Reala can be too saturated when the light is warm. That's true of lots of
films though.
I've just tried my first rolls of NPS and NPH. Very nice. On the scans I
thought it showed a little more graininess, but not bad.
Joel W.
>===== Original Message From "Dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
=====
>I haven't had a lot of luck with Reala when it's underexposed (what I think
>Joel is saying below). Grain zooms up, highlights shift green, etc.
>
>HAVE used both Portra and NPS a lot, and have landed firmly in the NPS camp.
>Great skin tones, and slightly more "punch" than Portra.
>
>Dave
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>[mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Joel Wilcox
>>Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2003 5:22 PM
>>To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Subject: RE: [OM] Portrait work: Reala or NPS 160??
>>
>>
>>Ditto for me re: Reala. For skin tones it seems to be to print film what
>>Velvia is to slide.
>>
>>Joel W.
>>
>>At 02:38 PM 2/9/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>>>I've had some nice results using Portra 160 as just a "general purpose
>>>film". I quite like it and it seems remarkably grainless for its speed. On
>>>the other hand, I've had some results I've truly not liked with Reala. Not
>>>sure I can be precise about why, but off the top of my head, it
>>seems to me
>>>to have some odd color shifts I've noted in bracketed exposures on
>>>underexposed side, and it scans really badly in my Scanwit. Some of the
>>>*worst* scans I have seen.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|