Whats your favorite 'consumer' film?
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).
"People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.
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.
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, 135/3.5 QC
- My flickr stream
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.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
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.
Last edited by 2F/2F; 02-27-2009 at 08:21 AM. Click to view previous post history.
"Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."
- Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)
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.
Jim MacKenzie - Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
A bunch of Nikons; Feds, Zorkis and a Kiev; Pentax 67-II (inherited from my deceased father-in-law); Bronica SQ-A; and a nice Shen Hao 4x5 field camera with 3 decent lenses that needs to be taken outside more. Oh, and as of mid-2012, one of those bodies we don't talk about here.
Favourite film: do I need to pick only one?
I like Fujicolor Superia XTRA 400 but my normal stockist have run out so am going to try some Kodak Portra NC 400.