Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Image Processing: Darkroom / Lightroom / Film

Image Processing: Darkroom / Lightroom / Film Discuss Image processing -- traditional darkoom or digital lightroom here. Notice there are subcategories to narrow down subject matter. .

View Poll Results: Fuji Reala 100 vs Kodak 160 VC. Which one will you choose?
Fuji Reala 100 140 40.94%
Kodak 160 VC 144 42.11%
Other color negative film 58 16.96%
Voters: 342. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Fuji Reala 100 vs Kodak 160 VC
Old 07-10-2008   #1
Arvay
Obscurant
 
Arvay's Avatar
 
Arvay is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Moscow
Posts: 674
Fuji Reala 100 vs Kodak 160 VC

Which one will you choose and why?
If none of these two which one?
Negative films only
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2008   #2
jan normandale
Film is the other way
 
jan normandale's Avatar
 
jan normandale is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: on Location
Posts: 3,910
I use them both.
__________________
RFF Gallery
flickr
Blog

it's all about light
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2008   #3
Arvay
Obscurant
 
Arvay's Avatar
 
Arvay is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Moscow
Posts: 674
Quote:
Originally Posted by jan normandale View Post
I use them both.
Me as well. The question is if you are offered either of them what will be the choice?
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2008   #4
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 11,250
Used to use both. Now only Reala. Reasons: cheaper, easier to scan, prefer ASA 100. If I need higher speed I switch to 400. Kodak VC is more saturated, of course.

Roland.
  Reply With Quote

my other is Portra 400
Old 07-10-2008   #5
ampguy
Registered User
 
ampguy's Avatar
 
ampguy is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,020
my other is Portra 400

but I use Reala for the low cost.

I've never paid for Portra, but imagine it's expensive. I have some of those sample tubes in the refrigerator still.
__________________
My photo blog

  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2008   #6
wlewisiii
StayAtHome Dad & Photog
 
wlewisiii's Avatar
 
wlewisiii is offline
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Madison, WI
Age: 56
Posts: 5,259
I far prefer Reala to VC. It's cheaper, easier to use &, important to me, it renders asian skin tones closer to what my eyes see.

William
__________________
My Gallery
My Best Pictures

Playing and learning daily with: 4x5 Crown Graphic, Leica IIIf w/ 50/2 Summitar, Nikon F2 Photomic w/ 50/1.4 & Olympus E-PL1.

"Some people are 'the glass is half full' types. Some people are 'the glass is half empty' types. I'm a 'the glass is full of radioactive waste and I just drank half of it' type. And I'm still thirsty." -- Bill Mattocks
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2008   #7
sockeyed
Registered User
 
sockeyed's Avatar
 
sockeyed is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Age: 48
Posts: 914
I shoot Reala because it's less expensive, easier to find, and a great film.

I tried a roll of the 400VC and really liked it; it's too bad there's no Fuji equivalent (400H to too flat for general work, I find).
__________________
Likes: rangefinders, film, pie, Tanqueray & tonic



Sockeyed Photo

Flickr

My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2008   #8
btgc
Registered User
 
btgc's Avatar
 
btgc is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,755
Superia Reala, to be exact, because it's good film for it's price and easy to find here and when traveling. ISO160 speed films both from Kodak and Fuji are by about 1/2 stop more expensive than Reala.
I like how Reala renders world so I don't leap for 160'ers.
__________________
MyFlickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2008   #9
Kin Lau
Registered User
 
Kin Lau is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,680
Strange... I bought a couple of 120 propacks of Portra 160VC because it was 2/3rd's the price of Reala. All fresh stuff.
__________________
Of course I have a photographic memory: over exposed, under developed, grainy and out of focus

<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=583'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2008   #10
dazedgonebye
Registered User
 
dazedgonebye's Avatar
 
dazedgonebye is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Arizona
Age: 58
Posts: 3,927
Kodak 400UC is my favorite general purpose film. Scans very nicely.

