Fujicolor 100

[dynachrome]

I took delivery today of three 36 exp. rolls of Fujicolor 100. They were purchased from Cat Labs. The price per roll is embarrassingly high. As far as I know, Fuji had stopped sending 100 speed color print film to the U.S market years ago. The writing on the boxes is almost all in Japanese. The expiration date is April of 2026 so I am guessing that Fuji is still making it. It will be interesting to see what the colors look like and whether this slow film is any sharper or fine grained than Portra 400. I think it costs more than Portra 400.

 

[dokko]

that's interesting, thanks for sharing.
I know a shop in Berlin that used to import the same japanese labeled version before the pandemic, also at a price significantly higher than portra.

I just checked the online shop at Bic camera in Japan, they sell it for around 9.50EUR but mention that purchases are limited to one piece per customer.

[edit]: I know also see that it mentions "ships as soon as it arrives" with "next arrival undecided", so it doesn't seem to be readily available.

 

[koraks]

@dynachrome this is encouraging news that Fuji is again coating C41 consumer film! Thanks for sharing.
Could you get some photos of the box online, please? This might prove useful for future reference.

 

[brbo]

I buy Fujicolor 100 and/or Superia Premium 400 when Fotoimpex has them in stock. They always have fresh date, I'd say about 2 years ahead.

Does that mean that it's currently coated? For example, Adox Color Mission 200 that I've bought on multiple occasions in the past had different exp. dates although we know that they are cutting this all from the same material coated years ago.

 

[Brad Deputy]

I've shot ~10 rolls so far (mostly 24 exposure, but some 36 too) all purchased from FreeStyle over the last 2 years. They used to import it and sell ~$10-12 a roll. (not any more sadly, but may resume someday, since it's all but certain Fuji is coating color negative film in Japan again.)

This film is also known as Fuji Industrial 100.

The colors are 95% the same as Fujicolor 200 / C200. The grain is sharper. I love the stuff. It has an amazing latitude for underexposure; you can shoot at 200 and develop normally, and it's difficult to tell the difference.

Enjoy!

 

[Henning Serger]

It will be interesting to see what the colors look like and whether this slow film is any sharper or fine grained than Portra 400. I think it costs more than Portra 400.

I am using this film for years. It is one of the best colour negative films available! Very nice natural, but still vibrant colours.
I have of course also tested it in my standard scientific resolution and sharpness test. It is the sharpest and highest resolution film currently on the market.
You can see that when you are using the best available imaging chain for negative films - optical enlargement.
With scanning you cannot see this outstanding performance, as current scanners have much to low resolution capabilities.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Steven Lee]

I am scratching my head... if this film is still being made, it means it's the only C-41 film produced by Fujifilm right now? IIRC C-200 and Superia are gone, is that right?

 

[Henning Serger]

I am scratching my head... if this film is still being made, it means it's the only C-41 film produced by Fujifilm right now? IIRC C-200 and Superia are gone, is that right?

There is also Superia Premium 400, the "Japanese market only" version of Superia X-Tra 400. From reports from photographers in Japan this film is also available with recent, long-term guarantee dates. And then hopefully we will soon have informations about the rumours concerning fresh "Made in Japan" C200.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Steven Lee]

@Henning Serger Thank you for infusing some hope! C200 is by far my favorite color film in 35mm and I'm down to my last 4 rolls. So perhaps I won't be switching to 100% B&W after all.

 

[Steven Lee]

BTW, I've seen two different versions of Fujicolor 100, are these the same?

 

[Henning Serger]

BTW, I've seen two different versions of Fujicolor 100, are these the same?

View attachment 355317 View attachment 355318

Yes, they are the same.
The left one is the current packaging, the right one the former packaging.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[1kgcoffee]

this is surprising? even higher resolution than ektar?

 

[Brad Deputy]

this is surprising? even higher resolution than ektar?

Nah, not even close.

