#Fuji Reala iso 100

[panatomic-x]

Fujicolor Reala

FILM PACKAGES 　#95

Fujicolor Reala

Negacolor　film　ISO 100/21°

No.135 　 24exp.

The late 1980s

Fuji Photo Film co.ltd.

Super HR Ⅱが出てHGになったあたりに発売されたフィルムなので

１９８９年頃？

#film #filmphotography #colorfilm #negative #35mm #fujifilm #fujicolor #135film #industrialdesign

[paoloruggiero]

Friuli, Italy

Tagliamento River (Fiume Tagliamento)

Fuji Reala 100 ISO, May 1998

[cuadernorevelados]

Retratos peli con Tamron 35 

Canon EOS 33 : Tamron SP 35/1.8

Fuji Reala 100 (caducada) : ISO 100 : Kit Tetenal C-41

[hiro-photograph]

ブローニーフィルム【Fuji PRO 160NS 作例】たった3枚の作例写真ですがぜひ見ていって下さい。

  本当にたった3枚の写真しか撮れませんでした。その理由はカメラの不具合。

『Fuji PRO 160NS』の作例写真は以上になるのですが、この3枚の写真はゼンザブロニカETRSで撮影した写真の中でも、特にお気に入りの写真です。

上の2枚は同じ日の同じ場所から撮った朝焼けに染まる街並みと朝日の写真。

3枚目は沖縄市で撮影した夕暮れの写真です。

落ち着いた発色と色味がFUJIFILMらしくて大好物です。まん丸と光る朝日の写真は、肉眼で見た風景よりもキレイに写ったなという印象。中判フィルム恐るべしです。

  Fuji PRO 160NSについて

スタジオ撮影の新スタンダード

ポートレート用フィルムの定番「160NS」の描写力をグレードアップ。肌を美しく、滑らかな階調で描く、スタジオ撮影の新スタンダード。

発色：忠実で深みがある

階調：軟らかい（NSと同等）

お奨めの被写体：

1.ポートレイト撮影用デーライトタイプ

ISO感度：ISO160

FUJIFILM HPより抜粋

Amazonでは現在5本入りが4,086円で販売されています。1本あたり約800円なので、Amazonで買えるブローニーフィルムの中では1番安いブローニーフィルムになります。

特筆すべき特徴はないかもしれませんが、コスパの良さとしっかり忠実に描写された写り、安定の写りなので常用フィルムに最適かもしれません。

FUJIFILM カラーネガフイルム(プロフェッショナル用) フジカラー PRO 160 NS ブローニー 12枚 5本 120 PN 160 NS EP 12EX 5

created by Rinker

富士フイルム

¥4,040 (2019/09/22 17:51:29時点 Amazon調べ-詳細)

Amazon

楽天市場

Yahooショッピング

まとめ

タイラヒロ

次回はFUJIFILM REALA 100というブローニーフィルムで撮影した写真を紹介します

ね。

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2LHGFTy via IFTTT

[hjs257]

240/365 Tiramisù by Mii Yatogi Via Flickr: film. twitter|tumblr

[sailorrrvenus]

An Ode to 35mm Film

I took some of the best photos of my life on 35mm film. It will always have a special place in my heart, even though I haven’t shot on film in years.

If you ask me what I love about film, I can rattle off lots of reasons:

Film grain looks painterly and artistic;

The texture gives a focal point to photographs that have a shallow depth of field;

Negative film is very forgiving of overexposure (digital is not);

The ability to hold a photograph in your hand makes it less likely that important photos will be discarded by future generations;

The expense of shooting film, coupled with the lack of seeing a shot in realtime, forces a photographer to plan his or her shots more carefully;

Getting photos back from a lab (especially by mail) feels like opening a present;

It’s fun to experiment with the chemistry of film to see what happens. E.g. pushing, pulling, cross-processing, adding salt, microwaving, etc.

But, if you ask me why I stopped shooting film, I could just as easily tell you:

Each shot is expensive, especially when you add in the cost of processing;

Negative film is terribly hard to organize if you shoot mixed subjects on the same roll;

Film scanners are slow. Retouching dust, dirt, scratches and stray hairs is tedious; and

It can be scary and depressing when a film is discontinued. (Imagine if a painter woke up to discover that oil paints would never be made again. That’s what many photographers felt like when Kodachrome was discontinued. I even wrote an obituary for it.)

Nevertheless, I look back at my old photographs with nostalgia. Each of my favorite films had its own character. Here is a small collection of photos that speak to how each was wonderful and unique. These images are minimally edited. I used Photoshop to restore the colors to what the original slides or prints looked like.

