Fuji Reala or NPS

[mbeth16]

I am shooting a wedding next month and I need help deciding what film to use. I need a low speed film for the outdoor shots and portriats. I read reviews on both Reala and NPS and they both have near perfect reviews. Can anyone help me decide what is better??

[Dave E.]

I suggest using Kodak Portra Films, ISO 160 and 400. The Fuji NPS is great in studio, but I have not had great luck with it outside in available light. Reala is basically a good all around film. But, for what it worth, I like Kodak Portra films.

If you get a chance, I think we all would like to see some of your wedding images.

-Dave-

[Jeff82]

Both Fuji films are great. Personally, I'd go with the new Kodak UC-100.

--Jeff

[Acadia25]

I really like the palatte of NPS for outdoor wedding shots, but both of those Fuji films are very, very good. For all around use, I would choose Reala, but for a wedding I would shoot NPS.

I think that Kodak films are very good as well, but I prefer the look of the Fuji films. I also prefer that Fuji seems to stick with certain film lines, rather than constantly changing them, so if you enjoy and become accustomed to using a particular film, you can continue to use it for years and have consistent results. Just my opinion/experience.

Good luck!

[Acadia25]

Oops. I meant palette.

And for the record, the Kodak Portra films have been around for quite a while and don't look like they are going anywhere, so if you want to compare, they are also a very good choice.

Have fun!

[mbeth16]

Thank you everyone that responded. I acually have had a lot of experience with Kodak Portra 400NC and some with VC, but I wanted to try something different for the outdoor shots. I jsut wanted to get to know other films instead of using the same film without ever trying others. So I was on B&H and couldnt decide between the two. I definetly wanted to try Fuji since I had good results even with their consumer films. I'll be sure to show all of you the pictures I've taken.

[Franglais]

Hello again (just answered your post about fill-in flash),

Fuji Marketing would say use NPS. It's specifically developed for weddings under brilliant sunlight. Contrast is low to keep detail in both the bride's veil and the groom's black suit. Saturation is low to give a subtle effect to skin tones.

NPS is fine for it's intended usage but under normal conditions it can look flat. For general purpose use Reala is similar to NPS but with slightly more contrast and much more saturation.

To complete the Fuji family slow film family there's NPC with high contrast and low saturation and Superia 100 with high contrast and high saturation.

Charles

[Franglais]

Hello again (just answered your post about fill-in flash),

Fuji Marketing would say use NPS. It's specifically developed for weddings under brilliant sunlight. Contrast is low to keep detail in both the bride's veil and the groom's black suit. Saturation is low to give a subtle effect to skin tones.

NPS is fine for it's intended usage but under normal conditions it can look flat. For general purpose use Reala is similar to NPS but with slightly more contrast and much more saturation.

To complete the Fuji family slow film family there's NPC with high contrast and low saturation and Superia 100 with high contrast and high saturation.

Charles

I've been thinking furiously about this because I have a couple of parades this month (which are rather like weddings - open air, mass of people you can't control).

I'm not going to use NPS. It was released in 1991, before automatic fill-in flash became widespread. With the fill-in flash you reduce the contrast anyway and I find it has too much of a tendency to go flat and strange.

I don't have a lot of experience with Reala for fill-in work. I personally prefer NPC. That extra contrast give you more impact - as long as you don't burn out

I'm going to try to include some examples. First an NPS shot of the couple in fancy dress, then an NPC shot of the start of a parade.

[mbeth16]

I really appreicate all of your help. I have heard not just from you that NPS can appear flat. I am still trying to decide and have not yet bought the film. I don't really want flat images. I like a punch of color and contrast. Not too much, but just enought. you know? SO i think i was going to not get the NPS. So your saying to try NPC?? IS that in a low ISO? I was looking for a 100-160 speed for bright situations. Thanks again!

[mbeth16]

I really appreicate all of your help. I have heard not just from you that NPS can appear flat. I am still trying to decide and have not yet bought the film. I don't really want flat images. I like a punch of color and contrast. Not too much, but just enought. you know? SO i think i was going to not get the NPS. So your saying to try NPC?? IS that in a low ISO? I was looking for a 100-160 speed for bright situations. Thanks again!

ok..well i saw the reviews on NPC. Low speed high contrast. THey sometimes said it was not that great on skin tones/? Have you had any experience with bad skin tones? I need something good for wedding portriture but will not appear flat.

[Franglais]

ok..well i saw the reviews on NPC. Low speed high contrast. THey sometimes said it was not that great on skin tones/? Have you had any experience with bad skin tones? I need something good for wedding portriture but will not appear flat.

I mostly use NPH (400 ISO) for pictures of people. I really like the look it gives. I find that NPC (160 ISO) is the closest you can get to NPH with:

- slightly more punch (i.e. contrast)
- finer grain & detail
- more reddish skin tones (but not unpleasatly so)

I have to do a wedding in July. I will take along mostly NPH and - throw caution to the winds - NPC though if I was going to play safe I would have taken NPS like Fuji tell you to. In June I'm going to Gay Pride and there's no need for subtlety there so I'll have NPC. However if at all possible I'm going to stay out of the direct sunlight and use NPH.

