Re: filmscanners: Superia vs Reala

["Richard N. Moyer" <dickmoyer@mail.earthlink.net>]

The Fuji pro NPC 160 is indeed high contrast, and if you want smooth 
textures of skintones (without accentuating wrinkles from contrast), 
suggest instead the (Fuji) pro NPH 400, or the pro NHG II 800 for 
both speed, great depth of field in poor light, excellent gamut, 
mod/low contrast (plus 10/11 fstop light latitude). You can get all 
the contrast you want in Photoshop, but you can't undo contrasty 
wrinkles in skintone on the negative. Of course, some people like the 
"weathered" look. Both of these negative films will record colors 
whose gamuts exceed ColorMatchRGB (and thus what an Epson 1270 will 
print).

>Hi,
>
>>  >Which is better (Reala or Superia)
>>>at the same ISO?  Given that I like Reala,
>>>would I like Superia?
>
>Reala is the same emulsion as Fuji uses in their APS films. In order 
>to produce decent results on APS they've had to reduce the grain 
>size dramatically. This is now to the benefit of 35mm film as they 
>are improved by using the same technology.
>
>As far as I remember the datasheets for Superia and Reala at the 
>same ISO, Reala is a tad better (sharper). Furthermore, Reala 
>produces natural colors even under florescent light. I don't know it 
>the latter is a result of some knob tweaking in the printing lab or 
>not...
>
>Another film you may want to try is Fuji NPC 160. It's a 
>professional high contrast negative film rated at ISO 160. It prints 
>similar to Reala -- it's just 2/3 stop faster.
>
>
>
>Tom