A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Is Fuji Reala 100 a good choice for floral macros?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 22nd 04, 02:51 AM
Matt Clara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is Fuji Reala 100 a good choice for floral macros?

"richardsfault" wrote in message
...

I have been experimenting with Fuji Reala 100 negative film in my old
Minolta XG-7 and scanning with an admittedly-cheaper HP-3970 flatbed
scanner.

This scanner has worked well with old and new Kodacolor negatives
using the HP software's inversion. It has never "liked" Fuji as much,
and seems to really "hate" Reala!

The Reala negatives seem to run quite dark, as if they are slightly
over-exposed when shot at ASA100. Is this a characteristic of the film
or something to do with the older camera? Should I use a higher speed
like 125?

The color is strong to the point where it hides detail.

The Fuji "orange mask" is somewhat different than Kodak's, for which
the scanner is probably optimized. It causes scans to have a greenish
cast. I have had the same problem with older Fuji as well. I would
describe the Fuji mask as more of a "peach" color.

The scanner is hindered by the denser image and brighter color in
similar matter to difficulties presented by old Kodachrome 25 and 64
slides.

Again, I am aware that my scanner will have limitations, and hope to
rectify the situation soon.

Here is a link to a page of digital images very similar to what I
attempted with Reala:

http://www.richardsfault.com/images/...n/gallery.html

Is Reala the best choice for this type of work?


Reala may or may not be the best choice for this type of work--I've found it
quite excellent for it, though I prefer slide film for color work, I've also
shot many many rolls of Reala. I'd say, though, if your scanner won't play
nice with Reala, and you insist on using your scanner, you'd be better off
with another film.

You might try VueScan, too. Different scanner software, pretty good, though
not intuitive. It may or may not help with your situation. I think it has
a demo option, so you might as well give it a try.
http://www.hamrick.com/vsm.html

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com


  #2  
Old July 22nd 04, 02:51 AM
Matt Clara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is Fuji Reala 100 a good choice for floral macros?

"richardsfault" wrote in message
...

I have been experimenting with Fuji Reala 100 negative film in my old
Minolta XG-7 and scanning with an admittedly-cheaper HP-3970 flatbed
scanner.

This scanner has worked well with old and new Kodacolor negatives
using the HP software's inversion. It has never "liked" Fuji as much,
and seems to really "hate" Reala!

The Reala negatives seem to run quite dark, as if they are slightly
over-exposed when shot at ASA100. Is this a characteristic of the film
or something to do with the older camera? Should I use a higher speed
like 125?

The color is strong to the point where it hides detail.

The Fuji "orange mask" is somewhat different than Kodak's, for which
the scanner is probably optimized. It causes scans to have a greenish
cast. I have had the same problem with older Fuji as well. I would
describe the Fuji mask as more of a "peach" color.

The scanner is hindered by the denser image and brighter color in
similar matter to difficulties presented by old Kodachrome 25 and 64
slides.

Again, I am aware that my scanner will have limitations, and hope to
rectify the situation soon.

Here is a link to a page of digital images very similar to what I
attempted with Reala:

http://www.richardsfault.com/images/...n/gallery.html

Is Reala the best choice for this type of work?


Reala may or may not be the best choice for this type of work--I've found it
quite excellent for it, though I prefer slide film for color work, I've also
shot many many rolls of Reala. I'd say, though, if your scanner won't play
nice with Reala, and you insist on using your scanner, you'd be better off
with another film.

You might try VueScan, too. Different scanner software, pretty good, though
not intuitive. It may or may not help with your situation. I think it has
a demo option, so you might as well give it a try.
http://www.hamrick.com/vsm.html

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com


  #3  
Old July 22nd 04, 02:56 AM
Matt Clara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is Fuji Reala 100 a good choice for floral macros?

"Matt Clara" wrote in message
...
"richardsfault" wrote in message
...

I have been experimenting with Fuji Reala 100 negative film in my old
Minolta XG-7 and scanning with an admittedly-cheaper HP-3970 flatbed
scanner.

This scanner has worked well with old and new Kodacolor negatives
using the HP software's inversion. It has never "liked" Fuji as much,
and seems to really "hate" Reala!

The Reala negatives seem to run quite dark, as if they are slightly
over-exposed when shot at ASA100. Is this a characteristic of the film
or something to do with the older camera? Should I use a higher speed
like 125?

The color is strong to the point where it hides detail.

The Fuji "orange mask" is somewhat different than Kodak's, for which
the scanner is probably optimized. It causes scans to have a greenish
cast. I have had the same problem with older Fuji as well. I would
describe the Fuji mask as more of a "peach" color.

The scanner is hindered by the denser image and brighter color in
similar matter to difficulties presented by old Kodachrome 25 and 64
slides.