And no color negative film is sharper than Vision3 50D (a la Cinestill 50D). That stuff is insane, and shames T-Max.

I believe Ektar is the sharpest C-41 we have.

I would put Fuji 100 sharpness alongside Portra 400.

 

[Henning Serger]

even higher resolution than ektar?

Yes, significantly higher resolution than Ektar in my tests. And it is not surprising, as most CN films in the ISO 100-200 range surpass Ektar in resolution.
Ektar is not a very high resolving film. It is optimised for fine grain and scanning, and Kodak sacrificed resolution for that purpose. Kodak has therefore also only advertised this "finest grain" aspect, they have never said that Ektar shines in high resolution. It was also confirmed to me by Kodak at the Photokina 2008, when this film was introduced. They presented there 80x120cm Ektar prints, and the lack in resolution was clearly visible. My 100x150cm enlarged transparencies are much sharper and much higher resolving in comparison to the 80x120cm Ektar results.

I will post my resolution test results later. It is in the middle of the night here, and I have finally go to sleep.......

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Brad Deputy]

I'd be interested in the resolution tests. I test mine less scientifically by putting the film into an enlarger, and examining the grain with a focuser.

For sure, Fuji 100 is sharper than their 200, but only subtly. It's the same as Kodak Pro Image 100, but I prefer Fuji's color palette.

Ektar is just on a whole different level. I would he honestly shocked if Fuji 100 came anywhere near Ektar.

I speak only of 35mm, I've never seen or tested 120 or sheet sizes.

 

[Henning Serger]

Nah, not even close.

And no color negative film is sharper than Vision3 50D (a la Cinestill 50D). That stuff is insane, and shames T-Max.

Do you yourself a favour and do a scientific comparison test. Push the films to their resolution limit. And then look at the results under a microscope with 50x and 100x enlargement.
Then you will clearly see that neither CineStill 50D is the sharpest CN film, nor does it "shames" T-Max.

Been there, done that.

I believe Ektar is the sharpest C-41 we have.

There is belief, and there is knowledge and test facts. And from my tests, and also the information given to me by Kodak, Ektar is definitely not the sharpest CN film.

I would put Fuji 100 sharpness alongside Portra 400.

Fuji 100 is much sharper than Portra 400.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Brad Deputy]

My tests are non-scientific so I'll give you the credit .

 

[Brad Deputy]

Oh, we may be debating two different topics -- sharpness vs. resolution, the effects of grain size on edge acutance.

It's stated Ektar's lp/mm is ~150 at 1000/1 contrast ratio, and T-MAX 100 @ 200 lp/mm.

(I can't find one for Fuji 100, nor Vision3 50D)

Another film I love for its' sharpness, Adox HR-50, claims 250+ lp/mm, and in my experience I believe it. In fact, this film's grain (developed in their HR-DEV) looks almost identical to Vision3 50D's to me. The grain size is so tiny however, that it appears rather soft on the edge details, but the detail in itself is stunning. It's way out of range of my Plustek scanner, but I can see it clearer on my enlarger.

Once I was photographing mountains in Utah and switched from Kodak 200 to Cinestill 50D. (Kodak 200 very close to C200 resolution) I had both developed in C-41 (yes, the colors were crap on the 50D) But, the change in resolution was night and day - trees on the mountains suddently popped, defined with a trunk and jagged edges (pines), instead of blobs of green. I was using my Olympus OM-10 at the time, with the 100/200 zoom lens (which isn't known for sharpness heh), but nonetheless the differences were stark. Nearest comparision I can make is the change from HD TV's to 4K. I have since made other photos with sharper lens and saw the same dramatic differences. Photos with Fuji 100 appear somewhat sharper than 200, but not by much.

I know I'm un-scientific in all this but we can agree to disagree. I stand by what I can see in my results.

 

[Henning Serger]

My tests are non-scientific so I'll give you the credit .

