 100 in 120 size but the UC 100 is very nice too.
which did not show the green cast
Frank Van Riper in his book mentions that when he shot some portrait in metro station with intention to capture different light casts (green ceiling from fluorescent lights) and Reala rendered ceiling beige. Sure, he exposed also another film and got what he were after. There are times when film's strong point show up as weakness.
Where can I get Reala in medium format? That would change my life....
I have asked everywhere for it with no luck. I want it in 4X5 and 8X10 as well.
Keith, B&H has sold imported Reala 120 for years, and it is listed
as "in stock" still.
Anthony, both these are great films. Gold 100 is grainy but is one
of the sharpest films (MTF) ever made, and has great color. Reala
has amazingly fine-grained skin tones but vapid blue sky rendition.
Both have their niche.
Years ago I tested Superia Reala against various 800 speed films
under green fluorescent light. Supra 800 and NHG II (non cyan layered)
had much more accurate color rendition than Reala. These test results
are somewhere in the photo.net archive.
That seems to be what I find, Kodak is sharp and Fuji has fine grain, in general.
Here are two of my pics, the red flower is from reala 100 and the gold one is from kodak gold 100.
Here's the gold one.
Wow two of my favorite color print films. Yes they are different. Gold 100 gives punchy colors with good sharpness and is VERY easy to print and get good results from. But you must print it on Kodak papers. Reala is very fine grained and gives as others have said more correct or neutral colors. Both films are great for portraits. I'd use Gold 100 strictly if it weren't for its grainy results. I shoot Reala when I need fine grain neg film. I do find when I print Reala on our Noritsu at work that it seems to go blue a bit. I have to add a bit of yellow to get rid of it. Reala isn't so great on overcast days mainly because of the blue cast. I've shot both for scenics as well. To be honest they should have made Gold 100 a pro film available in 120 (and 4x5) with the quality control that comes with pro films. They do this with Gold 100s variant ProImage 100 in Eastern countries (120 and 35mm). Its really a good film. As others have said its sharp and all is needed is some NeatImage to clean up the grain. I have used Gold 100 in 120, but didn't seem to get the same results as 35mm. Reala 100 is about the last true 100 speed film left in neg thats newer tech. Even 100UC isn't really a 100 speed film. Some have said Gold 100 is basically Gold 200 with an extra stop exposure which reduces grain and increases saturation. I don't know if I agree with that though. Ron Mowrey has also said Kodak doesn't cross market its emulsions from one speed to another. But to sum up use Gold 100 when you need bold colors and Reala when you need more neutral colors or finer grain. I'd like to see how the new 160VC compares to Gold 100.
Here's a Reala 100 shot.
Wow, your reala shot really has alot of contrast! Looks great though.
I like both Reala and Gold 100, though Gold 100 has become increasingly harder to find.
Each has its strong points. Reala is great for outdoor shots with brigth sun ... greens and blues look awesome. On overcast days, with low contrast, Reala tends to lose something ... the colors get a little 'muddy' ... Reala is not always good with flesh tones ... especially indoors. Even with flash, if their is any flourescent light around, flesh tones will pick up some green .... I have also noticed this outside .... flesh tones picking up some blue from the sky.
Gold 100: not as fine grained as Reala ... I think better rendition of oranges and reds. Flesh tones look warmer than Reala .... no green or blueish cast to skin. However, underbright sun, I have green grass come back looking yellowish ... and water looking less blue than it should ...
In short: Fuji good blues and greens Kodak good yellows oranges and reds
I see it, but is it the same emulsion as Superia Reala 100?
Keith, yes the Reala I tested was Superia Reala CS-6. Here is my initial test of CS-6. Some people say that 120 Reala is CS-5, though not so labelled. CS-5 was available in 35mm only for a short time, if at all, so I never got around to testing it, although I do have a 220 roll in my fridge.
Here is the fluorescent thread showing non-cyan-layer NHG2 and Supra 800 beating Reala, but then cyan-layered NPZ came along and blew them all away.
I strongly disagree with Psul Aul about blues in Gold 100. Here are two examples of blue sky at similar altitude in the Sierra mountains, Gold 100 and Reala 100.
I am going to do some serious tests with this film from B&H. This could make a big difference to me. Thanks for the info. I wonder if they can get it in 220. 120 is a bit annoying, especially in 6X9, where you get only 8 shots. 35mm Superia Reala 100 is my favorite color film, but always felt limited by its lack of availability in other formats. If this film turns out to be exactly the same stuff, or just as good, I can cut down 120 rolls into sheets to fit my 2X3 Crown Graphic and I will be a happy camper.
Anthony, I donnot have an exact answer which also depends on the film sizes you shoot. But also look at Kodak Portra 160NC Prof. as an allround film. or the Fuji Pro 160S if you want punchier colors (released around 2006 ?). (skip Kodak 100UC)
I would slightly favor Fuji Reala or Superia 200. (though Kodak 400UC is my general purpose film)
to quote from photo.net somewhere "film ist cheep the moment isn't."
cheers, rainer N.
Sorry Keith, the Reala in my fridge is 120. Reala was never available
in 220 as far as I know. Scott Pickering and Scott Eaton agree that
Gold 100 in medium format is a different, and worse, film than in 35mm. I never tried GA in 120.
Separate names with a comma.