Between your choices though, I'll take the 160VC. One reason being that I like to rate my color down a bit and the extra speed of the 160 keeps me at/above 100 (125).
__________________
Steve

"And I know now that the cure for my childhood was not to be looked after, as I once believed; it was to look after someone else." ~Philip Norman

Photography Blog
Flickr
Twitter
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2008   #11
Bingley
Registered User
 
Bingley's Avatar
 
Bingley is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sacramento, California
Posts: 5,690
My current favorite is still Portra 400NC, although I also like 400UC for landscapes. I find using 400 film preferable for street shots, b/c I can use a faster shutter speed and still shoot at f.8 in the shade. That said, I'm going to be giving Reala more of a try, b/c so many others here like it and b/c it's less expensive than Portra.
__________________
Steve

FS: Zeiss-ZM Planar 50 plus hood, Pentax MX, Voigtlander Ultron 40/2.0 SLII in Pentax K-mount, Takumar 100/2.8 and 35/3.5 lenses: See my ads in Classifieds

M3, M2, R2A, IIIc, IVSB2, & T, and assorted LTM & M lenses
Minolta XD11, Pentax ME Super, and assorted MD Rokkor and Takumar lenses, Rolleicord III, Rolleicord Vb, Rolleiflex Automat MX-EVS

My Flickr
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2008   #12
CK Dexter Haven
Registered User
 
CK Dexter Haven is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,444
Isn't Reala supposed to be the finest-grained print film?

I started using it because i saw some pictures on Flickr by "stpiduko," made with a Nikon 28mm lens, and i couldn't believe how sharp and vivid they were. Yes, they're low-res JPGs, but there are some large versions online. Whatever. Even in comparison to the same guy's images with other, similar speed films, and even in comparison to his 6x7 images.... The Reala was spectacular.

I later was looking at a large format book of photographs by fashion photographer/Vogue contributor, Tim Walker. I thought i recognized the 'signature' of the Pentax 67 in his images. I looked for information about him and discovered he shoots with a Pentax, but a 35mm Pentax. And, he shoots Reala.

It's just good stuff. I've always liked Superia, too.

Portra is fantastic, but i seem to like it only in the larger formats. In 120, it's perfect stuff for shooting people. There's nothing like a Mamiya RZ or Pentax 67 image with Portra, if we're talking about 'people' pictures.

Last edited by CK Dexter Haven : 07-10-2008 at 12:16.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2008   #13
Rey
Registered User
 
Rey's Avatar
 
Rey is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA
Posts: 208
i tend to use Realla in 35mm format (sharper) and 160 VC in medium format, I'm not sure why, but the enhanced saturation seems to lend itself better to the larger negative.
__________________
Rey

Bronica RF 645 kit, Mamiya C330 kit, Olympus OM-1 kit, Rollieflex 2.8 c, Canon QL17, Kiev 88, etc., etc..
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2008   #14
jan normandale
Film is the other way
 
jan normandale's Avatar
 
jan normandale is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: on Location
Posts: 3,910
@c k D H / archie leach; I like superia esp for 135, I'm tending toward 120 when I say I like both the Reala and VC. I find the MF stuff seems better than 135 and I don't really know why because it should be identical. I like 160 except for low light. I think there's a colour shift there. However the 400 ISO of any of these (not the Reala) seems to perform well in low light and I use it there.
__________________
RFF Gallery
flickr
Blog

it's all about light
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2008   #15
Ronald M
Registered User
 
Ronald M is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,512
The new Portra 160 is made for scanning and it is wonderful. Same with Fuji 160s.

I don`t care about cost one whit. One does not buy a Ferrari (Leica) and put cheap off brand gas in it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2008   #16
Michael P.
Bronica RF
 
Michael P.'s Avatar
 
Michael P. is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 159
Interesting about Tim Walker. Which 35mm Pentax did he use?
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2008   #17
squirrel$$$bandit
Registered User
 
squirrel$$$bandit is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 6,260
Reala kills in 120. I only now just bought it in 35 for the first time and will be loading up a couple of cameras tomorrow...
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2008   #18
Fuchs
Registered User
 
Fuchs is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Age: 52
Posts: 434
I use Reala in 120. It both scans and enlarges beautifully
__________________
Ed Albesi
Buenos Aires, Argentina
[Sony A7R2, RX1R2, Nikon FA, Leica M6]
My flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2008   #19
CK Dexter Haven
Registered User
 
CK Dexter Haven is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael P. View Post
Interesting about Tim Walker. Which 35mm Pentax did he use?
I have no idea. I couldn't find that information. Even though i like the look from Pentax lenses, they just never made a camera body that made me want to adopt the system. I can't imagine what Walker might be using on those Vogue shoots.... He certainly doesn't seem the type to care about looking like a typical fashion fotog, though.

