Drug store ISO100 film?

[Hamster]

It seems that these days the cheap drug store 100ISO colour print film had all but disappeared, being replaced by 200ISO and 400ISO.

What is the rational behind that? Is it because the quality difference between ISO100 and 200 film are no longer significant?

[StorminMatt]

It seems that these days the cheap drug store 100ISO colour print film had all but disappeared, being replaced by 200ISO and 400ISO.

What is the rational behind that? Is it because the quality difference between ISO100 and 200 film are no longer significant?

ISO200 and ISO400 film have both gotten better. But so has ISO100 film. Quality, however, is NOT the reason why ISO100 film has disappeared. Rather, it has to do with decreasing sales volume. These days, the few people who actually DO buy film at drugstores are simply folks who want to shoot pictures of their kids blowing out birthday candles (and other such snapshots). These types of people care more about having a versatile film that can be used in varying light conditions than they do about ultimate quality. And higher ISO film just suits their purpose better.

[Christopher Walrath]

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry9000/4.6.0.167 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/102 UP.Link/6.3.0.0.0)

The real reason is that drug store 200 is really drug store 400 with a ISO200 DX code on the cannister. You can't pull it two stops and get decent results. Hence, no drug store 400 with an ISO100 DX code on it. Also the reason they sell '800'. It's all ISO 400.

[markbarendt]

I have to say that I settled on 400 as my speed of choice because it fits the subjects I shoot and my style of shooting.

Slower EI's IMO tend to negatively impact final quality and my keep ratio when the subjects are prone to movement.

[railwayman3]

The real reason is that drug store 200 is really drug store 400 with a ISO200 DX code on the cannister. You can't pull it two stops and get decent results. Hence, no drug store 400 with an ISO100 DX code on it. Also the reason they sell '800'. It's all ISO 400.

Interesting bit of information....not doubting, but do you have any confirmation of that?
I've always found drug store 100ASA acceptable for everyday "family and holiday" shooting , and thought that the 200ASA was no improvement...lower quality with only 1-stop extra speed, meaning that 400ASA is a much better compromise when speed is needed.
And the 800ASA consumer films (remember "Kodak Zoom" :rolleyes alwayslooked underexposed at the box speed.
That would all agree with your explanation!

[Hamster]

The real reason is that drug store 200 is really drug store 400 with a ISO200 DX code on the cannister. You can't pull it two stops and get decent results. Hence, no drug store 400 with an ISO100 DX code on it. Also the reason they sell '800'. It's all ISO 400.

Oh that is not nice.

Any idea which film I should for if I want to do long exposure night photography on 135 film? ISO400 is probably not the best thing and it seems even the "pro" should only stock Portra 160 as their slowest print film.

[BetterSense]

Consumer 200 films like Superia are pretty good as it is. I just don't see why there would be demand for 100. I always use 400 or 800 because point-and-shoots usually have slow lenses. I think that Superia 800 is not quite 800 however.

[PhotoJim]

I buy bricks of Superia 100, 200 and 400 from B&H or Adorama every few months because these films are so good, and I can get 36-exposure rolls for around $2 a roll. (I have tons of bodies so there is little need for me to use shorter rolls.) Thus, I end up rarely buying "drugstore" films although it is nice to have access to them in a pinch.

Superia 100 is a fantastic film and well worth the $2 a roll if you truly want an ISO 100 film.

I may be one of those min/maxers that wants to maximize my advantage but I tend to shoot the slowest film that will get me the results I want, and with the lenses I have, ISO 100 is often enough. If it isn't, out comes a roll of 200 or 400 or even 800 in a pinch. But I spend a good portion of my photographic life at ISO 100-125.

[tiberiustibz]

Because consumer point and shoots are designed to shoot 400 ASA film. 100 is still better.

Why? I have printed Ektar 100 in 35mm size using a real enlarger at 11x14 without grain. None. Invisible. It's better. That does not happen with Gold 400.

[dmr]

The real reason is that drug store 200 is really drug store 400 with a ISO200 DX code on the cannister. You can't pull it two stops and get decent results. Hence, no drug store 400 with an ISO100 DX code on it. Also the reason they sell '800'. It's all ISO 400.

HUH???????

I may disagree with this, particularly for Walgreens rebranded Fuji films.

When Walgreens first changed from Agfa to Fuji for their Studio 35 film, I carefully inspected the negatives from the 200 and 400 and found them to be the genuine Fuji 200 and 400 films in the guise of Walgreens brand.

Later I did the same for a roll of their 800. It was, indeed, genuine Fuji 800.

I can also say quite authoritatively that the old Walgreens/Agfa 200, 400, and 800 were all different products.