Kodak ColorPlus vs Fujicolor C200

chrisfowler

chrisfowler

Messages
85
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
No
Since picking up a couple of 35mm cameras, I've limited myself to the cheapest film I can find: Kodak ColorPlus 200. I've been buying it for a little over £1 a roll (24exp) and although it does have a slightly odd colour tone, the results have been good:

9562517608_8df0c36969_c.jpg

[Fujica AZ-1 w/28mm lens]

I then bought 10 rolls of Fuji C200 (36exp) as I assumed it would be better film (at around £2 a roll) but I've not been that impressed with the results. The colour has a much more realistic tone, but the film seems quite grainy in situations where the Kodak was not.

For some shots the grain is brilliant, especially when converting to B&W:

9555987303_eb0ebdfe30_c.jpg

[Fujica AZ-1 w/28mm lens]

But others appear grainy that I wouldn't have expected (look at the blacks and the sky for example):

9558783430_f702f92309_c.jpg

[Fujica AZ-1 w/28mm lens]

Is Fuji C200 that different from Kodak ColorPlus or is this something I'm doing wrong? The photos are all from the same camera, my Fuji AZ-1 used on auto shutter speed. I think the camera tends towards under exposure, but I'm slowly getting used to that.

Has anyone used both of these films before that could comment? I've just used my last roll of ColorPlus but still have 9 rolls of C200 left.

Chris
 
This is a mix of scanning, oversharpening and underexposure.

Where are you getting these developed and scanned?

The "grain" appearance is exaggerated because of overzealous sharpening - none of these shots needed sharpening most probably, but most automatic settings (especially with most minilab machines) will liberally apply it. For what it's worth, I can see a similar amounts of grain in the first picture, especially in areas of detail (for instance, in the criss-cross of the fence on the left), it's just not so apparent because there isn't blocks of single tones/colours, such as the sky in the last picture.

Incorrect exposure also exaggerates grain, and the scanner will try and compensate to create a correct exposure - which also exaggerates the grain further.
 
At the risk of raising an old argument, IMHO the cheap Kodak and Fuji films are best used for testing cameras. The best 'cheapo' C41 film out there is the Agfa stuff stocked by Poundland, it still isn't great but it's OK and copes with converting to b&w quite well.
 
These were all scanned at tesco- so I'm assuming all using whatever automatic settings their machines have...
 
steveo_mcg said:
Isn't vista just c200 rebadged?
Click to expand...

That seems to be the general prevailing belief, indeed.

Vista still works out cheaper than the amount you are paying for ColorPlus/C200, so pop down to a Poundland if you can.

chrisfowler said:
These were all scanned at tesco- so I'm assuming all using whatever automatic settings their machines have...
Click to expand...

Ah, so yes, that would explain a lot of it. I bet if I scanned in the negatives, they'd look very different. The only thing you can do - if you know the camera is erring towards underexposure - is to try and correct the exposure, either using exposure compensation or adjusting the ISO so it is more accurate.

You can change film as much as you want, heck, shoot Portra 160, but that's not going to stop the machine oversharpening and exaggerating the grain. Bad scanning is what pushed me to buy my own scanner, and I'm sure that sentiment is echoed with many of the other F&C regulars.
 
I use the poundland vista quite a lot for cheap running a film off and its pretty ok I have found getting my developing done at Peak has made a huge difference before I was using jessops, defo go with your own scanner I purchased a very old polaroid 4000 for £50+ a SCSI card for £10 and im good to go. I will be upgrading my scanner soon just for the dust and scratch removal though as I spend to long in photoshop popping those out.
 
RaglanSurf said:
At the risk of raising an old argument, IMHO the cheap Kodak and Fuji films are best used for testing cameras. The best 'cheapo' C41 film out there is the Agfa stuff stocked by Poundland, it still isn't great but it's OK and copes with converting to b&w quite well.
Click to expand...

