Colorplus 200

Punker said:

Despite how cheap it is, it's still one of my favorite films. Especially when overexposed one stop.
Pardon the awful scan; it was one of my first.

Chinese Garden by Blurmageddon, on Flickr

Click to expand...

How is this a bad scan? I like it...

B&Wpositive said:

It's basically the current version of Kodak VR 200. Kodak Alaris confirmed this. For anyone in their 30s today, chances are that's what your parents used (Kodak VR 100, 200, 400, or even 1000) to take photos of you when you were little if they used Kodak color negative film. Evidence for the current Lomography color neg. films being the current versions of VR 100 and VR 400 are there, too.

Click to expand...

The question of the OP goes in the direction, just from my feeling, if this film
is a good film to make color shots.

As some other stated it is indeed a cheap
film. So - does this emulsion have a pore quality in general?

A manufacturer as Kodak can't afford to have many paralel produktion lines in
color today.
And they will not have an extra production to cheap films in extra lousy
quality.
Why ? The simple answer is because it is
more affordable to Kodak to have only one production in color in ISO 200 (for
example) and "rate" some as Kodak
Colorplus 200 !
The original film is "Gold200" and sometimes (as Kodak is short in VR200/Colorplus200) you will get
Kodak Gold 200 confectioned as
Colorplus200. Everything clear?

Coming back to the characteristic of
this film : I decided to by 80-120 of cheap VR200 /VR400 in 2008 and they are great.


There was a little diference to Gold 200/400 in 2008 - but the very new today are "SOMETIMES" the same.
Don't ask me why ????

A better Film (in resolution) is Ektar100.
But you can get 6 Colorplus200 to the
price of one Ektar..... (based on my prices
from 2008).

Well - I reale like this emulsion - and thats not very often with me !!!

with regards

It is not of bad quality at all. Of course, it is not on par with Portra and Ektar, but yet for its price it performs nicely. One thing to note here is that it does not seem to be the same as Gold 200. All shots I have taken with Gold 200 have a slight warm bluish but clear look, different to the redish Colorplus 200. I don't think that this was due to metering as I have used my trusty gossen light meter for both.
Long story short, Colorplus is a nice film and the price is just right (1.85 euros where I live).

Huss said:

I've been very disappointed with TheDarkroom. After getting scans with scan lines back multiple times, with no effort to explain or redo, I gave up on them. I have been very happy with northcoastphoto.com and thefindlab.com
I now actually use my local Samys camera in LA to develop my colour film, then I do the rest myself. (Samy's scans suck too)

Click to expand...

I also was not entirely happy with The Darkroom and didn't really like the small scans they provided as their std size. I highly recommend Old School Photo Lab. I been using them and the negatives and scans are superior to TDR. Their turn around time is fast and their image hosting server is fast and convenient. They provide a website to access your scans. There is also Photo Moments app you can download for iOS and Android that you can use to access you scanned images. Friendly and helpful staff always eager to help and resolve any issues. Google the name to find out more info. I highly recommend Old School Photo Lab!

zanxion72 said:

It is not of bad quality at all. Of course, it is not on par with Portra and Ektar, but yet for its price it performs nicely. One thing to note here is that it does not seem to be the same as Gold 200. All shots I have taken with Gold 200 have a slight warm bluish but clear look, different to the redish Colorplus 200. I don't think that this was due to metering as I have used my trusty gossen light meter for both.
Long story short, Colorplus is a nice film and the price is just right (1.85 euros where I live).

Click to expand...

You are right - the emulsions are different. But I have bought some Kodak Colorplus 200 with identical markings compared with older Kodak Gold on the neagative .So my conclusion is Kodak mixed it up.
May be I mixed it up - perhaps ...
But I have no Kodak Gold 200 since 2-3
years in use. The negatives of some Colorplus 200 are the same.
With no diference in color look.
By the time - both are with nice colors

with regards

I've shot it only once, so my experience with the film is limited. But I didn't like it at all. It has somewhat muddy and faded colors as if all your pictures were taken 15 years ago.
Considering the price, it still holds its purpose for shooting at outdoor parties or so. I personally would go for the Gold 200. I think it's comparable to the Fujicolor C200 quality level (which I don't like either, so I would go for either Kodak Gold 200 or Fuji Superia 200 as a cheap film).

kruiwagen said:

I've shot it only once, so my experience with the film is limited. But I didn't like it at all. It has somewhat muddy and faded colors as if all your pictures were taken 15 years ago.

