Drug store ISO100 film?

Hamster · Jun 6, 2009

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 · Jun 6, 2009

Hamster said:
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 · Jun 6, 2009

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 · Jun 6, 2009

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 · Jun 6, 2009

Christopher Walrath said:
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 · Jun 6, 2009

Christopher Walrath said:
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 · Jun 6, 2009

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 · Jun 6, 2009

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.

nickandre · Jun 7, 2009

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 · Jun 8, 2009

Christopher Walrath said:
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.

bob100684 · Jun 8, 2009

dmr said:
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.

the same is true for CVS, ritz and Rite aid branded films

Photo Engineer · Jun 8, 2009

Christopher Walrath said:
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.

Chris;

At one time, this was totally illegal and unless the law has changed remains illegal.

If a product has a different description on the label it must be distinguishably different as described on the label. Therefore a 200 film is 200, a 400 film is 400 and etc.

Now, in deference to what you say, it is permissable to have a 200 film which is dyed back by a neutral dye to 100 speed to be packed as both a 200 and 100 film and etc. The distinguishable differences appear in true speed and in sharpness. The 100 film would be sharper than the 200 film even though otherwise identical.

In fact, two Kodak products in the E6 line fit this description nearly 20 years ago.

PE

dmr · Jun 8, 2009

Photo Engineer said:
Now, in deference to what you say, it is permissable to have a 200 film which is dyed back by a neutral dye to 100 speed to be packed as both a 200 and 100 film and etc.

Thanks, PE.

You'll be able to confirm or refute this assertion from "another network" on the same topic:

I do know that, say, Kodak Gold 100 and Gold 200 are the same film, but with a 1-stop ND layer reducing the speed of the lower-rated film.

Is this true?

TIA, PE.

Hamster · Jun 8, 2009

Just out of interest, I have heard somewhere that there are only 4 manufacturers of Colour Print film left. Kodak, Fuji, Ferrenti? and Lucky. So pretty much whatever we buy today that is not from China are going to be something from a reputable source. Can someone who is more in the know comment on that?

Photo Engineer · Jun 8, 2009

dmr said:
Thanks, PE.

You'll be able to confirm or refute this assertion from "another network" on the same topic:

Is this true?

TIA, PE.

Having worked on Gold 400 personally for a while, I can say that I know of no case of what you say being true in the past and probably not true in the present. They were distinct films in each case with different formulas.

The only case I knew of was the E6 product I cited above, but doing what is claimed is entirely possible and legal.

It is not legal, AFAIK, to sell a 200 and 100 film with absolutely no difference between them and to rely on latitude for getting good exposure.

PE

Photo Engineer · Jun 8, 2009

Hamster said:
Just out of interest, I have heard somewhere that there are only 4 manufacturers of Colour Print film left. Kodak, Fuji, Ferrenti? and Lucky. So pretty much whatever we buy today that is not from China are going to be something from a reputable source. Can someone who is more in the know comment on that?

Ferrania of Italy and Lucky of China both use rather old negative film formulas.

PE

Hamster · Jun 8, 2009

Photo Engineer said:
Ferrania of Italy and Lucky of China both use rather old negative film formulas.

PE

Do Konica still produce colour negative films?

Photo Engineer · Jun 8, 2009

No.

PE

StorminMatt · Jun 9, 2009

Photo Engineer said:
At one time, this was totally illegal and unless the law has changed remains illegal.

If a product has a different description on the label it must be distinguishably different as described on the label. Therefore a 200 film is 200, a 400 film is 400 and etc.

I have a friend who is REALLY into car audio. And one of the big problems with SO much car audio equipment is the way that amplifier power is just SO overrated. Amplifiers often claim outrageous numbers such as 500 watts per channel RMS when you KNOW this just can't be true (especially when such an amp bears only a 20 amp fuse, which NEVER blows). In fact, amps like these have been tested to barely produce 30 watts per channel RMS! So it would appear that there is, in general, no law whatsoever that requires a product to live up to the numbers a manufacturer places on it. Of course, there may be specific laws for film ISO that don't exist for, say, power output of amplifiers. But I have never heard of such a thing.

BetterSense · Jun 9, 2009

Well, technically film speed is an ISO standard. The definition of watts should be even more fundamental than that, so I guess your point stands anyway.

Photo Engineer · Jun 9, 2009

StorminMatt said:
I have a friend who is REALLY into car audio. And one of the big problems with SO much car audio equipment is the way that amplifier power is just SO overrated. Amplifiers often claim outrageous numbers such as 500 watts per channel RMS when you KNOW this just can't be true (especially when such an amp bears only a 20 amp fuse, which NEVER blows). In fact, amps like these have been tested to barely produce 30 watts per channel RMS! So it would appear that there is, in general, no law whatsoever that requires a product to live up to the numbers a manufacturer places on it. Of course, there may be specific laws for film ISO that don't exist for, say, power output of amplifiers. But I have never heard of such a thing.

Matt;

There is a law, and Kodak abides by it. Whether others do is another matter and up to them and other organizations that set such standards.

Among other things, one of our first courses at EK is "Ethical Business Practices". So, I know what you are talking about and I know what is done by EK and others.

PE

MattKing · Jun 9, 2009

Audio power numbers have always been subject to huge distortions (pun intended).

The ratings are meaningless, unless they also refer to distortion levels.

IIRC, an RMS power rating for an amplifier often says more about the power supply in the box than it says about the music or sound that comes out of the speakers hooked up to that box.

Matt

StorminMatt · Jun 10, 2009

MattKing said:
Audio power numbers have always been subject to huge distortions (pun intended).

This is obvious. But my point is that it would appear that manufacturers of audio equipment are not legally bound to produce products that live up to their claims. The same is true for a multitude of other products, such as aftermarket exhaust headers for cars that claim to add outrageous amounts of horsepower. Given all these sorts of things, I just don't think things are any different for film manufacturers. Might Kodak (or any other film manufacturer) voluntarily decide to be truthful in order to protect their good name? Perhaps. But this doesn't mean that they are legally bound to make good on their claims.

Photo Engineer · Jun 10, 2009

They are legally bound, but nothing happens until someone takes them to court for failing to be bound by the law.

It is like a person who steals. They keep at it until caught and jailed. When released, they probably start again, and if never jailed they would have continued.

Have you ever called a manufacturer on a car stereo device? I do know that we at Kodak had strict ISO specifications to follow for each aim point in product development. If we missed that aim, the product was not released or the claim was changed. This is fact, and was done to preserve the name. I also know that some other companies played more loosely by those rules.

PE

Sirius Glass · Jun 10, 2009

When I worked at Kodak, employees could buy the professional grades of photographic paper that did not make the grade at the cost of cutting and packaging the paper. The paper was so good that I could never detect a problem with it. Kodak did not want this product in the hands of the public.

Integrity and honesty was considered part of the Kodak quality.

Steve

Drug store ISO100 film?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency