Fujicolor 200 (not Superia) vs Kodak Gold 200
Just wondering what the differences are. Also, what are the differences between Fujicolor 200 (cheaper than Superia) and Superia 200. Thanks.
Well, I've used all 3, but haven't analyzed them intensively. My impression though, is that of the three, the Fujicolor has the coarsest grain, followed by Kodak, and then Superia. Kodak 200 has more muted color than Superia but I think the Fujicolor is about the same as Kodak. If I were to shoot a wedding and had to use one of the three Kodak would be my first choice. I would definitely go with the Superia for outdoor and landscape photos. The Fujicolor I would primarily use for home shots, or for testing cameras.
My opinions are my own. No persons nor animals were injured during the formation of my thoughts. Any resemblance between my thoughts and real thoughts are purely coincidence.
In life you only get one great dog, one great car, and one great woman. Pet the dog. Drive the car. Make love to the woman. Don't mix them up.
I just happen to run a sort of comparison marathon among many films shot under same daylight conditions. These two were there. To me I found the Superia to have more saturated colors than Kodak Gold equivalents. Kodak approximates more to faithful colors. I find the Kodak 200 and 400 to be a little more grainier than their Superia counterparts at 200 and 400 respectively. If you are attracted to saturated colors with more contrast as I am, Fuji Superia may be your choice. If you prefer more natural color renditions, you may lean towards Kodak Gold. When scanned with my Nikon 9000ED, the worst score in my opinion goes to Kodak Ultramax 400. very grainy and colors off with default settings. Kodak Portra 160 is my clear winner if you need outstanding skin color renditions with intense colors, yet not out of reality. it also scans the best, very fine grain. Scanned correctly this picture can pass as a Digital image at low resolutions or an 8x10 print. At last I was dissapointed at my Fuji 400H results. Although the most expensive, I found the colors to be faithful , maybe so much that in my opinion they are more on the dull side.
All these opinions remain nothing but my opinions. Opinions will vary from person to person and equipment to equipment.
Thanks! I've shot both Gold and Fujicolor and I will hopefully be getting them developed on Thursday.
In my opinion neither are worth shooting on for anything but family photos, though I am quite persnickety ...
I have about 20 rolls of gold800 gold400 and gold200 and I use it to cross process as B&W when I want some grainy looking images, I would trade them at. 3 to 1 ratio for B&W film of any type.
~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Of the three, Superia would be my choice. Alas, I haven't seen Superia 200 in years. Here's what Fuji 200 looks like, exposed at ASA 125 for proper exposure...
In comparison, here's Superia 400:
Portra 400VC (discontinued a couple years ago):
Current version of Portra 400:
Now, my current favorite C41 film, since Fuji Pro 160C has been discontinued:
All photos were taken with a 2/3 stop overexposure to avoid too much of a greenish cast. Unfortunately, as seen with the Fuji 200, it didn't help. I am currently running a roll of Fuji Super HQ 200 through my F3HP. Will see if it's any better than the current Fuji 200. The Superia 400 was done with a Nikon F, Portra 400VC and Fuji 200 with an F5, Portra 400 with an F4s, Ektar 100 with an F2AS.
APUG: F2AS x2, F, FM2n, Nikomat FTn
Nikkors: 18-70/3.5-4.5G AF-S DX (f/D200), 20/3.5 UD, 24/2.8 AI, 50/2 AI, 50/1.4 AI, 50/1.4 S, 55/2.8 Micro AIS, 85/1.8 K
- My flickr stream
Off topic, sorry: There's loads in the UK and it may be the cheapest film to buy. I've been wondering if it may be a replacement for Reala.
Originally Posted by John_Nikon_F
John_Nikon_F - having used Fuji 200, I find your example above surprisingly bad....my results for general outdoor shooting have been entirely acceptable (and I am very critical...). That particular scene looks quite contrasty with bright clouds at the back, while the figures in the front look underexposed? Are these scanned from the negs or prints?
(TBH, I don't think that there are any totally "bad" films....my pet "hobby horse" is that 90% of poor results are down to indifferent processing, printing or scanning rather than the film....but I'm not suggesting that's the case here, just interested).
I find my Kodak gold200 looks similar in "bad-ness" as does any other images off if drugstore cheapie film. There are some good images shot on gold's predecessor (probably kodacolor? But the negs are mostly lost and a few in storage since I was 12 at the time I can't remember but I know the prints look spectacular) That I don't/didn't have this issue with at all. So either the labs all got shitty at processing newer cheap films, or the films suck... Haha
Originally Posted by railwayman3
Probably another reason digital won faster, all the non-pro's were so disappointed and got tired of shitty images.
~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
Not that Fuji 200 is the world's greatest film or anything, but the example posted above is pretty bad. I've got lots of Fuji 200 (it's the cheapest film at Wally-world) that I have hand processed and they all look way better than that. Same goes for any version of Kodak Gold - it's perfectly acceptable.
Walmart-type processing has definitely gone way downhill. A poorly calibrated Frontier will make prints that look just awful.
Superia is better and the premium films Kodak and Fuji are still better yet, of course, but you pay for that as well. That being said, Ektar 100 at it's current prices is hardly a bank-breaker and is definitely one of my favorites.
All this has happened before, and all this will happen again.