EDIT: Since the original post (see above, also), i have reason to believe Walker also shoots with the Pentax 67.

Last edited by CK Dexter Haven : 09-03-2009 at 06:21. Reason: accuracy
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2008   #20
Rayt
Registered User
 
Rayt's Avatar
 
Rayt is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,895
160VC is my favorite color C41 film for people and street. Contrast is not high and has a pleasing tonality to it. I use 400uc when I need a faster film. Reala is a great film especially for landscapes but I don't do much of that. For 100asa film I just use Gold 100. Reala really needs a warming filter for overcast shots else you get this green hue I don't see with Kodak films though i haven't used all of them.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2008   #21
pvdhaar
Zoom with your feet!
 
pvdhaar's Avatar
 
pvdhaar is offline
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 3,198
I prefer Reala, albeit for no other reason than that I like to complement it with NPH (400ISO). Together they make a nice spread. For me 160ISO isn't either here or there (and that includes the 160ISO Fuji film).
__________________
Kind regards,

Peter

My Hexländer Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2008   #22
maddoc
... likes film.
 
maddoc's Avatar
 
maddoc is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: 名古屋
Age: 53
Posts: 7,303
I like 160VC a lot, in both 135 and 120, very pleasant colors. 400UC is another favorite, unfortunately not in 120 available.
__________________
- Gabor

flickr
pBase
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2008   #23
amateriat
We're all light!
 
amateriat's Avatar
 
amateriat is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Age: 63
Posts: 4,282
Since the poll referenced these two specific films, I chose Portra 160VC, although my long-time mainstay for color remains 160NC, which for me is just so darn versatile (and, finally, reformulated for finer grain, the only small knock I'd had against it. And, since the Portra "family" runs from ISO 160 straight up to 800, it's fairly easy to stay color-consistent while dealing with varying lighting conditions, which is a big deal when I'm slaving over a hot scanner late at night.


- Barrett
__________________

"Print 'em both, kid." -
Frank "Cancie" Cancellare, to a UPI courier, after tossing a 20-exposure roll of film to him.

Here, a Gallery.

Last edited by amateriat : 07-10-2008 at 22:51. Reason: Got a bit redundant there...
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2008   #24
Harry S.
Registered User
 
Harry S.'s Avatar
 
Harry S. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Shellharbour, Australia
Age: 36
Posts: 488
Ive never had much success with fuji print film. If I am going to buy colour fuji film, I'll buy one of their slide films which I like much better.

I like Kodak 160VC @ 100. I do prefer NC though.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2008   #25
35mmdelux
#Represent
 
35mmdelux's Avatar
 
35mmdelux is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,227
This is what I would call an executive decision because the films are different. Reala has more saturated color. I just got 25 rolls back, where I used both Reala and Portra 160 NC.

Porta 160NC shots with both Leica ASPH and 120mm Zeiss Makro CFI lenses were less saturated and I preferred them over Reala. Portra is designed to be friendly with skin colors therefore for portrait work I would lean towards Portra.

I got some good shots with Reala as well. But as a body of work I would prefer less intense color. Having said this, when I want deeper colors I will shoot Kodachrome or Ektachrome. I order all at B&H NYC so I do not shop locally.
__________________
M-E │ 21 asph │ 35 asph │ 75 asph

Last edited by 35mmdelux : 07-10-2008 at 22:31.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-11-2008   #26
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 11,250
VC and NC are quite different in my experience.

Roland.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-11-2008   #27
minoltist7
pussy photographer
 
minoltist7's Avatar
 
minoltist7 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Odessa, Ukraine
Posts: 380
On Reala I had wrong colors couple of times, probably becouse of crappy development.
I choose Portra because I have more consistent results with it in our local lab.

