I like CR200. I hadn't heard of the batch variations, that's an interesting thought. In my experience, it is quite yellow, and quite grainy. I shoot it at ASA 200, which seems right to me (?). But then, I shoot Velvia 100 at ASA 125.
Here are some excerpts from the data sheet, which can be found at maco-photo.de:
Here's a photo I took last summer. This is a crappy scan of a homemade interneg made from the original slide, so you can make of that what you will. To my eyes, the original slide is even yellower, but not as contrasty. Since the film is roughly half the cost of the next cheapest slide film currently available anywhere, I'd suggest just trying the stuff! It comes as a 2-pack in a really cool double cassette holder.
:Aviphot Chrome 200 PE1 is a panchromatic colour reversal film for aerial photography from low to medium altitude (15,000 ft or approx. 5,000 m).
:Aviphot Chrome 200 PE1 is designed for making aerial photographs in different types of cameras.
The film is used for the interpretation of aerial photographs, in photogrammetry, for reconnaissance
This film is particularly suitable for mapping and oblique photography. Since the images can be
used directly in plotting equipment, copying is superfluous.
The sensitivity of the film is 200 ASA. It can be exposed in all classical cameras. Exposure depends
on the light reflected by the earth, the altitude and flying speed of the aircraft and processing
conditions (pushed or not).
0954NEG0016 by LJ Slater, on Flickr
Interested in shooting Rollei Digibase CR200
I wonder if the yellow cast is an intentional result of the intended use? As a private pilot I fly at altitudes well below 15k feet and when I shoot digital from altitude the results are always blue, albeit easily corrected later. I attribute this to extra blue and UV scattering from haze (I could post examples but I've not shot film from altitude only digital.) A yellow cast might correct for that and look more natural without filtration or later manipulation.
As I promised back in post #2, I got out the projector and projected these to see how they would look. Here's one of the images. I included the screen because it was throwing off the white balance of the photo even though I'd set the camera's white balance to "Tungsten." All the detail is there in the projection, but again I shot this with the lights on so the camera wouldn't totally auto-adjust away all the yellow, so you don't see it all. I was only looking to compare color casts. I ended up adding some yellow back in because the camera still auto-adjusted too much of it out. This isn't exactly how it looked on the screen, but it's pretty close.
I like this film. I do think that the film would benefit from an 82B, possibly an 82C filter, which unfortunately takes away some of the speed gains with this film being rated 200. I also think that this film is more of a 160 speed film than a 200 speed film, so will try some shots at 160 next time to see how they look.
If you want a neutral film that you can shoot at ISO 200, I would say you have two choices:
- Shoot Provia at ISO 200 and push process 1 stop.
- Experiment with this film and a Wratten 82 series filter (there are four - 82, 82A, 82B, 82C, going from lightest to darkest blue). You will lose some speed with the filter, but can gain it back with push processing.
This film definitely has a 70's look to it (not necessarily a bad thing!), and if you like what you've seen in this thread, by all means use this film. If you shoot and scan, the yellow cast is easily adjusted away in your favorite software, so if you scan don't let the yellow color cast stop you!
Shoot more film.
There are eight ways to put a slide into a projector tray. Seven of them are wrong.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
In aerial surveying filters are used if necessary.
Originally Posted by Roger Cole
Furthermore one could ask which film was first, the consumer or the aerial, or are both emulsions different?
You're correct, from my understanding. This concurs with what AgX and others have told me in other threads. I'm somewhat fascinated by this film; whose idea was it to keep making it? Do most users cross-process the stuff, so they're oblivious to the weird colors when processed normally? Why are the descriptions of the film by various vendors so hilariously misleading?
Originally Posted by Roger Cole
I guess it's just bizarre to me that it's still being made when other, "better" films are long gone. Not that I don't like Digibase; I love it. Just wondering out loud.
The aerial film department at Agfa...
Originally Posted by LJSLATER
I understand. But is there really a demand for aerial film? I'm not being confrontational, I'm genuinely curious. It seems to me that most Digibase users are so-called Lomographers that simply like "wild colors, bro".
Originally Posted by AgX
As with nearly all other fields the sale in aerial film is shrinking. Nevertheless Agfa recently advocated the advantage of film vs. digital in that field.
Agfa typically do not have consumers on their mind. Those Digibase conversions are an idea of another company.
Last edited by AgX; 01-13-2013 at 12:13 AM. Click to view previous post history.