Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '35mm Cameras and Accessories' started by darinwc, Feb 27, 2009.
I must say that I like Kodak Gold 200.
Whats do you like?
That's a coincidence. That's my answer too. I was thinking Gold 200 as I was opening this thread (and before I saw your post).
I don't do much colour but it did use some Gold 200 a few months ago just to test a camera. I was pleasantly surprised with the results (in my gallery).
Fujicolor Superia XTRA 400. Tight grain for a 400 ISO film, good color rendition, and saturation level. Not Velvia super-saturated colors, but very life-like, in my experience, at least, in daylight. Indoors, with tungsten light, it can go greenish yellow.
I prefer the various Fuji color negative films. They seem to work best for me.
Kodak Gold 200 is a close second if I can't get Fuji.
Kodak Extachrome 100 and 200, but now mesing with black and white so looking to find what I like.
Kodak Gold 200 or 100. Both are just fine. The equivalent Superia is not bad either, but Gold is my preference, based on the color palette. IMHO Superia is a bit colder and gives somewhat strange greens, while Gold gives warmish/neutral tones. Of course, my observations are based on prints I get from minilabs, but given the big sample from various labs that's probably true.
Fuji Superia is great stuff. I do get it in the press package, though, so it is *technically* a pro film that way, even though the emulsion is the same as the consumer stuff. My fave is the 800, because it covers almost any situation, and gives fast shutter speeds and wide depth of field. I also think it has very natural and pleasing color and contrast, whilst remaining sharp and free of obtrusive grain.
I imagine that Kodak's line is perfectly comparable.
I general use Fuji Superia Xtra 400. It's cheap and it is available close by.
Fuji Superia 200, with 100 and 400 a close second.
I find Superia to be the best colour negative film if it's printed on Fuji paper, which is what both labs I'm inclined to use happen to use. If the labs I use printed on Kodak paper, I might well prefer the Kodak Gold films.
It doesn't hurt that I can get the Superia films for less money though, which boggles the mind as one would think that shipping from Rochester, NY to Regina, SK would be cheaper than from Tokyo.
I like Fujicolor Superia XTRA 400 but my normal stockist have run out so am going to try some Kodak Portra NC 400.
Whatever film I happen to be consuming at the time.
No seriously I lean towards the fuji myself but haven't shot color in a long time. Most of my color tends to be slide and I don't buy "consumer" on that stuff.
One word - Walmart. Have you noticed? All the Walmart one hour machines I've seen are Fuji. Fuji C-41 films you buy in four or five packs in Walmart have a printed message on the cartridge reminding you "Return to Walmart for Processing." And the roll of 120 Velvia I dropped at Walmart for processing is going to Fujicolor USA.
Can we all say "special relationship" between the world's largest retailer and what I suspect is becoming the world's largest remaining film manufacturer.
My favorite "consumer" films - Fuji 200/400 - because I always get them at Walmart (24/7 if its a super Walmart) if I run out of my "pro" emulsions on the road.
Tri-X. Hey, I can still find it some of the local drug stores, so it must be a consumer film, right? It's been a long time since I've seen plus-x there, though. Admittedly, I don't actually buy it in the drug store, since I bulk load my b&w, but if I had to...
Fuji Superia 200, I've used it since it's release.
Well what's wrong with these greens from Supera 200........Konica C35, neg scanned with Epson 2480.
I've bought 100 rolls of supera 200 off the bay, works out about 32p each, just out of date..........Mind you I like Kodak gold 200 as well and look for it at boot sales for 10 or 20p.
I think the Superia 200 is a great all-round film. Fast enough for most low light and nice grain. But what I really like is the color palette.
the greens at the photo you posted are fine! But it's a scan of a negative viewed at a monitor. It's not a print and far too many variables involved. The comment I made earlier was based on my experience from prints that others have made for me, but not from just 2-3 labs. Somehow, whenever I get these greens from Mars they're almost always from a superia. I don't know, Gold could be more "foolproof"?
The recent unwinding of the yen carry trade may change that a bit, wit the yen now being 20-30% more expensive relative to the dollar than it was a few months ago.
Fuji REALA (iso 100).....
I was wondering who the first person would be to say that
Most consumer films are very very good. Just because consumers are so bad at photography and their cameras aren't worth their weight in dung doesn't mean the films don't use the same modern technologies pro films do. In a way I like them better especially for portraits because you'll get nice well colored, not over-saturated images which work well with skin tones.
I like Fuji Superia 200. It's not expensive and has tight grain that looks better when I print in the darkroom than when scanned .
Kodak Ultra Max 400. I shoot a lot of it when I'm on the road - when I run short I can almost always find an extra roll or two of 36 exposure at the local CVS. Back home I use a fair amount of Portra 400NC instead.
Another vote for Gold 200. (though I shoot almost no color)