200 Speed film - why do most people use 400 and is it useable

[brainmonster]

It seems like most people use 400 speed film over 200 speed film. I can see the reason, as it will give you better low light pictures than 200 speed film and let you use higher shutter speeds. However, I live in Hawaii and I’m finding some of my beach shots come out really grainy, and I’m trying to achieve better bright light photos. Using Ultramax, some of the bright shots look absolutely terrible even at 1/2000 shutter speed and I thought that this type of film was supposed to allow for exposure latitude.

Also using Ultramax, I’m finding it too grainy for large prints (11x14) and wondering if Gold 200 or Portra 160 will have finer film grain and help me achieve some beautiful noon shots and better print quality.

I also have a roll of Ektar 100, will this require a huge amount of light or how does it compare to sunny days vs Portra 160.

And, why is Portra 400 more expensive than 160 and Ektar?

From what I’ve read, 200 speed film used to be “standard consumer grade” but no longer - in most big box stores, 200 film is sold here in Hawaii, I’m not sure if that’s because it’s bright and sunny here.

After looking at some daytime Portra 400 shots on reddit, I’m not that impressed with some of the daytime shots, it seems like the grain is somewhat enlarged and some scenes just do not look as good as the low light 400 photos I’ve seen. I’m wondering if more people should try Portra 160.

My two cameras are a Minolta 70, and IQZoom 160 (P&S). Both have flash built in, and my point and shoot has automatic flash. It also has a low maximum shutter speed, something like 1/400 but also a high maximum aperture of F4.5, so I’m wondering if using 200 speed film would be better to achieve better bright light photos, plus just using the flash indoors for the P&S which would need flash even with 400 speed film.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

The ISO rating works such that 400 film is twice as sensitive as 200 film, and 200 film is twice as sensitive as 100 film. It just so happens that shutter speeds listed on cameras and aperture stops work this way as well. The difference between, say, 1/125 and 1/60 is that 1/60 lets in twice as much light. And the difference between f8 and f5.6 is that f5.6 lets in twice as much light. So, if you were originally shooting a scene at 1/500 and f16 with a 400 ISO film you would have to either change your settings to 1/125 and f16 or 1/500 and f8. This may make it a bit easier for you conceptualize the difference between the films.

It is quite hard to get nice looking noon time shots -- this may be your problem more so than any film can correct for. If the light doesn't look good then a faithful reproduction of it by the film won't look good.

 

[cmacd123]

Colour Negative film used to be about ASA 80. and went to 100 when Kodacolor II came out. the latitude on Colour negative is almost always towards over exposure, so the makers switched offering 200 ASA film for consumer cameras (which were designed to expose 80 film)

advanced camera users were used to using 100 or 400 - 400 was a bit grainy so many folks only used it when they needed the speed. the 400 got better, and the difference was not as high. 100 speed was not in demand and so it was stocked in fewer places.

 

[BAC1967]

For fine grain color I prefer to shoot Ektar 100 in sunny conditions. Another option is Ektachrome 100 or Provia 100 if you don't mind shooting slide film. You will loose some latitude with slide film but it is very fine grain. The shot below is Ektar 100 at f/16 and 1/100. I tend to shoot much more slow film in the ISO 25 to 100 range. I only use faster film, ISO 400 and up, for low light conditions.

Lifeguard Tower by Bryan Chernick, on Flickr

 

[macfred]

For fine grain color I prefer to shoot Ektar 100 in sunny conditions ...

Same here !

FUJI GA645Wi - EBC Fujinon f/4 45mm - Ektar

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

ISO 200 films still exist- though most are black and white.
I say try your Gold 200 and your ektar, and maybe even portra 160 & 400, plus pro image 100 if you can to see what you think.

You don't mention fujicolor, but I'm assuming you prefer Kodak's color balance.

 

[macfred]

... You don't mention fujicolor, but I'm assuming you prefer Kodak's color balance.

Fuji Pro 160NS is / was another nice film for portrait work in sunny conditions (Pro 160NS was stated as being discontinued by retailers in Germany).
I have a few in the freeze and I like it. And yes, the color balance is not like Kodak's Portra 160.

FUJI GA645 - EBC Fujinon f/4 60mm - FUJI Pro 160NS

 

[BrianShaw]

400... Not me. I use 200 and below unless shooting in dark.

 

[macfred]

On the beach ⛱ with Portra 400 (120) - not too much grain here ... For less DoF you could use ND filters.

Rolleiflex 3.5F - Planar - Portra 400

 

[warden]

I'd recommend trying the Ektar that you already have. You'll be impressed with the lack of grain. Also get some Portra 160 for a different color palette. Have fun!