KODAK GOLD 100

An elevated view of San Onofre State Beach outside of San Diego, taken on Kodak Gold 100 film.

Kodak Gold 100 was a cheap film that you could find behind the counter at pharmacies like CVS and Walgreens. It wasn’t a professional emulsion, but it was distinctive. Reds popped and highlights looked golden. It was the perfect film for capturing “Kodak moments” on a bright, sunny day.

KODAK GOLD 200

A wedding procession crosses Jackson Square in New Orleans, photographed on Kodak Gold 200 film.

Kodak Gold 200 may no longer be a “drugstore film,” but it’s still available for sale. That warms my heart because I loved Kodak 200. It was a dependable travel film that made skin tones look natural without sacrificing color elsewhere.

FUJI SUPERIA REALA 100

The Tribute in Lights at the former site of the World Trade Center in New York City, photographed on Fuji Superia Reala film. The swirling white lines are birds and insects attracted to the light.

Reala was my favorite negative film. It was a jack-of-all-trades that had fine grain, excellent contrast and color rendition, and was forgiving of over- and under-exposure. It was also great for long exposures and it scanned well. Reala would have been my go-to film if I had worked as a photojournalist.

FUJICOLOR 200

A lifeguard chair on a mountain of sand in Long Beach (LI), photographed on Fujicolor 200 film.

I shot a lot of Fuji 200 because it was dirt cheap and looked great in bright sunlight. Reds, white and blues all popped. The film behaved very differently in low light situations, however, producing desaturated photos that looked hand tinted.

KODACHROME 25

A view of Manhattan from the top of the Empire State Building, photographed on Kodachrome 25.

Kodachrome 25 was a grainy film despite its ultra-low ISO. It was also brutally unforgiving of under- and over-exposure. Still, there was something magical about Kodachrome. Sadly, I was only able to shoot two rolls of Kodachrome 25. I discovered its charms just before it was discontinued.

FUJICHROME VELVIA 50

An elevated view of Santa Monica Beach in California, photographed on Fuji Velvia 50.

I found Velvia 50 to be more contrasty than colorful. Maybe I never exposed it correctly. Nevertheless, I liked the film because it reminded me of Kodachrome 25 (but I preferred the ISO 100 version of Velvia).

FUJICHROME VELVIA 100

Tulips and cherry blossoms in bloom at the Brooklyn Botanic Garden, photographed on Velvia 100.

Velvia is famous for producing super-vivid colors. It’s not a portrait film (it makes skin looks sunburnt), but boy does Velvia make landscapes look great. A well-exposed frame can feel like a window into a Technicolor dream world. There’s no other film like it.

FUJICHROME ASTIA 100F

A friendly man on the streets of Daytona Beach, photographed on Fuji Astia 100F.

Astia was a slide film that muted colors and rendered skin tones pretty naturally. It was designed for portraits, but it was decent enough for general use. I found that Astia made things look a little sadder than they really were, which was a downer, but a downer that could be used to good effect.

FUJICHROME PROVIA 100F

An American flag caught on barbed wire, photographed on Fuji Provia 100F and cross-processed.

Provia is Fuji’s most versatile slide film: Colors pop without distorting skin tones. Provia is also the best slide film that I found for cross processing (i.e. developing a slide film like it was a negative film).

KODAK EKTACHROME E100

This might be my favorite picture of my father, photographed on Ektachrome E100 film.

I didn’t appreciate E100 as much as I should have. If Fuji Astia made everything look a bit sadder, then Ektachrome 100 made everything look happier. Skin tones look warm and natural and it is forgiving of overexposure. Maybe that’s why Astia is discontinued but E100 lives on.

KODAK PORTRA 400UC

A “Creamsicle” cocktail, photographed for Debonair Magazine on Kodak 400UC film.

Kodak’s “Ultra Color” film looked drab under daylight, but it absolutely popped under studio lighting. It was great for product photography and portraits under tungsten light.

KODAK 100UC

A rose photographed with a Canon 28MM f1.8 lens, shot wide open with Kodak 100UC film.

This ISO 100 version of Kodak “Ultra Color” was a strange film when you paired it with a “creamy” lens. It made photographs look like paintings! Contrary to its name, I found this film to have muted colors in natural light.

KODAK BW400CN

Junior lifeguards celebrate their graduation on Newport Beach. Photographed on Kodak BW400CN.