Mr Bump said:
I use the poundland vista quite a lot for cheap running a film off and its pretty ok I have found getting my developing done at Peak has made a huge difference before I was using jessops, defo go with your own scanner I purchased a very old polaroid 4000 for £50+ a SCSI card for £10 and im good to go. I will be upgrading my scanner soon just for the dust and scratch removal though as I spend to long in photoshop popping those out.
Click to expand...

Agfa Vista 200 isn't everyones cup of tea but I choose to shoot with it often, keeps things cheap and as has been said it converts well to mono

8729119396_dc3b73d11d.jpg
 
I looked in our local poundland and couldn't find any- what section is it normally in?
 
I don't ever shoot Poundshop film.

You never know what you're gonna get..
 
freecom2 said:
That seems to be the general prevailing belief, indeed.

Vista still works out cheaper than the amount you are paying for ColorPlus/C200, so pop down to a Poundland if you can.
Click to expand...

Its definitely C200, if you run the barcode number on Agfa Vista+ 200 through the I3A's list of 35mm film types (the barcode is so that processing machinery can apply the correct colour profile for the film) the code is identical to that of C200.

In case anyone is interested in how to identify a film in this way, first go to http://www.imageaircraft.com.au/DXsim/ and put in the number beneath the barcode on the 35mm film cartridge (below where the film comes out), it will then generate a DX Number 1 and a DX number 2, you can then look these up on the list by the I3A (who standardise some photo standards) where it will tell you the film type.

The I3A list no longer seems to be on their site (the old site has completely gone) but I have a copy of it saved so if any of you want it then just send me a PM. Using this for instance I've been able to identify an obscure '400 ISO New York Photo' film that was in a camera I brought as 'Ferrania Imaging Color FG400' so it can be a useful way if you really don't know what a film is.
 
chrisfowler said:
I looked in our local poundland and couldn't find any- what section is it normally in?
Click to expand...

It varies in one branch I use it is in with the toiletries, in the other it is with the DVDs. Best to ask the assistants. As mentioned it isn't every ones cup of tea but give it a go yourself would be my recommendation and come to your own conclusion.
 
When I lived in Nottingham recently the only Poundland that stocked it kept switching where they put it, one time it was upstairs with tools etc and the other time it was in the middle of the garden section!
 
I think poundland might have stopped doing it for the time being.
Both shops in Hudds have not had it for about a month now and my wife has looked in Leeds as well no joy.

Its a good film for general shooting I don't get to hung up on film quality unless thats what I am really looking for. The great thing for me about putting cheap film in a good 35mm camera is you get the look and feel of the 80s but in focus, win, win. :LOL:
 
There's plenty in the Southampton branch of Poundland, though I wouldn't be surprised if they're running down stock given that it's mainly the people on this forum who're buying it.
 
chrisfowler said:
I looked in our local poundland and couldn't find any- what section is it normally in?
Click to expand...

In the 10 or so Poundlands I have visited, it is almost always never where you'd think it is - I always look where the blank media is (DVDs, CDs etc.), and it is never there. I find it tends to be next to computer accessories, always on a shelf near the floor, never hanging. One store kept it behind the till (hidden away) - no idea why, since nothing in a Poundland has more value than anything else on show, but they were happy to bring it out when asked.

joxby said:
I don't ever shoot Poundshop film.

You never know what you're gonna get..
Click to expand...

I hope this is sarcasm - because current Poundshop film is made by Fuji, and the previous emulsion used to be made by Kodak. It's going to be made in the same coating plants, same factories as the pro films. You know exactly what you are going to get.
 
Mr Bump said:
I think poundland might have stopped doing it for the time being.
Both shops in Hudds have not had it for about a month now and my wife has looked in Leeds as well no joy.
Click to expand...

Me and The Hooley found a very decent stock in the new Poundland in Leeds on Briggate the other week so they're definitely still doing it, stock does seem to vary though!
 