Again, I am aware that my scanner will have limitations, and hope to
rectify the situation soon.

Here is a link to a page of digital images very similar to what I
attempted with Reala:

http://www.richardsfault.com/images/...n/gallery.html

Is Reala the best choice for this type of work?


Reala may or may not be the best choice for this type of work--I've found

it
quite excellent for it, though I prefer slide film for color work, I've

also
shot many many rolls of Reala. I'd say, though, if your scanner won't

play
nice with Reala, and you insist on using your scanner, you'd be better off
with another film.

You might try VueScan, too. Different scanner software, pretty good,

though
not intuitive. It may or may not help with your situation. I think it

has
a demo option, so you might as well give it a try.
http://www.hamrick.com/vsm.html



Another thing I might add is that Fuji Reala is pretty high contrast--you
may wish to try a color portrait film like Kodak Portra 160 VC (saturated
color portrait film) or NC (neutral color portrait film).

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com


  #4  
Old July 22nd 04, 02:56 AM
Matt Clara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is Fuji Reala 100 a good choice for floral macros?

"Matt Clara" wrote in message
...
"richardsfault" wrote in message
...

I have been experimenting with Fuji Reala 100 negative film in my old
Minolta XG-7 and scanning with an admittedly-cheaper HP-3970 flatbed
scanner.

This scanner has worked well with old and new Kodacolor negatives
using the HP software's inversion. It has never "liked" Fuji as much,
and seems to really "hate" Reala!

The Reala negatives seem to run quite dark, as if they are slightly
over-exposed when shot at ASA100. Is this a characteristic of the film
or something to do with the older camera? Should I use a higher speed
like 125?

The color is strong to the point where it hides detail.

The Fuji "orange mask" is somewhat different than Kodak's, for which
the scanner is probably optimized. It causes scans to have a greenish
cast. I have had the same problem with older Fuji as well. I would
describe the Fuji mask as more of a "peach" color.

The scanner is hindered by the denser image and brighter color in
similar matter to difficulties presented by old Kodachrome 25 and 64
slides.

Again, I am aware that my scanner will have limitations, and hope to
rectify the situation soon.

Here is a link to a page of digital images very similar to what I
attempted with Reala:

http://www.richardsfault.com/images/...n/gallery.html

Is Reala the best choice for this type of work?


Reala may or may not be the best choice for this type of work--I've found

it
quite excellent for it, though I prefer slide film for color work, I've

also
shot many many rolls of Reala. I'd say, though, if your scanner won't

play
nice with Reala, and you insist on using your scanner, you'd be better off
with another film.

You might try VueScan, too. Different scanner software, pretty good,

though
not intuitive. It may or may not help with your situation. I think it

has
a demo option, so you might as well give it a try.
http://www.hamrick.com/vsm.html



Another thing I might add is that Fuji Reala is pretty high contrast--you
may wish to try a color portrait film like Kodak Portra 160 VC (saturated
color portrait film) or NC (neutral color portrait film).

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com


  #5  
Old July 22nd 04, 03:13 AM
richardsfault
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is Fuji Reala 100 a good choice for floral macros?


I have been experimenting with Fuji Reala 100 negative film in my old
Minolta XG-7 and scanning with an admittedly-cheaper HP-3970 flatbed
scanner.

This scanner has worked well with old and new Kodacolor negatives
using the HP software's inversion. It has never "liked" Fuji as much,
and seems to really "hate" Reala!

The Reala negatives seem to run quite dark, as if they are slightly
over-exposed when shot at ASA100. Is this a characteristic of the film
or something to do with the older camera? Should I use a higher speed
like 125?

The color is strong to the point where it hides detail.

The Fuji "orange mask" is somewhat different than Kodak's, for which
the scanner is probably optimized. It causes scans to have a greenish
cast. I have had the same problem with older Fuji as well. I would
describe the Fuji mask as more of a "peach" color.

The scanner is hindered by the denser image and brighter color in
similar matter to difficulties presented by old Kodachrome 25 and 64
slides.

Again, I am aware that my scanner will have limitations, and hope to
rectify the situation soon.

Here is a link to a page of digital images very similar to what I
attempted with Reala:

http://www.richardsfault.com/images/...n/gallery.html

Is Reala the best choice for this type of work?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some people claim that there's a woman to blame, but I think it's all...

Richard's fault!

Visit the Sounds of the cul-de-sac at www.richardsfault.com
  #6  
Old July 22nd 04, 01:26 PM
Bandicoot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is Fuji Reala 100 a good choice for floral macros?

"Matt Clara" wrote in message
...
"richardsfault" wrote in message
...

I have been experimenting with Fuji Reala 100 negative film in my old
Minolta XG-7 and scanning with an admittedly-cheaper HP-3970 flatbed
scanner.

