Fujifilm c200 and Kodak Portra 160... (35mm)

Just ordered a dozen of c200 rolls, and a 5-pack of Kodak Portra 160, now when the sun finally comes!

My questions now are:

What can I actually shoot these rolls in?

And if I "bend" them, do they need push/pull in dev. ?

I've never used the Fuji C200, so I can't speak for it. But I will typically shoot my Portra 160 at ISO 100. Some folks prefer 125, but it can easily handle 100 just fine. I find that it provides better color saturation and possibly even an improvement in grain. I love the stuff. I've yet to shoot any 35mm Portra 160, though. So far, just 120. As for developing, I would say just to develop them normally. I haven't developed my own, but I've never given my pro lab push/pull instructions.

The C200 is slightly more grainy than the Superia 200. C-41 films don't really push or pull very well, you just get denser or lighter negatives.

I'd recommend you shoot it in a Nikon F2 Photomic. Just because I like saying Photomic. Or, err, writing it. Actually, writing it isn't as much fun as saying it, so use it in whatever camera you wish.

Wolfeye said:

I'd recommend you shoot it in a Nikon F2 Photomic. Just because I like saying Photomic. Or, err, writing it. Actually, writing it isn't as much fun as saying it, so use it in whatever camera you wish.

Click to expand...

Good choice, but the Nikon F with Photomic FTN Finder is a good one as well.

Felinik said:

Just ordered a dozen of c200 rolls, and a 5-pack of Kodak Portra 160, now when the sun finally comes!

My questions now are:

What can I actually shoot these rolls in?

And if I "bend" them, do they need push/pull in dev. ?

Click to expand...

Although this may seem to be a strange and unconventional choice, I'd try using a camera.

Cheers,
kevs

Okay, as it is tiresome to load up this thread to find out that it's just funny replies, I apparently have to write this post! (I speak 6 languages, and English is not my mother tongue, thanks!).


For the rest of ya, I'd be interested in hearing experiences in using these films and if there's some advice on what alternative ISO ranges to shoot these films IN.

Anywhere from box speed to a stop slower. Process normally.

If you want pastel colours, shoot about 3 or 4 stops slower, process normally.

Felinik said:

Okay, as it is tiresome to load up this thread to find out that it's just funny replies, I apparently have to write this post! (I speak 6 languages, and English is not my mother tongue, thanks!).


For the rest of ya, I'd be interested in hearing experiences in using these films and if there's some advice on what alternative ISO ranges to shoot these films IN.

Click to expand...

Prepositions are often problematic in English. Even we native speakers often have trouble with them. Anyway -- I don't see much point in repeating myself, because my answer will not change. But let me just say this. I've always felt that Kodak chose a rather odd ISO (or ASA back in the old days) speed of 160 so that it could be bumped down to a nice round figure of 100 and would be easy for folks to remember -- folks who wanted to shoot at non-box speed, that is. Maybe that wasn't Kodak's original design, but that's what it ended up being -- for me, at least. BTW, after discovering how well 160 worked at 100, I began trying that with a variety of C41 films and found that it worked just as well with any that I tried. All of a sudden the grain was smoother and the colors really popped. I seldom shoot C41 at box speed anymore.

polyglot said:

Anywhere from box speed to a stop slower. Process normally.

If you want pastel colours, shoot about 3 or 4 stops slower, process normally.

Click to expand...

I also tend to shoot at about half to two-thirds box speed with most C-41, e.g. 160 box speed at 100, and 200 box speed at 125. I've always found, IMHO, that C-41 dislikes under-exposure but will stand quite a bit over.

Thanks for all thoughts and experiences here!

Then it's in line with my experiences with Superia 200, that I shoot in 160, and 400 in 320, so I'll most likely shoot c200 in 160 and the Portra in 125 or 100 depending on light conditions then, and just develop normally.

I'm sorry if I caused you any offence, Felink. I didn't know that English isn't your first language and your profile doesn't give a location. Still i hope you took our humour in the spirit was intended.

Generally speaking, I find that Kodak films record reds more accurately than Fuji, which tend to emphasise greens. Portra is Kodak's professional line whereas Fuji c200 is aimed at non-professionals. Expect the Portra to be more consistent with more accurate colour rendition than the Fuji. I'm not saying the Fuji isn't a fine film - I'm sure it is. I haven't used either, but I've used Portra 160VC, which apparently has more saturation than the new version.

For colour negative films, unless your camera's shutter is inaccurate use the manufacturer's recommended ISO setting because the manufacturers test the film and they know what they are doing. Why would they lie about their products? (Someone is bound to tell me I'm talking tosh here, but this has been my experience!) However, camera shutters aren't always accurate and many older shutters will run slower than the designated speed. Meter adjustments can drift dramatically over time. Testing your camera and meter will help you feel confident about using them. Use a properly-adjusted, hand-held meter for more accurate exposure readings.

Colour negative films have plenty of latitude, mostly in the area of overexposure. For the best results you should expose for the deepest shadows you want to see in a print, especially if the subject has a large dynamic range. Highlights will generally be fine but some details (sky details etc) may not print on an automatic printer and you may need a hand-made print or skilled scanning technique to reveal them. One stop of underexposure will give you thin negatives with grain and loss of detail in the shadows. Overexposure will get you dense negatives with weak colours and loss of detail in highlights.

Pushing and pulling c-41 films isn't recommended. Some laboratories will push- or pull-develop films for you but most will charge extra. So it's probably best to use the appropriate film for the appropriate situation. Again this has been my experience. I hope the above is useful for you.

Cheers,
kevs

Hi Kevs,

No offends taken, just tiresome to ask a question and just get a load of c*ap for replies.

Yeah of course the ISO is measured for accuracy but the manufacturer, but if we take Fuji Superia as an example, I find that a slight overexposure actually gives a better result than box speed, probably it is highly subjective, though it's absolutely no problems doing it, from a technical perspective, the negs looks just fine and the colors are a tad more clear imho.

So it's this kind of thoughts and experiences I am trying to dig out from other shooters...

I believe there's another element at work that kevs is not recognizing: to the amateur market, fast box speed sells better than slow box speed. So the film manufacturers will come up with an emulsion that may be pushing the envelope a bit to shoot at rated speed, whereas if you bump it down a notch or two, it allows the emulsion to perform better. I cite Fuji Superia 400 as an example. My results with shooting Superia 400 at box speed have been simply dreadful. Clumping of grain, splotchy color, just all in all a very bad film, in my view. I can't blame the camera, which has an electronically timed shutter and which stops down the lenses accurately. And I can't blame the developing lab for it either, since they do an excellent job on other C41 emulsions I give them to process. But if I shoot Superia at 320, it becomes a totally different animal. Grain has smoothed out, colors are richer, all in all not a bad film at all.

Now, while it's true that films like Portra are not considered to be amateur films, I think nonetheless that the mindset pervades.

Michael,

I share that experience with you on the Superia 400, I don't shoot a lot of it (don't shoot a lot of color) but when I do I ended up always going with 320 instead of 400, it just looks so much better!!

There might be another reason for why overexposing works. Most simpler auto exposure film cameras will not measure exposure at a myriad of spots like the contemporary digital ones do. They will measure either the centre or the averaged light influx. Since we rarely take the darkest portion of a motif for our center, this will bias the correct exposure to a lighter part. And since the exposure tolerance is higher toward lighter parts, it may be better to have exposure set on the dark part. Of course this can be done only by manipulating ASA with simple cameras.