PMN said:
Me and The Hooley found a very decent stock in the new Poundland in Leeds on Briggate the other week so they're definitely still doing it, stock does seem to vary though!
Click to expand...

All of the Leeds ones have had a decent stock when I've been in over the last couple of weeks.
 
My local Poundland has restocked with Vista in the last week or so. Only rolls of 24 though & no 36's like before.
 
humm me and squeaky will try Leeds maybe today I want of grab a bag of them there beans.
 
Picked up a few rolls in Norwich yesterday, not a great amount of stock there, displayed along side smokers accessories!! Go figure?
 
Strappy said:
You've got a fair idea of how much it's going to cost too. ;)
Click to expand...
I must be the only person who has walked into a Poundshop and walked straight out again as nothing was priced up :nuts:
 
wickerman said:
I must be the only person who has walked into a Poundshop and walked straight out again as nothing was priced up :nuts:
Click to expand...

I take great pleasure in asking staff how much some things are.
I'm told the one in Exeter has loads, which is a surprise
 
freecom2 said:
This is a mix of scanning, oversharpening and underexposure.

Where are you getting these developed and scanned?

The "grain" appearance is exaggerated because of overzealous sharpening - none of these shots needed sharpening most probably, but most automatic settings (especially with most minilab machines) will liberally apply it. For what it's worth, I can see a similar amounts of grain in the first picture, especially in areas of detail (for instance, in the criss-cross of the fence on the left), it's just not so apparent because there isn't blocks of single tones/colours, such as the sky in the last picture.

Incorrect exposure also exaggerates grain, and the scanner will try and compensate to create a correct exposure - which also exaggerates the grain further.
Click to expand...

That's about it :shrug:
But you can get very good results with C200 and Colorplus with a decent lens, no camera shake and correct exposed neg......although film has excellent latitude it does like the exposure to be correct for the subject, now that's the tricky part to master and goes for any type of camera user.
 
excalibur2 said:
That's about it :shrug:
But you can get very good results with C200 and Colorplus with a decent lens, no camera shake and correct exposed neg......although film has excellent latitude it does like the exposure to be correct for the subject, now that's the tricky part to master and goes for any type of camera user.
Click to expand...

Well, I can't speak specifically for Colorplus or C200, but I don't think there's a 'correct' exposure for any subject with any film. Certainly there could be subjectively better or worse exposures given your personal intention with the subject, but not a universally accepted one.
 
skysh4rk said:
Well, I can't speak specifically for Colorplus or C200, but I don't think there's a 'correct' exposure for any subject with any film. Certainly there could be subjectively better or worse exposures given your personal intention with the subject, but not a universally accepted one.
Click to expand...

Well any subjects that are about "Kodak grey" must be correctly exposed :shrug: Kodak made the rules and camera companies set their exposure meters to it.
 
excalibur2 said:
Well any subjects that are about "Kodak grey" must be correctly exposed :shrug: Kodak made the rules and camera companies set their exposure meters to it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but people expose for the shadows all the time with colour negative film, so are therefore technically overexposing the film, with great results.

excalibur2 said:
although film has excellent latitude it does like the exposure to be correct for the subject
Click to expand...

If the film has lots of latitude, how can there be only one 'correct' exposure? Exposure latitude is the extent to which film can be overexposed or underexposed and still achieve good results.

That said, I agree that the meters on many cameras themselves might be calibrated for achieving a 'correct' (or, perhaps, an ideal) exposure based on Kodak's standards.
 
***If the film has lots of latitude, how can there be only one 'correct' exposure? Exposure latitude is the extent to which film can be overexposed or underexposed and still achieve good results.***

Similar comparison would be depth of field as the lens focuses at one point for ideal focus and all the rest is acceptable to a limit...

Well I'm not very good at explaining things so here is Kodak's take on exposure:-
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/products/techInfo/af9/
 
excalibur2 said:
***If the film has lots of latitude, how can there be only one 'correct' exposure? Exposure latitude is the extent to which film can be overexposed or underexposed and still achieve good results.***

Similar comparison would be depth of field as the lens focuses at one point for ideal focus and all the rest is acceptable to a limit...

