I have been experimenting with Fuji Reala 100 negative film in my old Minolta XG-7 and scanning with an admittedly-cheaper HP-3970 flatbed scanner. This scanner has worked well with old and new Kodacolor negatives using the HP software's inversion. It has never "liked" Fuji as much, and seems to really "hate" Reala! The Reala negatives seem to run quite dark, as if they are slightly over-exposed when shot at ASA100. Is this a characteristic of the film or something to do with the older camera? Should I use a higher speed like 125? The color is strong to the point where it hides detail. The Fuji "orange mask" is somewhat different than Kodak's, for which the scanner is probably optimized. It causes scans to have a greenish cast. I have had the same problem with older Fuji as well. I would describe the Fuji mask as more of a "peach" color. The scanner is hindered by the denser image and brighter color in similar matter to difficulties presented by old Kodachrome 25 and 64 slides. Again, I am aware that my scanner will have limitations, and hope to rectify the situation soon. Here is a link to a page of digital images very similar to what I attempted with Reala: http://www.richardsfault.com/images/homegrown/gallery.html Is Reala the best choice for this type of work? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Some people claim that there's a woman to blame, but I think it's all... Richard's fault! Visit the Sounds of the cul-de-sac at www.richardsfault.com
I scan Reala with my HP PhotoSmart S20 neg scanner. Seems to scan as well as any other I've tried. The film itself is very dark though anyways, as in prints from the lab seem to show little detail in the dark colours. Does you scanner allow you to adjust exposure, etc, before the final scan? D.R.
D.R. Have you used/tried to scan Kodachrome? If so, is the darkness you describe similar to what you get from Kodachrome? I find this problem with my Kodachrome slides, though not with Ektachrome, or the newer Elite Chrome. I'm assuming that it is due to a thicker emulsion. I get improved results by scanning for "underexposure", but I'm still not completely happy with the results. -- * * * To reply, remove numbers from address. Stan http://www.neworleansphotographs.com http://www.atneworleans.com http://www.sbeckart.com/sbeck
I have scanned some really old Kodachrome's of my parents. Most came out nice. Some came out dark. If the slides were underexposed, my scanner couldn't do it very well, it only scans single pass as 2400dpi.
