If a lab conpensated everything to give you an identical result using computer technology then by the same argument there would be no point having different films for low contrast/vivid colours etc. Changing the exposure can change the basic characteristics of the film. If it were just a simple exposure shift then what you say would hold. However, by changing the exposure, the general characteristic of a film can change in several ways. With reala it generally gives a bit more contrast and saturation. The lab will correct the exposure shift to make the picture seem correctly exposed but it will have more 'punch'. This doesn't work for all films, and will work differently for different films, but for reala it works well in my experience. Reala rated at 100ISO is great for portraits because you don't want the extra saturation but it can really lift a landscape. Plus if you scan the negs you can really get some great stuff!
> -----Original Message----- > From: Boros Attila [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 23 February 2004 16:15 > To: PDML > Subject: Reala rated at 80 > > > I must be missing something quite obvius here, because I > can't get the point... I have read some posts on the net > about rating the Fuji Superia Reala 100 film at ISO 80 speed. > AFAIK this is the equivalent of overexposing by 1/5 f-stop. I > have also read that I can under/over expose a color negative > film by 1 f-stop without any major problems, the lab will > correct this during the development process. So Reala is a > color negative film, and an overexposure by 1/5 f-stop would > likely be "corrected" by the lab. > > On the other hand I realize the smallest amount of exposure > compensation I can set on my MZ-6 is 1/2 f-stop, so this > trick may be good for slide film... but for prints? ... no clue. > > Anyway, is 1/5 f-stop that critical? > > Attila > >