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

Fuji Pro 160NS is / was another nice film for portrait work in sunny conditions (Pro 160NS was stated as being discontinued by retailers in Germany).
I have a few in the freeze and I like it. And yes, the color balance is not like Kodak's Portra 160.

View attachment 231661
FUJI GA645 - EBC Fujinon f/4 60mm - FUJI Pro 160NS

I've got a few frozen kept nps 160s- very nice indeed, and would be a go to film for me if it were readily available in the states
Lot I- from a fellow photographer- had two rolls, tested one

Lot II- Five rolls off ebay. test once again

Got to love those blues, greens and reds. Wish there were more professional fuji colors available (as I don't like using 400 speed in daylight- unless it's lomochrome)

 

[Sirius Glass]

ISO 400 allows smaller f/stops and using the Zone System better shadow details.

Do not trust what you see on the internet since you do not know how well it was scanned or what dumb things were done before posting.

And, why is Portra 400 more expensive than 160 and Ektar? Because it is better.

 

[BrianShaw]

Huh?

 

[macfred]

I don't do dumb things before posting my photographs ...
--
Portra 400 is just a film for other needs (than Ektar or Portra 160).

 

[BradS]

I like Kodak max 400 in the programmed auto-exposure, auto-focus, plastic fantastic point-n-shoot but won’t use it otherwise. The colors are generally too lurid for my taste. I’ve not noticed the grain though.

I liked Fuji reala but it’s long gone so have been using Fuji color Superia 200 and occasionally 400. It used to be available at Wally mart for cheap but not so any more.

I’m thinking I’ll try Kodak color plus when times comes to restock the color print film.

Finally, if you’re getting objectionable grain from either of the big name (Kodak and Fuji) color print films, you or more likely, the lab doing the processing is doing something wrong. Try a different lab. I have recent examples of the difference a lab can make in my flickr stream. Check the tags...there are examples of same film, different lab and big difference in the look. Mike’s has a Fuji frontier and swan uses noritsu machines. The stuff from the noritsu looks shitty.

 

[Wallendo]

For the sunny parts of Hawai'i, I would use Ektar. If you find that too saturated, try Portra 160. The last time I was in Hawai'i, I got good results from Fuji Superia 100 and 200. Unfortunately both have been discontinued (it's been a while since i've been there).

For midday at the beach, try using a polarizing filter. I find these filters very useful around water.

 

[Cholentpot]

I currently shoot 200 because I picked up 7 packs of the stuff from Walgreens around town.

Happy hunting!

 

[brainmonster]

All images on Ultramax 400. I scanned this image at 4800 DPI recently and had it printed at 11x14 and it looks kinda blurry close up. Not sure if I didn't clean the negative properly before printing, but you can't see the grain much, just blur close up:

Here's an image that turned out pretty well. I didn't print it but it seems like almost the same lifeguard house as BAC1967 posted!

Here are the worst examples that I have, I'm guessing they somehow got hideously overexposed somehow. What happened here?:

 

[Adrian Bacon]

It seems like most people use 400 speed film over 200 speed film. I can see the reason, as it will give you better low light pictures than 200 speed film and let you use higher shutter speeds. However, I live in Hawaii and I’m finding some of my beach shots come out really grainy, and I’m trying to achieve better bright light photos. Using Ultramax, some of the bright shots look absolutely terrible even at 1/2000 shutter speed and I thought that this type of film was supposed to allow for exposure latitude.

Also using Ultramax, I’m finding it too grainy for large prints (11x14) and wondering if Gold 200 or Portra 160 will have finer film grain and help me achieve some beautiful noon shots and better print quality.

I also have a roll of Ektar 100, will this require a huge amount of light or how does it compare to sunny days vs Portra 160.

And, why is Portra 400 more expensive than 160 and Ektar?

From what I’ve read, 200 speed film used to be “standard consumer grade” but no longer - in most big box stores, 200 film is sold here in Hawaii, I’m not sure if that’s because it’s bright and sunny here.

After looking at some daytime Portra 400 shots on reddit, I’m not that impressed with some of the daytime shots, it seems like the grain is somewhat enlarged and some scenes just do not look as good as the low light 400 photos I’ve seen. I’m wondering if more people should try Portra 160.

My two cameras are a Minolta 70, and IQZoom 160 (P&S). Both have flash built in, and my point and shoot has automatic flash. It also has a low maximum shutter speed, something like 1/400 but also a high maximum aperture of F4.5, so I’m wondering if using 200 speed film would be better to achieve better bright light photos, plus just using the flash indoors for the P&S which would need flash even with 400 speed film.