Well I'm not very good at explaining things so here is Kodak's take on exposure:-
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/products/techInfo/af9/
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying, but I don't think that the focus analogy quite works because the plane of focus is definite and completely objective (although what is acceptably sharp beyond that plane is subjective and dependent upon a number of factors like print size, viewing distance, etc.), whereas the look of a photo is completely subjective.

Kodak's publications will only be referring to technical details and not what actually looks best to your eyes for the look you are trying to achieve in any given photograph. If there were a single correct exposure for films, would folks still be trying all sorts of different exposures, chemicals, filters, films, developing times, etc. to get look they want?
 
skysh4rk said:
I get what you're saying, but I don't think that the focus analogy quite works because the plane of focus is definite and completely objective (although what is acceptably sharp beyond that plane is subjective and dependent upon a number of factors like print size, viewing distance, etc.), whereas the look of a photo is completely subjective.
Click to expand...

Well it does if in the depth of field there are subjects in shadow, whites and blacks etc that the exposure tolerance of the film has to cater for.

skysh4rk said:
Kodak's publications will only be referring to technical details and not what actually looks best to your eyes for the look you are trying to achieve in any given photograph. If there were a single correct exposure for films, would folks still be trying all sorts of different exposures, chemicals, filters, films, developing times, etc. to get look they want?
Click to expand...

Of course you can experiment but a good start is knowing the correct exposure (or maybe the words should be "best exposure") for the subject whether it's a shot of the moon or a black cat.....you have to start somewhere unless every shot you take you bracket and pick the best one erm sorta like the digital guys :LOL:

Just to add:- Kodak have said that the correct exposure gives the best quality on film, if you deliberately under or over expose then you can come across more grain problems depending on the degree of exposure esp now we are using scanners.
 
Last edited:
excalibur2 said:
Of course you can experiment but a good start is knowing the correct exposure (or maybe the words should be "best exposure") for the subject whether it's a shot of the moon or a black cat.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think we're probably discussing semantics here more than anything else (i.e., correct vs best).

I agree that there's probably a technically correct/best/ideal exposure based on the specifications of the film with regard to grain and other properties. I guess my only reservation is that this exposure isn't necessarily always the right one aesthetically, which is why I'm not keen on the word 'correct', but I hear what you're saying. :)
 
I honestly had no idea what interesting reading this would be when I posted the first question!

So I suppose no one has really answered the key question - is one of these two films superior to the other? Of course disregarding the person controlling the camera/exposure :D
 
chrisfowler said:
I honestly had no idea what interesting reading this would be when I posted the first question!

So I suppose no one has really answered the key question - is one of these two films superior to the other? Of course disregarding the person controlling the camera/exposure :D
Click to expand...

Is one superior to another? Only if one gets you closer to the look that you are trying to achieve, I would argue.

These two films are probably quite evenly matched, but I don't think that there is ever a perfectly objective answer for such a question.

Are you looking for finer grain? Better skin tones? Saturated colours? Value for money?

Using one of the Kodak Portra films would get you tighter grain and better skin tones than either of these films, but at the cost of greater expense. You ultimately have to decide what's most important for you.
 
chrisfowler said:
So I suppose no one has really answered the key question - is one of these two films superior to the other? Of course disregarding the person controlling the camera/exposure :D
Click to expand...

:LOL: Ah well I suppose no one has actually bothered to do a non scientific field test comparing the two as they are at the bottom of the range from Kodak and Fuji. But on the right subject you can get very good results from either of them, but have noticed on sky shots compared to a better film they look more grainy and on quite a few shots the colours look "cheap" and "old fashioned" compared also to a better film, for example:- comparing C200 (or Agfa Vista) to Fuji Superia 200 or Colorplus to Kodak gold.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top