Click to expand...

I've been quite happy with Colorplus for general use (similarly with Fuji C200, which is generally considered to be the same as Agfaphoto Vista). I've been convinced for many years that the quality of the printing/scanning (particularly cheaper lab printing) is as important (or even more important) than the inherent quality of any film.....basically there are really no "bad" films these days from the main manufacturers.

railwayman3 said:

I've been quite happy with Colorplus for general use (similarly with Fuji C200, which is generally considered to be the same as Agfaphoto Vista). I've been convinced for many years that the quality of the printing/scanning (particularly cheaper lab printing) is as important (or even more important) than the inherent quality of any film.....basically there are really no "bad" films these days from the main manufacturers.

Click to expand...

I agree the fact that printing and scanning from cheap labs makes any film look bad. That's why I never print and scan at labs. I only have them developed. I do the scanning myself. And to me, there is quite some difference noticable in the Colorplus vs Gold and C200 vs Superia price range. Of course everything greatly depends on what you are shooting. But for general use; I'd stick to Gold and Superia. I would consider shooting less important stuff with Colorplus and C200 though.

I shot a lot of gold 200 and colorplus. They are not the same thing, anyone who print in the darkroom would agree with me; different filtration needed, different colour palette

I prefer Colorplus and C200 (AKA AgfaPhoto Vista 200)....mostly because I prefer natural colours to something akin to watching an NTSC television with the color knob turned all the way up. I'm rarely one for super saturated colours, always preferred Portra NC over VC....though Ektar certainly has it's uses.

In that sense, perhaps Colorplus does look like film from 15 years ago...or even 25 years ago before the saturation infatuation truly kicked in. Nothing wrong with Gold if you prefer a film that can render a dull day as if it was bright but I prefer to shoot on bright days or to deliberately convey the mood of a dull one. Just my preference, in the end it's all down to what you're trying to achieve.

Agulliver said:

I prefer Colorplus and C200 (AKA AgfaPhoto Vista 200)....mostly because I prefer natural colours to something akin to watching an NTSC television with the color knob turned all the way up. I'm rarely one for super saturated colours, always preferred Portra NC over VC....though Ektar certainly has it's uses.

In that sense, perhaps Colorplus does look like film from 15 years ago...or even 25 years ago before the saturation infatuation truly kicked in. Nothing wrong with Gold if you prefer a film that can render a dull day as if it was bright but I prefer to shoot on bright days or to deliberately convey the mood of a dull one. Just my preference, in the end it's all down to what you're trying to achieve.

Click to expand...

I would agree in concern of colorplus200 - if it goes just allone about saturation.
Most Fuji emulsions exept Velvia are with
a little pale color look.
That is also a big advantage when you have expired Fuji films.
They are a little more pale but the tendency to color crossings is more less
in comparisons to all other emulsions.

WIth Kodak VR/Colorplus the saturation
is (from my feeling) not the main difference.
The tendency to true colors is less.
What are "true colors" it is a term from Sony and their modern screens?
But I can't find a more precise word for it at once.
True colors with colorplus200 are indeed
in a way of the 80th.Some say threy are like in the 70th.
In digital workflow some uses the term
"color management" - I don't like this term
and I don't like the methods of it very much.
But one of the most advantages of the
special color look of VR/colorplus200 is
to avoid apps like instagram photo filters.

This may be the main reason of the increased popularity of this film to
young photographers.

You can get colors in similarity to some
filter apps but without a complete artificial look.
And in addition the look is 100% original.

IN THE REVERSE DIRECTION :
(the use of color filters to films -
to create a special look )- there is no need
to talk about films ever again.!!!


with regards