What Substitute for Fuji Reala

[Phoenix1]

For the last 8 years, I've shot Fuji Reala 100 in my Nikonos (I know--not an SLR, but this is a film question) and have gotten consistently great results.

Suddenly, it seems, Reala has either doubled in price ($3 to $6 per 36 exp. roll) or is just not available in the US any more. B&H, Adorama -- all backordered. Amazon has two rolls I think.

Did I miss something since April, when it was plentiful? (Other than the accelerating death of film in general . . . .)

As I go through my last gasps of film work (this is another push to digital), what film should I use instead? I'm headed to Cayman in about 2 1/2 weeks and I'm running out of time.

Any ideas? I'll try slide film again if somebody can suggest something that doesn't get too blue on me. I don't use filters, so every time I shoot slides the results are bluish. In all cases, I will have the result scanned to disk, whether I use print or slide.

[Jonathan Bird]

The only reason print film isn't blue-ish is because when they print it, they remove some of the blue cast in the printing process. The negative film captures the same amount of blue as the positive film.

I haven't shot print film underwater in 20 years, so I'm no help whatsoever with your quest for reala alternatives, sorry! I would say that now is the time to switch to digital (well, actually, 2 years ago was ;) ) and at this point, any print film you can get your hands on from Kodak or Fuji is fine.

When I was shooting film (slides) I liked Ektachrome 100, Fujichrome Velvia and Provia.

Seriously, once you go digital, you will never consider going back.

Jonathan

[Phoenix1]

Jonathan:

Thanks. I am presently focusing (no pun intended) on either Fuji Pro 160C or Kodak 100UC. Both are a littler higher contrast, I read, than their softer portrait counterparts. I'm inclined to pick Fuji because I have always had good results, and I can't say the same for Kodak. You're right, though, it probably doesn't matter much.

As to the switch to digital, it is in process -- mentally -- as we speak. I plan a post or two on one of the other discussion topics as I sort through the many choices I face. I think it is entirely possible that my trip to Cayman in a few weeks may be the last with the Nikonos.

[Jonathan Bird]

No doubt that the switch to digital is a pain. You have new gear to buy in all departments: new camera, new housing, new ports in some cases, new strobes, and then you need software you might not have and possibly a new laptop. When I went through this in 2006 (I was the last professional photographer I knew that switched to digital), it was a huge expense and a change in my long-established workflow.

HOWEVER....

Once I did it, I was so glad I had done it. The convenience, immediate feedback, lack of chemical processing (and associated costs) and QUALITY of digital images made it superior in every way. I thought that switching to digital was going to take my images down a step in quality but would be more convenient...I was wrong. Digital cameras are so good, the images are so crisp and clean, I find myself wanting to reshoot stuff that I already have great coverage of with film. I can't imagine having to go back to film!!

Trust me, it's an investment that will pay for itself many times over. Just imagine doing a dive and having essentially an unlimited number of frames available for when you get the chance at that special subject? Imagine being able to switch ISO on the dive to tailor the "film speed" to the light level and the amount of fill flash you want to use. Imagine being able to see exactly what you just shot so you can improve the composition or exposure before its too late, being able to see backscatter and re-adjust your strobes accordingly! Then when the diver is over, you can download the camera and have instant gratification. On the flight home you can tweak your images on your laptop and have a slide show of the keepers ready to go! Digital is great!!

The only problem I see with digital from a professional photography standpoint is that it has leveled the playing field a lot. Pros used to spend 10 years getting really good at underwater photography to the point where they could shoot 30 keepers out of a 36 exposure roll by knowing how to expose for the film, get everything in focus, adjust strobes, etc. This made the demand for pros higher in terms of magazine assignments. Now, amateur photographers with only a few hundred dives under their belts can shoot as well as pros if they put their minds to it because the learning curve is so steep and it's easy to improve rapidly. Hence the number of people competing for magazine assignments has skyrocketed and it has made professional underwater photography more competitive...and it already was getting crowded before digital.

On the plus side, this technology has allowed guys with more experience to advance quicker too and move on to even more sophisticated lighting and techniques, so it's still a win-win to me.

The only part about digital that is annoying is the rapid and constant replacement of cameras with newer, faster, bigger sensor cameras which make us all want to upgrade, upgrade, upgrade. I long for the days when a Nikon N90 was upgraded with a newer emulsion but I could get 10 years from a camera/housing combo!

Jonathan

[Phoenix1]

Jonathan:

Thanks a lot for your encouragement. Actually, I need no convincing. As a film photographer with more than 50 years experience, I have watched the film medium grow, mature, age gracefully, but now ride into the sunset. For all the time I've spent in my darkroom and others (I have one in my house, now unused), I regard the demise of film with some sadness, like losing an old friend.

But objectively, digital is not only here, it's been here for years. And my digital growth curve has made it possible for me to do in seconds in Photoshop what used to take hours -- with better, instantly viewable and printable results. Like I said in another post in the Digital Photo section, my D70 has really gotten a workout over the last four years, and my happiness with digital comes home with stunning results I never thought I'd achieve.

My slow move to underwater digital results from two things: First, money. Since photography is not my profession, it's hard without a lot of thinking and research to plunk down at least $5,000 on something I only do two or three times a year, no matter how breathtaking I expect the results will be. Second, I am still on the steep part of the "what's available out there" learning curve. I will probably spend more time on the choice of what to buy than I have on any car or house I've ever bought, but I'm OK with that. Still everyone skins the equipment cat differently, and it's kinda fun finding out what others have done and whether they're happy with their choices. And since the equipment available out there is both increasing in capability and at the same time coming down in price, I'd like to catch this wave at the right point. It doesn't freeze me into inaction, and when I finally get the lay of the land, I'll start buying (resources permitting) with guns blazing. But since I will surely not go digital in the next week and a half before Grand Cayman, and my next dive trip after that is in Little Cayman in April next year, I've got a nice opportunity to plan the move.

[Salty]

Ektar 100 Not sure if this will help, and sounds a little pricey, but who knows, I haven't use print film in years but dabble in crome now and then.

Any way saw this on POP and thought it might help.... (http://www.popphoto.com/photonews/5518/kodak-intros-new-film.htm) Good Luck.

[Phoenix1]

Salty:

Thanks for the recommendation. Actually, I decided to go with Fuji Pro 160C. It looked like it would come as close to Reala as I could on short notice. Since I leave a week from Saturday, I didn't want to play around with last minute decisions.