Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Reala 100 Vs Supra 100 Vs Royal Gold 100  
User currently offlineAPP From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 546 posts, RR: 6
Posted (12 years 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2557 times:

I can't afford to go digital or get a slide scanner at the moment, therefore I need to stick with 100ASA colour print film.
I'm looking for opinions and advice about which film performs the best overall for aviation photography. I know everyone will have their favourites, so I'd be interested to hear what you've all got to say....it could end up as a poll!!!
So, what's it to be; Fuji Reala, Kodak Supra, or Kodak Royal Gold?
Thanks in advance,

6 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineCcrlR From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 2232 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (12 years 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2501 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I used all three and the Kodak Supra 100 and Gold 100 work better than the reala in low light, sunlight, and other conditions. The Reala was worse. I was on a UA lfight and I took a picture of the engine while we were at cruise speed and when it came out it was all purple but I used Kodak Gold on the flight back and they came out good even in bad weather. Same thing for the Supra 100. I used it in cloudy weather and it worked good. Mostly the Reala did poor in cloudy conditions but both Kodak films did good.

"He was right, it is a screaming metal deathtrap!"-Cosmo (from the Fairly Oddparents)
User currently offlineBO__einG From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2770 posts, RR: 18
Reply 2, posted (12 years 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2509 times:

Supra is the best film in the world!!!!

Reala is okay but there are noticable problems.

Kodak GOLD isd Grainier than the wheatfields of Alberta! Horrible but some off times it is excellent.


Expanding my global domination one spotter at a time..
User currently offlineWietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 55
Reply 3, posted (12 years 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2499 times:

I suspect influence from your developing lab here. I've heard Reala is hard to develop/scan. Once you find a good lab, you will have the best print film in the whole wide world.  Laugh out loud

Seriously again, I've shot 20+ rolls of reala on all kinds of things, and the were all perfect, much more balanced than the colors of Kodak Gold 100. I seriously cannot find any grain in my pictures.

Bad in low light conditions? Dull weather is especially the time reala shines!
Try this with Gold or Supra:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Wietse de Graaf
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Wietse de Graaf

And the colors:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Wietse de Graaf
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Wietse de Graaf

In my opinion Reala is the best print film in the world, but I will be transferring to Slides soon, probably Provia 100F. (sorry tim... Smile)


Wietse de Graaf
User currently offlineTimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 65
Reply 4, posted (12 years 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2485 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I've used Kodak Supra 100 for a few years and I absolutely loved it.
Although I have never used Reala, which is supposed to be good as well, Supra is far superior to any other films like Royal Gold or Superia.

But whatever film you choose be sure to pay plenty for developing, that's where the real win in quality is. Good developing and processing is the key to a good print. It can be very expensive though, and that's one reason why I've changed to slides (K64). Actually Wietse I have a roll of Provia that I'm going to try out one of these days. Smile
I might start using it for actionshots in lower light conditions, or maybe even sun when I like it.


Alderman Exit
User currently offlineStaffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (12 years 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2463 times:

Used Reala and I liked it very much, used Royal Gold 400 and it sucked when scanned. Never tried Supra.


User currently offlineAPP From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 546 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (12 years 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2442 times:

Thanks for the replies, I think I'll give the Supra a go, It's very reasonably priced on 7dayshop.com

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Canon 70-200 F2.8 +2x Vs 100-400 posted Wed Nov 30 2005 23:42:06 by Donder10
Canon 28-300 Is USM Vs. 100-400 Is USM posted Wed Sep 28 2005 19:16:27 by Stefan
Extender EF 2X II Vs 100-400L posted Tue Jul 19 2005 15:34:30 by Flighthelmets
300 F4+1.4 Vs 100-400 posted Wed Mar 30 2005 23:56:34 by LHSebi
Canon 100-400 Is Vs. 70-200 Is + 2x Conv. posted Wed Aug 11 2004 18:52:38 by Canberra
Canon 70-200L F/4 Vs. 100-400L: WOW! posted Mon Jun 28 2004 00:42:24 by Scooter
300mm 2.8 Is Vs 100-400 Is posted Sun Mar 14 2004 23:05:29 by Planedoctor
Nikon D-100 Vs. Canon D60, Which To Rent? posted Thu Jul 18 2002 18:30:40 by Clickhappy
Kodak Gold Or Royal Gold 100 Speed? posted Mon Apr 16 2001 06:14:16 by DenSpotter
Kodak Royal 100 Or 200 posted Mon Feb 26 2001 08:39:42 by Mudozvon