Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Was New Nikon performance, now dust

["Maris V. Lidaka, Sr." <mlidaka@ameritech.net>]

Fujicolor Superia is print film, negative but not positive.

Maris

----- Original Message -----
From: "Raphael Bustin" <rafeb@channel1.com>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 5:47 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Was New Nikon performance, now
dust


|
| On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, [iso-8859-1] Rob Geraghty wrote:
|
| > Rafe wrote:
| > >Fuji Reala is beautiful.  Kodak Royal Gold 100 isn't
| > >bad, either.  But Supra (100) is my current favorite.
| >
| > I was under the impression that there was little if any
| > difference between the current generation Superia 100
| > and Reala.  When Fuji announced the extra colour layer,
| > it seemed to point to the same technology.  Can anyone
| > confirm this?
| >
| > I haven't attempted resolution tests with Supra 100 to
| > have some sort of meaningful comparison, but to my eye
| > there was little difference in grain between Superia
| > 100 and Supra 100 which made it hard to justify a
| > premium price for the Kodak film.
| >
| > Rob
|
|
| First off, Supra is a C41 print film.  Superia,
| as I recall, as an E6 positive film.  Fuji's
| "equivalent" to Supra might be Reala, perhaps.
|
| 2nd -- Supra 100 is pretty cheap when purchased
| from BH Photo.  Rather hard to find Supra outside
| of a good, professional photo store.  I've never
| seen it in local stores.  I get it in 10-packs
| from BH Photo, for something like $35 a box.
| That's for 36-exposure rolls (the only length
| offered.)
|
|
| rafe b.
|
|
|