Hello Brad,

as promised here my test results. Done in my standard test I have develped over about 30 years of intensive tests of films, lenses, sensors. My test methodology was checked and confirmed by Dr. Hubert Nasse from Zeiss, too. He was responsible for lens tests at Zeiss for many years (R.I.P.).
And film and developer manufacturers ask me to check / double-check their test results, too. In my test archive are meanwhile more than 10,000 test results, and the number continues to increase.

My resolution, sharpness, fineness of grain tests are done with a testchart which has an object / detail contrast of 1:4 (two stops). This is an object contrast which you find details of in about almost all photographic scenes.
As the standard test lens a Zeiss Makro-Planar 2/50 ZF is used on my F6. It is used with its optimal performance aperture f5.6. So results given here are the system-resolution of this test lens combined with the films. With a better lens these results will be higher, with a worse lens they will be lower.

I will just focus on the results of lower and medium speed CN films, as that was the topic (presenting all results of all films would lead away from the topic).
The first value is the number of clearly seen separated lines, the second one the limit where still a contrast difference can be seen:

CineStill 50D: 105 – 115 lp/mm

Kodak Ektar 100: 90 – 105 Lp/mm

Kodak Farbwelt 100: 105 – 115 Lp/mm (former German version of Gold 100)

Kodak ProImage 100: 105 – 110 Lp/mm

Fujicolor 100: 120 – 130 Lp/mm

Fuji Superia Reala 100: 105 – 115 Lp/mm

Fuji Pro 160 C: 100 – 115 Lp/mm

Kodak Portra 160 NC-2: 100 – 115 Lp/mm

Kodak Portra 160 VC-2: 105 – 115 Lp/mm

Kodak Portra 160 New: 105 – 115 Lp/mm

Kodak Gold 200: 105 – 115Lp/mm

Fuji C200: 120 – 130 Lp/mm

Fuji Superia 200: 120 – 130 Lp/mm

Kodak Farbwelt 200: 105 – 120 Lp/mm

Lucky Super New 200: 105 – 115 Lp/mm

Rollei CN 200: 75 – 90 Lp/mm

Concerning sharpness: If you look at these results under a microscope (which is simply needed to see such extremely high resolutions), Ektar's performance is worse compared to most of the above mentioned films. Ektar shines in fineness of grain, but not in resolution and sharpness in this direct comparison. In general the Fujifilm films appear a bit sharper, with the exception of Portra 160 (both old and new version) which can compete in sharpness. From a technical point of view, Portra 160 is the best of the three Portras. And the Fujifilm amateur CN films surpass their Kodak counterparts in resolution and sharpness.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

Oh, we may be debating two different topics -- sharpness vs. resolution, the effects of grain size on edge acutance.

Well, after testing of almost all films on the market in the last 20 years, my experience is that in most cases the higher resolving films also deliver the better sharpness. But there are indeed some exceptions. For example Delta 100 vs. TMX. TMX has slightly higher resolution and in objective terms in the evaluation under the microscope also a bit better sharpness (edges are clearer defined).
But at enlargements even up to 15x - 20x Delta 100 looks sharper (of course also dependent on developer).

Another film I love for its' sharpness, Adox HR-50, claims 250+ lp/mm, and in my experience I believe it. In fact, this film's grain (developed in their HR-DEV) looks almost identical to Vision3 50D's to me. The grain size is so tiny however, that it appears rather soft on the edge details, but the detail in itself is stunning. It's way out of range of my Plustek scanner, but I can see it clearer on my enlarger.

Yupp, HR-50 / SCALA 50 delivers indeed outstanding detail. In my tests I got the same resolution value with HR-50 and TMX at an object contrast of 1:4, but HR-50 is sharper and much finer grained, so you can enlarge it much higher than TMX.

Photos with Fuji 100 appear somewhat sharper than 200, but not by much.

Fujicolor 100 and C200 / Superia 200 are indeed quite close in sharpness. The ISO 200 amateur films from Fuji have been the sharpest films in this speed / film class.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[George Mann]

My 4 favorite color films are Ektachrome E100, Kodachrome K14 64, Ektar 100 and Kodacolor VR 100 now sold as Lomo CN 100.