I personally prefer 200 or even 100 speed film over 400 speed, so I shoot a lot of Kodak Gold 200, I'm trying out Kodak ProImage 100. In Black and White, I shoot a lot of Fomapan 200, though TMAX 400 is shockingly difficult to beat, especially if you soup it in replenished Xtol.

 

[macfred]

....Here are the worst examples that I have, I'm guessing they somehow got hideously overexposed somehow. What happened here? ...

For me this has nothing to do with overeexposing - if so there would be less details in the skies on the b/w one for example. The other shot in color has also no signs for overexposing (but quite the opposite).
It could be interesting though to regard the negatives.
I tend to say it was a lousy lab job done here. And don't store your negatives in the kitten's basket ...

 

[RalphLambrecht]

It seems like most people use 400 speed film over 200 speed film. I can see the reason, as it will give you better low light pictures than 200 speed film and let you use higher shutter speeds. However, I live in Hawaii and I’m finding some of my beach shots come out really grainy, and I’m trying to achieve better bright light photos. Using Ultramax, some of the bright shots look absolutely terrible even at 1/2000 shutter speed and I thought that this type of film was supposed to allow for exposure latitude.

Also using Ultramax, I’m finding it too grainy for large prints (11x14) and wondering if Gold 200 or Portra 160 will have finer film grain and help me achieve some beautiful noon shots and better print quality.

I also have a roll of Ektar 100, will this require a huge amount of light or how does it compare to sunny days vs Portra 160.

And, why is Portra 400 more expensive than 160 and Ektar?

From what I’ve read, 200 speed film used to be “standard consumer grade” but no longer - in most big box stores, 200 film is sold here in Hawaii, I’m not sure if that’s because it’s bright and sunny here.

After looking at some daytime Portra 400 shots on reddit, I’m not that impressed with some of the daytime shots, it seems like the grain is somewhat enlarged and some scenes just do not look as good as the low light 400 photos I’ve seen. I’m wondering if more people should try Portra 160.

My two cameras are a Minolta 70, and IQZoom 160 (P&S). Both have flash built in, and my point and shoot has automatic flash. It also has a low maximum shutter speed, something like 1/400 but also a high maximum aperture of F4.5, so I’m wondering if using 200 speed film would be better to achieve better bright light photos, plus just using the flash indoors for the P&S which would need flash even with 400 speed film.

all B&W films are more forgiving to overexposure than under exposure.For your situation, I'd recommend a ASA 100 film, exposed at EI64, underdeveloped for5%.that will give you good shadow detail and clean highlights

 

[BradS]

Here are the worst examples that I have, I'm guessing they somehow got hideously overexposed somehow. What happened here?

Neither of those are overexposed. Exposure in both seems just about perfect. Something in the processing - either the lab or the scanning. It does not look like a problem with the film.

 

[macfred]

Neither of those are overexposed. Exposure in both seems just about perfect. Something in the processing - either the lab or the scanning. It does not look like a problem with the film.

Endorsed! What about the dark spots on the b/w scan in the upper right section of the frame ? Something wrong on the fixing or washing stage ? The white stuff on the color one is dust ?

 

[jim10219]

The reason I don't use 200 speed film is it doesn't offer that much better speed difference over 400, and the grain isn't that much of a difference either. So I generally stick to 100 or 400. Also, there isn't really a great 200 speed film available, that I know of. At least not a color film.

I always use 100 speed film outside during bright sunlight (unless I'm shooting IR film). I would echo the others and say that Ektar or Portra 160 are your best bets for color negative film. In Hawaii, it's usually pretty sunny there and there's lots of water reflecting the sunlight. Even the cloudy days aren't usually too dark. 100 would be your best bet for most daytime stuff. In the forests, I might go with a 400 speed film, as the can get pretty dense. At night or indoors, I'd look for 800 or higher (if you can find it), or use a flash.

 

[jim10219]

Endorsed! What about the dark spots on the b/w scan in the upper right section of the frame ? Something wrong on the fixing or washing stage ? The white stuff on the color one is dust ?

The dark and white spots are probably dust and junk. The white spots were likely created after the film was exposed, and before development. The dark spots were likely created before the film was exposed. Your camera and/or film cannisters is probably dirty. It could also be the lab you are using. I've never gotten film developed in Hawai'i, but out of all of the camera places I've been to, none of them gave me an impression that they take film developing extremely seriously. So I wouldn't be surprised is the labs themselves weren't the cleanest. Finding a good lab, even here in the mainland, can be difficult, as there's just not as much money in it anymore.