Kodak Ultra Color 100 vs Fuji Reala

[jermaine_scott]

The photo lab that i use for my medium format photography only uses

Kodak chemicals and Kodak paper. I know that Fuji does not really

have the same punch when printed on Kodak paper. So, I would like

to know how Ultra Color 100 rates against Reala? Are the colors as

saturated and brilliant?

[paul a. roid]

I found Reala to be pretty flat and boring - it's good for<br>

portraits though.<br>

Kodak UC, VC and even Kodak Gold have more vibrant<br>

colors...

[c_o1]

I like Superia Reala. No grain, great colors. I like those other films too.<div></div>

[ilkka_nissila]

UC colours are more punchy than Reala. Try them out! That way you know. Colour is subjective.

[r.t. dowling]

I've found UC 100 to be more contrasty than Reala, but I'm not sure if it has more saturation.

 

I've definitely never thought of Reala as being dull. It's drop-dead gorgeous when printed properly -- strong (but accurate) saturation, and moderate contrast.

[h._shafi]

I print Reala 120 on Kodak Endura paper (both Supra and Portra) using Kodak RA chemistry with excellent results. I've read multiple times that Kodak optimizes its RA papers and chemistry to do well on both Kodak and Fuji film. So, you should be in good shape. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't experiment with UC 100 of course. Reala is my favorite 100 speed color film.

 

-Haz

[scott_eaton]

UC is higher in contrast than Reala whjch gives the artifical impression of having greater color saturation.

 

Given it's a Kodak lab, try both films.

[ilkka_nissila]

I loved the original Reala but the new reala and superia reala give colours which I don't like at all. However, I now realized that NPS have almost exactly the same look of the original Reala. I am thinking of switching all my color neg work to NPS. And I've been missing the look and colours for almost 10 years. Why didn't anyone tell me? ;-) Feels like I've lost 10 years of my life ;-) However, I don't know how NPS scans vs. 100UC.

 

Absolutely agree that the UC films are super for night scenes.

[celia_bashir1]

[ The photo lab that i use for my medium format photography only uses Kodak chemicals and Kodak paper.]

 

Not to worry, that won't be the case for very much longer.

[25asa]

Somehow I doubt Kodak will kill off its RA-4 color chemicals and papers for quite some time. B&W yes, but color no.

[robert goldstein]

"I found Reala to be pretty flat and boring-"

 

This can be true under overcast skies, but if you scan your film, contrast can be increased

in Photoshop. Under sunny skies, Reala really shines (no pun intended).

[bill_tuthill]

Ilkka, NPS is significantly grainier than Reala, and some people

find it (or some scan/print methods show it) to be grainier than NPH.

Moreover it is slated for replacement by 160S this summer. Not to

say you are wasting your time, but you are wasting your time.

 

As to Jermaine's question, I will say Ultra Color 400 seems to me

a better all-around film than the 100, with two stops more speed.

Reala has its virtues, but might not have good dark-storage longevity,

as NPS does, so I would wait for 160C and 160S before getting overly

attached to Reala. I predict it will be discontinued before the end

of 2005.

[ilkka_nissila]

Oh well, I noticed that NPS has grain after scanning some. Bummer. But such beautiful colours! I'm back to slides and 100UC.

[rainer_nagel]

Both my pro labs in zurich use kodak chemicals. But here is my first test using 100UC (imported bhphotovideo) in the Fuji mass lab Switzerland: Scans better than they print it on Crystal Archive paper. Landscape: Beeing polite, colors are "nothing to write home about it", skin colors are not usable (Portra 400UC printed much better). So, while waiting for the new Fuji 160 Pro Films, REALA has better "Allround". More punch you can get on Kodak ENDURA ULTRA paper.

 

I enclose a neither good nor bad test picture on overcast but sunny weather...<div></div>