Kodak Ektar and Fuji Reala For Digital Scan

[abcdefghi_rstuvwxyz]

Read some user comment, a vague impression is, Ektar is slower, more intense color, excellent fine grain, bad skin tone. Sounds like the negative Velvia.
Perhaps Fuji Reala is still a better choice as general purpose negative, particularly when skin tone is one of the priority?

Weird, this used to be exact the reason that I prefered Kodak over Fuji.

[barryfitzgerald]

The new Ektar is fairly pumped and saturated, hence not ideal for skintones..though you can of course play with scans and make adjustments..I would not use it for portraits.
But it does not look like Velvia either, which has mega pumped greens, they look very different to my eyes.

Reala is not a bad film at all for general purpose, even many bog standard consumer films can yield very pleasant skintones (both kodak and fuji), stuff like superia etc. But you would be advised to check out Kodak Portra, and Fuji Pro 160, both are available in lower and higher contrast and colour responses, and of course higher ISO speeds.

I def would not be using Ektar as a general all round film.