Charles

[another view]

I guess I'd talk to the lab you're working with and see what they prefer. Theoretically, any decent lab should be able to print any film - but some labs work better with some films than others. I haven't had a good roll of Fuji neg yet!

When I first started getting picky about my results when using neg film, I talked to the lab. I asked them what films they usually work with, and they told me it was almost all Portra. I asked about Fuji (a friend swears by NPS) and they sounded a little hesitant "...well, yeah, we see that from time to time" or something like that; not very confidence inspiring! So I shoot the Portra range and get great results. Haven't tried UC, but doesn't really seem like the type of film I'd be looking for when shooting neg, either.

It's the combined results of the film and lab that make the difference. I use one lab and Portra, and have a friend who uses NPS and a different lab (he's 60 miles from here). Neither one of us has any interest in using the other combination, either!

[cktan]

I mostly use NPH (400 ISO) for pictures of people. I really like the look it gives. I find that NPC (160 ISO) is the closest you can get to NPH with:

- slightly more punch (i.e. contrast)
- finer grain & detail
- more reddish skin tones (but not unpleasatly so)

I have to do a wedding in July. I will take along mostly NPH and - throw caution to the winds - NPC though if I was going to play safe I would have taken NPS like Fuji tell you to. In June I'm going to Gay Pride and there's no need for subtlety there so I'll have NPC. However if at all possible I'm going to stay out of the direct sunlight and use NPH.

Charles

Hi, I'm going to take some graduation photos later this weekend (outdoor). And my friend bought me NPH 400 rather than Reala which is what I want. I have no experience using NPH 400. Someone suggested me before to set the ISO on my camera to 100 or 200, avoid bright sunlight etc. But can anyone confirm to me what I should and should not do? Don't really want the photos to turn out unacceptable. Do I have to sent to a lab in which they have experience processing the film, as someone in the forum suggested?

cheers
ck

[Franglais]

Hi, I'm going to take some graduation photos later this weekend (outdoor). And my friend bought me NPH 400 rather than Reala which is what I want. I have no experience using NPH 400. Someone suggested me before to set the ISO on my camera to 100 or 200, avoid bright sunlight etc. But can anyone confirm to me what I should and should not do? Don't really want the photos to turn out unacceptable. Do I have to sent to a lab in which they have experience processing the film, as someone in the forum suggested?

cheers
ck

NPH400 is a good all-rounder. It's not the best film to use in all circumstances, but it almost always gives acceptable results.

In bright sunlight with people I use fill-in flash, standard 400 ISO and I try to avoid having people directly face-on to the sunlight. With my F100+SB28 and the flash sync speed of 1/250 this is fairly easy. If your camera won't sync that high then you could set the film speed to 200 ISO (I've never tried 100 ISO) - the true film speed is 400 ISO so you have quite a margin for overexposure. I haven't had any problems with this film in my lab but usually I send it to Fuji anyway.

This film is designed to do pictures of people so it has fairly low contrast and low saturation. I just scanned a worst-case negative - a landscape done on a point-and-shoot (Olympus MU2) at midday on an almost cloudless day. It hasn't come out too bad. Note the open shadows and the fairly muted colours.

Charles

[Franglais]

Hunting around for a more pertinent example than my last one, I came across this - subjects face-on to the sun at 3pm on a very bright day, at varying distances from the camera, fill-in flash doing it's best (on F100/SB28+NPH400).

Notice that the flash has worked okay for the little girl on the right, but it has no effect on the subjects in the background. When you do your pictures try to ensure that your subjects are all within the flash range and that they are all at approximately the same distance from the camera.

Charles

[cktan]

Hunting around for a more pertinent example than my last one, I came across this - subjects face-on to the sun at 3pm on a very bright day, at varying distances from the camera, fill-in flash doing it's best (on F100/SB28+NPH400).

Notice that the flash has worked okay for the little girl on the right, but it has no effect on the subjects in the background. When you do your pictures try to ensure that your subjects are all within the flash range and that they are all at approximately the same distance from the camera.

Charles

I use F80/SB22 (good that you are using Nikon too ), but was wondering do I need to still change to ISO 200? Should I change the ISO, I would imagine I'm overexposing the film by one stop, am I right? Does this has the same effect as compensating the exposure by +1EV?

cheers
CK

[another view]

Should I change the ISO, I would imagine I'm overexposing the film by one stop, am I right? Does this has the same effect as compensating the exposure by +1EV?

Yes and yes. Changing the ISO from 400 to 200 overexposes the film by one stop, same as +1 exposure compensation. If you're going to do a whole roll of film that way, I'd probably change the ISO, because it can be confusing to want a +1 compensation, but then want to add or subtract a little exposure to a shot or two for whatever reason (Let's see, +1 with a -1/3 is a +2/3 compensation, right?). Could get confusing in the heat of the battle.

On the other hand, with changing the ISO setting out of DX, you have to remember to re-set it either back to DX or to the new ISO speed when changing film. If you usually use the DX (automatic) setting, then it can be easy to forget.