Originally Posted by Alpenhause
I think I will try this Cr-200 again but have a different lab process it in their E-6, my local lab of 30 years In Ventura, California retired their E-6 machine last year and is "farming out" E-6 to a lab in Santa Barbara, I think I will try the pro lab in Simi Valley or L.A. might also give Dwayne's In Kansas a try, they were the last Kodachrome lab in the world but still seem to take pride in their E-6 processing.
Some Agfa films are highly intolerent to careless processing, the extinct Agfa Ultra 100 is very intolerant but Agfa Vista from Germany is not, Kodak Ektar is intolerant too.
I think I will buy a two roll pack, cut it into 4 rolls and then send them to 4 different labs and see how it works out.
The two rolls I tried earlier turned out with sick yellow green skies and had lots and lots of yellow, not even what you would want to keep, downright disgusting looking.
I will scan some slides so that everyone can see what I am on about.
Here are scans of the "Yellow" CR-200 shot in Joshua Tree National Park, I don't know how to use this stupid ass scanner of mine but you get the idea, they are unsharp scans
are the slides "thin" or on the dense side -
from what i have read, this film has a different look depending on
if it is over or under exposed.
It might just be the scan, but those slides look underexposed to me. I think the color balance of this film is more neutral, and certainly the grain appears much less pronounced, with a little bit of overexposure. Are the slides, seen in person, on the underexposed side?
San Diego, CA, USA
Although the moon is smaller than the earth, they are about the same distance apart.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I would say the slides look properly exposed, I do have some over and under and they still look quite yellow.
There are some shots taken at after sunset and they look good, it is the ones in broad daylight that stink.
I am using a cheap scanner and it has been a tough uphill battle to get the scans to look representative of the originals.
Out of all the research time spent on this film it looks like a Pain in the ass, the intolerance to flakey processing and the weird color rendition certainly does not engender much faith in this film, stocking up on Ektachrome 100VS and Velvia is a better idea.
I will try "Cross Processing" the CN-200 in E-6 and see how that works out.
I am excited that a small manufacturer offers this film and the price is reasonable for hobbyists. My next film purchase will be some CR200 and some CN200.
I'm hoping to get a 'Ferrania' look.
A Wratten 82A or 82B filter will tame the yellow cast. I'm not sure which one, I haven't bought one to try out yet, but was playing around with some slides I shot on the CR200 in GIMP with a color temperature changing filter I found and it seemed like 82B would be more likely to fix the yellow. 82A absorbs 1/3 stop and 82B absorbs 2/3 stop.
Shoot more film.
There are eight ways to put a slide into a projector tray. Seven of them are wrong.
Some of my all-time favorite shots were made with CR-200, and I always make sure I have some on hand. But it is certainly not for everyone. I would even go as far as to call the film bizarre. And if you ask me, it's stranger still that it's somehow managed to survive this long despite its strong yellow cast, highly visible grain, and unconventional polyester base. On top of that, the descriptions of the film by the vendors that sell it are erroneous at best.
We've discussed CR200 film at length here on APUG. AgX is the expert in Germany and BMbikerider has tweaked his own processing to rid the film of its yellow color.
Regarding professional E6 labs in California, I was devoted to A&I for years (terrible customer service, perfectly processed film), but when they stopped E6, I switched to Data-Chrome at Daniel Stone's recommendation. Their results are even better than A&I's, plus they are faster, more reasonably priced, and downright friendly to their customers!