This scanner has worked well with old and new Kodacolor negatives
using the HP software's inversion. It has never "liked" Fuji as much,
and seems to really "hate" Reala!

The Reala negatives seem to run quite dark, as if they are slightly
over-exposed when shot at ASA100. Is this a characteristic of the film
or something to do with the older camera? Should I use a higher speed
like 125?

The color is strong to the point where it hides detail.

The Fuji "orange mask" is somewhat different than Kodak's, for which
the scanner is probably optimized. It causes scans to have a greenish
cast. I have had the same problem with older Fuji as well. I would
describe the Fuji mask as more of a "peach" color.

The scanner is hindered by the denser image and brighter color in
similar matter to difficulties presented by old Kodachrome 25 and 64
slides.

Again, I am aware that my scanner will have limitations, and hope to
rectify the situation soon.

Here is a link to a page of digital images very similar to what I
attempted with Reala:

http://www.richardsfault.com/images/...n/gallery.html

Is Reala the best choice for this type of work?


Reala may or may not be the best choice for this type of work--I've found

it
quite excellent for it, though I prefer slide film for color work, I've

also
shot many many rolls of Reala. I'd say, though, if your scanner won't

play
nice with Reala, and you insist on using your scanner, you'd be better off
with another film.


I like Portra 160NC for this, though if you want really eye poppin' colour
it may not be to your taste. Low contrast and very accurate colour, and
it's very easy to scan.

I don't like Portra 160VC as much, but it is equally easy to scan if you
want the more saturated colours (not that NC looks 'unsaturated', it's just
subtler). Don't know about scanning, but Agfa Ultra 100 is quite a fun film
for really strong colour, though I don't always like its blues.


You might try VueScan, too. Different scanner software, pretty good,

though
not intuitive. It may or may not help with your situation. I think it

has
a demo option, so you might as well give it a try.
http://www.hamrick.com/vsm.html


I second that: I find VueScan very effective, once you've got the hang of
it.



Peter


  #7  
Old July 22nd 04, 01:26 PM
Bandicoot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is Fuji Reala 100 a good choice for floral macros?

"Matt Clara" wrote in message
...
"richardsfault" wrote in message
...

I have been experimenting with Fuji Reala 100 negative film in my old
Minolta XG-7 and scanning with an admittedly-cheaper HP-3970 flatbed
scanner.

This scanner has worked well with old and new Kodacolor negatives
using the HP software's inversion. It has never "liked" Fuji as much,
and seems to really "hate" Reala!

The Reala negatives seem to run quite dark, as if they are slightly
over-exposed when shot at ASA100. Is this a characteristic of the film
or something to do with the older camera? Should I use a higher speed
like 125?

The color is strong to the point where it hides detail.

The Fuji "orange mask" is somewhat different than Kodak's, for which
the scanner is probably optimized. It causes scans to have a greenish
cast. I have had the same problem with older Fuji as well. I would
describe the Fuji mask as more of a "peach" color.

The scanner is hindered by the denser image and brighter color in
similar matter to difficulties presented by old Kodachrome 25 and 64
slides.

Again, I am aware that my scanner will have limitations, and hope to
rectify the situation soon.

Here is a link to a page of digital images very similar to what I
attempted with Reala:

http://www.richardsfault.com/images/...n/gallery.html

Is Reala the best choice for this type of work?


Reala may or may not be the best choice for this type of work--I've found

it
quite excellent for it, though I prefer slide film for color work, I've

also
shot many many rolls of Reala. I'd say, though, if your scanner won't

play
nice with Reala, and you insist on using your scanner, you'd be better off
with another film.


I like Portra 160NC for this, though if you want really eye poppin' colour
it may not be to your taste. Low contrast and very accurate colour, and
it's very easy to scan.

I don't like Portra 160VC as much, but it is equally easy to scan if you
want the more saturated colours (not that NC looks 'unsaturated', it's just
subtler). Don't know about scanning, but Agfa Ultra 100 is quite a fun film
for really strong colour, though I don't always like its blues.


You might try VueScan, too. Different scanner software, pretty good,

though
not intuitive. It may or may not help with your situation. I think it

has
a demo option, so you might as well give it a try.
http://www.hamrick.com/vsm.html


I second that: I find VueScan very effective, once you've got the hang of
it.



Peter


  #8  
Old July 22nd 04, 04:51 PM
Sabineellen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is Fuji Reala 100 a good choice for floral macros?

Is Reala the best choice for this type of work?


Why not just use digital?

I find it quite handy for Macro, Abstract, Animals and such topics for which
film is an overkill.
 




Thread Tools
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 Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What camera in the $400-$500 range is a good choice? [email protected] Film & Labs 0 January 22nd 04 07:31 AM
are Kodak 160VC and 400VC a good choice? Carlo Film & Labs 5 October 21st 03 04:55 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.