Kodak’s BW400 is the most forgiving black-and-white film that I ever used. It had bright whites, neutral grays and rich blacks that seemed to adjust in proportion if the film was over- or under-exposed. I was sad to see this one go.

For each film that I remember well, there is a film that I remember poorly. Ilford’s black-and-white films looked muddy and always left me disappointed. Agfa’s slide films didn’t resolve details nearly as well as equivalent films from Kodak and Fuji. Kodak’s Portra films (both the “Natural Color” and “Vivid Color” varieties) seemed vulnerable to fogging from X-ray machines. I didn’t like Kodachrome 64 half as much as Kodachrome 25, and many of my shots on Tri-X 400 haven’t aged well because I did a poor job developing it (I was an impatient chemist). That said, my experiences and preferences are no indictment.

I’m grateful that Kodak and Fuji still manufacture 35mm films and equally thankful that stores like Lomography and B&H continue to sell them. Film is an important part of our heritage and I would hate to see the art form lost to history. The world is swimming with wonderful old cameras and lenses; I hope that young artists find inspiration and continue to experiment with the medium.

About the author: John W. DeFeo is a writer and photographer living in Brooklyn. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. DeFeo is the founder of Always Bring Sunscreen, a family travel blog. This article was originally published on johnwdefeo.com.

source https://petapixel.com/2019/04/23/an-ode-to-35mm-film/

[pauldeckerus]

An Ode to 35mm Film

I took some of the best photos of my life on 35mm film. It will always have a special place in my heart, even though I haven’t shot on film in years.

If you ask me what I love about film, I can rattle off lots of reasons:

Film grain looks painterly and artistic;

The texture gives a focal point to photographs that have a shallow depth of field;

Negative film is very forgiving of overexposure (digital is not);

The ability to hold a photograph in your hand makes it less likely that important photos will be discarded by future generations;

The expense of shooting film, coupled with the lack of seeing a shot in realtime, forces a photographer to plan his or her shots more carefully;

Getting photos back from a lab (especially by mail) feels like opening a present;

It’s fun to experiment with the chemistry of film to see what happens. E.g. pushing, pulling, cross-processing, adding salt, microwaving, etc.

But, if you ask me why I stopped shooting film, I could just as easily tell you:

Each shot is expensive, especially when you add in the cost of processing;

Negative film is terribly hard to organize if you shoot mixed subjects on the same roll;

Film scanners are slow. Retouching dust, dirt, scratches and stray hairs is tedious; and

It can be scary and depressing when a film is discontinued. (Imagine if a painter woke up to discover that oil paints would never be made again. That’s what many photographers felt like when Kodachrome was discontinued. I even wrote an obituary for it.)

Nevertheless, I look back at my old photographs with nostalgia. Each of my favorite films had its own character. Here is a small collection of photos that speak to how each was wonderful and unique. These images are minimally edited. I used Photoshop to restore the colors to what the original slides or prints looked like.

KODAK GOLD 100

An elevated view of San Onofre State Beach outside of San Diego, taken on Kodak Gold 100 film.

Kodak Gold 100 was a cheap film that you could find behind the counter at pharmacies like CVS and Walgreens. It wasn’t a professional emulsion, but it was distinctive. Reds popped and highlights looked golden. It was the perfect film for capturing “Kodak moments” on a bright, sunny day.

KODAK GOLD 200

A wedding procession crosses Jackson Square in New Orleans, photographed on Kodak Gold 200 film.

Kodak Gold 200 may no longer be a “drugstore film,” but it’s still available for sale. That warms my heart because I loved Kodak 200. It was a dependable travel film that made skin tones look natural without sacrificing color elsewhere.

FUJI SUPERIA REALA 100

The Tribute in Lights at the former site of the World Trade Center in New York City, photographed on Fuji Superia Reala film. The swirling white lines are birds and insects attracted to the light.

Reala was my favorite negative film. It was a jack-of-all-trades that had fine grain, excellent contrast and color rendition, and was forgiving of over- and under-exposure. It was also great for long exposures and it scanned well. Reala would have been my go-to film if I had worked as a photojournalist.

FUJICOLOR 200

A lifeguard chair on a mountain of sand in Long Beach (LI), photographed on Fujicolor 200 film.

I shot a lot of Fuji 200 because it was dirt cheap and looked great in bright sunlight. Reds, white and blues all popped. The film behaved very differently in low light situations, however, producing desaturated photos that looked hand tinted.

KODACHROME 25

A view of Manhattan from the top of the Empire State Building, photographed on Kodachrome 25.

