Filmscanners mailing list archive (email@example.com)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Was New Nikon performance, now dust
Fujicolor Superia is print film, negative but not positive.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Raphael Bustin" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 5:47 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Was New Nikon performance, now
| 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
| rafe b.