Fuji 100 speed films

[RedHot]

What is the difference between Fuji's Superia and Reala 100 speed films?

Their grain size, resolution, layer makeup are the same per their specification sheets:

http://www.fujifilm.com/products/consumer_film/pdf/superia100_datasheet.pdf
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/consumer_film/pdf/superiaREALA_datasheet.pdf

The difference I see is the Reala sheet talks about being good for enlargements, rich highlight to shadow tone reproduction, and faithful, natural colors.

Can anyone know the real difference?

[DrPablo]

Superia 100 is a cheap consumer film. Superia-Reala 100 is the same thing as Reala 100, and it's a very very nice higher level film.

If you want their pro films, check out 160 Pro-S, 160 Pro-C, 400 Pro-H, and 800 Pro-Z. The difference between S and C is that C is more saturated and higher contrast. I've used both Reala 100 and 160 Pro-C side by side and not seen a tremendous difference.

You may see these pro films referred to by their older names (NPS, NPC, NPH, and NPZ).

Don't forget about Kodak's professional print films either. They have Portra 160NC, 160VC, 160UC, 400NC, 400VC, and I think some 800-speed ones. I like 160VC and 400VC, but if you're shooting people then the NC ones are probably better (less saturated).

[RedHot]

It'd be more for landscapes, nature than people. For people I would use some sort of 160. I'm considering slides because there's good choice for saturation, contrast, vivid colors but you have to be right on with exposures. And I'm not sure what corrections my photo lab makes to my film while they develop it to know if my exposures are as my prints come out or if they correct every exposure. So I don't know if my exposure settings are good enough for slides at this point.

I see that Kodak has a 100 speed professional Ultra color higher saturation film.

[DrPablo]

Both print film and slide films have a full range of saturation and contrast. You just need to choose the one appropriate for your shooting conditions. Most slide films are not all that saturated, with Velvia and E100VS the main exceptions. Astia and E100G are not all that saturated, and Provia is somewhere in between (low saturation but high contrast).

This is true for print films as well. Saturated print films like 160VC are nearly as saturated as Velvia. The Ultra Color films from Kodak look gaudy to me, but I haven't used them myself.

Among slide films, I think Astia is absolutely miraculous for portraits. It's the most beautiful film there is. Provia is good too. Velvia sucks for portraits. Among print films, I like Portra 160NC and 400NC for portraits.

Among slide films I love Provia, Velvia, and Fortia (which you need to special order from Japan) for landscapes. I hear E100VS is great. And among print films I like Portra 160VC and Reala for landscapes.

B&W is a whole separate discussion.

Next, there is nothing all that daunting with exposing slide film. In fact it's very easy, because you don't have many variables to choose from. I only shoot Velvia when the important details in a scene are less than 5 stops apart. If that's true, then screw it, I just take a regional meter reading and shoot away. Fortunately, it's almost always true -- if you go out with a 1 degree spot meter, you'll almost always find that your most important details are less than 5 stops apart.

In fact, the tight DR of slide films make them the best medium to learn on. The lab doesn't manipulate anything, and their error tolerance is low. If you're doing this in 35mm, you can cheaply shoot a roll of 36 exposures and bracket, to see which exposure settings work best for you.

With print film and B&W film, if you really want control, you need to think about development in order to expand and contract contrast. In simplest terms you need to meter the shadows, place them on Zone 2 or 3 by dropping a couple stops of exposure, and then expand or contract development based on how far away the highlights are.

The dynamic range of film is measured in D/logE, or density versus the log of exposure. Slide films have a very steep D/logE curve. The film can be almost black in the darkest shadows, and completely clear in the brightest highlights. This is because you're meant to view them with light passing through, so they need to maximize contrast on the slide. Print film, on the other hand, has a very shallow D/logE curve, which allows you a lot of control over contrast when you're printing under an enlarger. It also makes them worlds easier to scan.

So there are a lot of considerations, but if I were you I'd just get a few films and experiment. I shoot a lot of different films, and it has taken a lot of experimentation to find what works for me. By the way, Velvia is famous for its saturation, but its real claims to fame are high contrast and exquisitely rendered color subtleties. It can take flat scenes and bring them to life.

What kind of camera are you shooting, and what inspired you to take up film?

[thedjo]

Dr Pablo, just want to say that you have been very helpful. I am new to film, and reading your posts was like years of information composed in a concise post.

I have been starting to shoot landscapes and nature with film, while all the action with digital. I find it more pleasing that way.

[RedHot]

I have an EOS-3 and a Pentax K1000. I got the EOS-3 2.5 years ago because I wanted to also learn to expose film. The K1000 I was given for free last year.

My comment about lab adjustments while developing film is because I first took film to walmart, drug stores and got horrible results. Only 3 real good looking prints in maybe 20 rolls. But when I switched to a good old camera store that processes their own film, my picture instantly became good. And there was even a day I was shooting fall color last fall that ended up having 1 roll done by a discount store and another (roll finished later) developed by the camera store. I didn't change my metering scheme or exposure adjustments between the rolls. The discount store was over exposed, the camera store looked so, so good that I got really excited.

I like film now for color accuracy and the fact that I have no work to do to get great prints. I am about 15 months behind in processing my RAW files. With digital there are SO many options of how you can make the color look, but I just want it done right. I can get very good prints from my R1800 at home, but when I have that camera store (and other places) print from my digital files, their prints typically have too much contrast, i.e. blown out whites and very dark shadows. I have a calibrated monitor and I convert my color space to sRGB as I process them for lab printing.

Yes it's great to tinker and play with digital RAW files, but in the end it gets old and time consuming. Someone needs to start a service allowing users to upload RAW files and have processed files with colors/WB correct, exposure balanced - just like film developing! There could be options for warm colors, higher saturation, low contrast, etc. Files could be returned in JPG or mailed on a DVD in TIFF.

Film makes me slow down and think about what I'm doing. The digital "shoot and reshoot" until the histogram looks good is a poor way to improve your skills. I'm more about low iso/film speed, tripod, MLU, cable release than iso6400+. You won't find many people wanting to buy an iso1600 picture that is 16x24.

I also think I may end up in medium format because 3:2 isn't a very pleasing composition many times and big prints in 3:2 look a bit awkward.

[DrPablo]

I agree about the drudgery of RAW processing. I love doing it for one or two great shots here and there. But I'm also nearly 2 years behind in processing some of my digital shots. As it is, with film I take far fewer shots to begin with, and I tend to recognize the losers before I ever press the shutter (or lift the camera to my face). If I want a digital workflow, it's easy and free to scan and manipulate to my heart's content, and I only have to do it for one or two images per shoot.