None of these films are technically the highest resolving, or achieve benchmark levels of acuity by todays standards, nor do they need to!

 

[dynachrome]

The one film I would have liked to see test results for is Portra 400. Probably half of my color print film shooting is done with it. For the size prints I would most often make with 35mm film, the extra speed of a 400 or 800 speed film is handy for hand held shooting. I might eventually get some image stabilized Nikkor or Canon EF lenses which have IS and can be used on film cameras.

The discussion of sharpness, fine grain and acutance is something I will lump together as IQ. The final result will be a combination of the film stock used, development, film format and print size. Some years ago I had friends who traveled to Japan for work. On a few occasions I had them bring back Fuji Microfine developer for use with the original ACROS film. Many different developers were tried with ACROS. Some people liked the look with Rodinal. I found the look with Microfine very nice. If I know I will want to make a larger print, like 11X14 or larger, I will probably go up to the 6X7 format. With a tripod and document film, if the subject allows for it, good large prints are also possible. For me, regular film in a larger format is less work. I ordered some ACROS II in 120 size from Freestyle and I will try some of it in Microfine.

 

[George Mann]

Add Kodak Portra 160 in 120 to my list of go to films. A super smooth creamy look in a 6x6 square image.

 

[Steven Lee]

Fuji C200: 120 – 130 Lp/mm

Nice. I am not surprised at all. Somehow this film always felt like being on another level for me. A step above Portras and Fuji's own 400H Pro. I have my last 4 rolls sitting in the freezer and I keep hoping for its return and hopefully even a 120 version.

 

[Henning Serger]

The one film I would have liked to see test results for is Portra 400.

Your wish is my command .
I have just not mentioned it above because the topic was medium speed films, not high-speed films. I have tested so far almost all films of the market, and the some remaining not tested yet will be tested in the near future.
So here we go, ISO 400/27° CN films:

Kodak Portra 400 (new, current version): 80 – 100 Lp/mm

Kodak Portra 400 NC-3 (discontinued): 100 – 110 Lp/mm

Kodak Farbwelt 400: 95 – 110 Lp/mm (discontinued; former version of Gold for the German speaking markets)

Kodak Ultra Max 400: 100 – 110 Lp/mm

Fuji Pro 400H: 90 – 105 Lp/mm

Fuji Superia X-Tra 400: 115 (120) – 130 Lp/mm

As for the test result that current Portra 400 has significantly less resolution than its forerunners: That is part of Kodaks 'enhanced for scanning' policy: Those films (it is also valid for Ektar) have finer grain, as grain apperarance is increased by most scanners by scanner noise. Therefore finer grain generally delivers more pleasing scan results. But Kodak unfortunately also sacrificed max. resolution for that. Well, they think max resolution isn't important as scanners cannot use / exploit max. film resolution anyway (but optical printing can), as scanners - especially the most popular and widespred ones (including camera scanning) - have very low resolution values.

Probably half of my color print film shooting is done with it. For the size prints I would most often make with 35mm film, the extra speed of a 400 or 800 speed film is handy for hand held shooting. I might eventually get some image stabilized Nikkor or Canon EF lenses which have IS and can be used on film cameras.

With image-stabilized lenses in lots of cases higher speed films are not needed anymore, and you can choose Portra 160 instead of 400 for example. I go in a similar direction, but with other tools:
Over the years I have replaced my older 35mm format prime lenses with the latest, much improved modern lens designs. They offer excellent performance already at open aperture, and you get already perfect performance mostly when only 1-2 stops stopped down. Gives me a performance advantage in relation to my older lens designs of often 2-3 stops.
Means that in lots of situations I can use an ISO 100/21° film with its much better picture quality instead of the 400/27° speed film. Makes a really significant and clearly visible difference.

Best regards,
Henning