Funny thing is that they use Fuji minilab, but Kodak films are better processed
__________________
Bessa R3A, Minolta Dynax 7, Olympus OM2, Bronica SQ-A, Iskra. No digital crap!!!

member gallery
me on flickr

  Reply With Quote

Old 07-11-2008   #28
Rhoyle
Registered User
 
Rhoyle is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 280
I use Portra. Reala is excellent film, but in my workflow, Portra is much easier to get the color balance right.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-15-2008   #29
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,754
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferider View Post
Used to use both. Now only Reala. Reasons: cheaper, easier to scan, prefer ASA 100. If I need higher speed I switch to 400. Kodak VC is more saturated, of course.

Roland.
same same same

Roland,

You have also spoken for me here.
__________________
- Raid

________________


http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-15-2008   #30
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,754
I use mainly Portra 160NC, followed by Reala 100. I used to use mainly Fuji NPS160.
__________________
- Raid

________________


http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-15-2008   #31
Rayt
Registered User
 
Rayt's Avatar
 
Rayt is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,895
I generally like the color and grain of Kodak print films but for 120 the Fuji stuff is just so much easier to load.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-21-2008   #32
Dektol Dan
Registered User
 
Dektol Dan is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 926
I used Porta 160 almost exclusively for all subjects. If bought in quantity price isn't too bad. It's by the far the best scanning negative film out there and is the most Photoshop friendly. I gave up on Fuji after fighting the great speckled bird in the shadows after scans. Pay a little more and get a lot more quality in shadow detail.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-21-2008   #33
Prosaic
-
 
Prosaic is offline
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 300
Portra VC looks better.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-21-2008   #34
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
 
shadowfox's Avatar
 
shadowfox is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,800
Speaking as expired film user, I can say that Kodak Portra -anything is better than Fuji Superia Reala when they're expired (several years expired, to be more specific).

Kodak Portra 400 UC (expired):



Fuji Superia Reala 100 (expired):



I don't know, the Fuji has weird cyan/green cast that is very hard to remove even digitally.

But... again, this is expired film shots, fresh ones may yet tell a different story.
__________________
Have a good light,
Will


  Reply With Quote

Old 07-23-2008   #35
Monte920
Registered User
 
Monte920 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 66
Shadowfox's shot using Reala was a difficult one. You were shooting from outside the tent into the subjects under the shade of the tent. I highly doubt that Portra would give you better results.

My own experience, the following is the ranking of saturation from high to low:
VC --> Reala = UC --> Pro 160C (NPC) --> Gold --> Superia Xtra --> High Definition (HD) --> NC --> Pro 160S (NPS) = Pro 400H (NPH).

To me subjectively, VC is too highly saturated, and NPS & NPH is too lowly saturated for my taste. Those films in between, from Reala to Portra NC, are fine with me.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-23-2008   #36
sweathog
Registered User
 
sweathog's Avatar
 
sweathog is offline
Join Date: May 2007
Location: London
Age: 32
Posts: 888
Of the two, it has to be Reala. I don't like the VC Portra range (mulls to himself as to whether he actually has ever used it...). I use Portra 160NC sometimes, but Reala is what I'm using at the moment.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-23-2008   #37
spkennedy3000
www.simonkennedy.net
 
spkennedy3000 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: London, UK
Posts: 74
160 NC is my preferred.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-23-2008   #38
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is online now
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 8,775
I just took my first roll of Reala in today, I'll let you know tomorrow.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-24-2008   #39
jmilkins
Digited User
 
jmilkins's Avatar
 
jmilkins is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: landdownunder
Posts: 1,174
Reala for me. Oi like it.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/120695470/
__________________
John

My gallery
The FlickR

"To ∞, and beyond!" B. Lightyear, 1995.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-24-2008   #40
sirius
Registered User
 
sirius's Avatar
 
sirius is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 991
I like reala when it is slightly over exposed. It gets a really pretty creaminess to the light. I have never used portra VC, but I have seen a street photographer do wonderful things with it on a rainy day. On a normal day it looks a little unreal to my eyes. I guess you could say it looks "unreala".


Reala overexposed by a stop.
__________________
Leica fan
12 Best or Flickr

Last edited by sirius : 07-24-2008 at 05:44.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 13:57.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.