Kodachrome 25 was a grainy film despite its ultra-low ISO. It was also brutally unforgiving of under- and over-exposure. Still, there was something magical about Kodachrome. Sadly, I was only able to shoot two rolls of Kodachrome 25. I discovered its charms just before it was discontinued.

FUJICHROME VELVIA 50

An elevated view of Santa Monica Beach in California, photographed on Fuji Velvia 50.

I found Velvia 50 to be more contrasty than colorful. Maybe I never exposed it correctly. Nevertheless, I liked the film because it reminded me of Kodachrome 25 (but I preferred the ISO 100 version of Velvia).

FUJICHROME VELVIA 100

Tulips and cherry blossoms in bloom at the Brooklyn Botanic Garden, photographed on Velvia 100.

Velvia is famous for producing super-vivid colors. It’s not a portrait film (it makes skin looks sunburnt), but boy does Velvia make landscapes look great. A well-exposed frame can feel like a window into a Technicolor dream world. There’s no other film like it.

FUJICHROME ASTIA 100F

A friendly man on the streets of Daytona Beach, photographed on Fuji Astia 100F.

Astia was a slide film that muted colors and rendered skin tones pretty naturally. It was designed for portraits, but it was decent enough for general use. I found that Astia made things look a little sadder than they really were, which was a downer, but a downer that could be used to good effect.

FUJICHROME PROVIA 100F

An American flag caught on barbed wire, photographed on Fuji Provia 100F and cross-processed.

Provia is Fuji’s most versatile slide film: Colors pop without distorting skin tones. Provia is also the best slide film that I found for cross processing (i.e. developing a slide film like it was a negative film).

KODAK EKTACHROME E100

This might be my favorite picture of my father, photographed on Ektachrome E100 film.

I didn’t appreciate E100 as much as I should have. If Fuji Astia made everything look a bit sadder, then Ektachrome 100 made everything look happier. Skin tones look warm and natural and it is forgiving of overexposure. Maybe that’s why Astia is discontinued but E100 lives on.

KODAK PORTRA 400UC

A “Creamsicle” cocktail, photographed for Debonair Magazine on Kodak 400UC film.

Kodak’s “Ultra Color” film looked drab under daylight, but it absolutely popped under studio lighting. It was great for product photography and portraits under tungsten light.

KODAK 100UC

A rose photographed with a Canon 28MM f1.8 lens, shot wide open with Kodak 100UC film.

This ISO 100 version of Kodak “Ultra Color” was a strange film when you paired it with a “creamy” lens. It made photographs look like paintings! Contrary to its name, I found this film to have muted colors in natural light.

KODAK BW400CN

Junior lifeguards celebrate their graduation on Newport Beach. Photographed on Kodak BW400CN.

Kodak’s BW400 is the most forgiving black-and-white film that I ever used. It had bright whites, neutral grays and rich blacks that seemed to adjust in proportion if the film was over- or under-exposed. I was sad to see this one go.

For each film that I remember well, there is a film that I remember poorly. Ilford’s black-and-white films looked muddy and always left me disappointed. Agfa’s slide films didn’t resolve details nearly as well as equivalent films from Kodak and Fuji. Kodak’s Portra films (both the “Natural Color” and “Vivid Color” varieties) seemed vulnerable to fogging from X-ray machines. I didn’t like Kodachrome 64 half as much as Kodachrome 25, and many of my shots on Tri-X 400 haven’t aged well because I did a poor job developing it (I was an impatient chemist). That said, my experiences and preferences are no indictment.

I’m grateful that Kodak and Fuji still manufacture 35mm films and equally thankful that stores like Lomography and B&H continue to sell them. Film is an important part of our heritage and I would hate to see the art form lost to history. The world is swimming with wonderful old cameras and lenses; I hope that young artists find inspiration and continue to experiment with the medium.

About the author: John W. DeFeo is a writer and photographer living in Brooklyn. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. DeFeo is the founder of Always Bring Sunscreen, a family travel blog. This article was originally published on johnwdefeo.com.

from Photography News https://petapixel.com/2019/04/23/an-ode-to-35mm-film/

[cuadernorevelados]

Paisaje - En El Campello, Alicante

Canon EOS 33 : Tamron SP 35/1.8 

Fuji Reala 100 (caducada) : ISO 100 : Kit Tetenal C-41

[paoloruggiero]

Marseilles

behind the Vieux-Port

Fuji Reala 100 ISO, August 2013

[paoloruggiero]

Caorle (Venice)

Fuji Reala 100 ISO, December 1997