I'm reviewing every 35mm color film on the market

[carlostaiwan]

Hi Guys! My name is Carlos, I'm a Spanish photographer based in Taiwan. After moving to Taiwan I started to shot film exclusively. I decided to move into a new project, in which I will buy every 35mm color film available in the market and review it under a first comer point of view. These reviews are not meant to be for professionals, but for people that buy their first roll of film, or just hobbyists that want to learn more about the film they are using. I'm not a professional either, however every film will be shot with the same camera and lenses (Nikon FM and F100, 28mm, 50mm, 135mm and a 24-120 for lazy days). Scanned in the same conditions with a Epson V600.

Since I just started publishing the reviews, I would like to know what do you think guys?
Something that I should add?
Something that I forget?
Am I doing something out of place?
Feel free to let me know, every critique is welcome! I'm planning to finish it in one or two years and it will document also my time here. Here is the page: www.carlosgrphoto.com/filmreviews

In addition, here is a list of the films, Am I missing any? Thank you! And I hope you guys enjoy it ^_^

REVIEWED
Fujicolor SUPERIA x-tra 800
Kodak Gold 200
Rollei Redbird Redscale 400
Kodak Ultramax 400
FUJICOLOR INDUSTRIAL 100 業務記錄用
Adox color Implosion 100-400

SHOT BUT NOT REVIEWED
Fujicolor ETERNA 250D
Kodak Pro-Image 100
Rollei CR200
Fujifilm Fujichrome Provia 100F

IN PROCESS
Kodak Colorplus 200
Fujicolor c200
Fujifilm Superia x-tra 400
Fujifilm Superia 200
Lomography color Negative 400
Kodak Vision 3 250D
AgfaPhoto VISTA PLUS 200
AgfaPhoto VISTA PLUS 400

BOUGHT BUT NOT SHOT
Lomography Lomochrome Purple 100-400
CineStill 50 DayLight
CINESTILL 800 ISO TUNGSTEN XPRO
AGFA CT PRECISA 35MM
FPP Retro Chrome 320

NOT BOUGHT YET
Fujifilm Superia Natura 1600
FUJICOLOR INDUSTRIAL 400 業務記錄用
Fujifilm PRO 160NS
Fujicolor PRO 400H
FUJI PROVIA 400X
Kodak Portra 160
Kodak Portra 400
Kodak Portra 800
Kodak EKTAR 100
Argenti VIVID ARROW 400
Lomography color Negative 100
Lomography color Negative 800
Lomography Lomochrome Turquoise 100-400
LOMOGRAPHY REDSCALE XR ISO 50-200
Lucky Color Negative Film 100
I.D.S. COLOR-SPEKTAR 200
I.D.S. JUST CLICK IT. 160 35MM
Kono! Kolorit 125 CN
Kono! Rekorder 100
Kono! Kolorit 250
Kono! Kolorit 400 CN
Revolog 36exp 460nm
Revolog 36exp 600nm
Revolog 36exp Plexus
Revolog 36exp Kolor
Revolog 36exp Rasp
Revolog 12exp Tesla II
Ferrania Solaris 200

ONLY IN JAPAN
Fujicolor 100
Superia Premium 400
Fujicolor Natura 1600
Superia Venus 800
Velvia 100
Velvia 50

EXPIRED – JUST FOR FUN –
Ferrania Solaris 100
Kodak Gold 100
MACO TCS Eagle 400

 

[railwayman3]

A very interesting project, I'll look forward to following and reading further reviews.

 

[AgX]

Be aware that quite some of your films are re-branded ones.
Or are very old and should be tested out of competition: As the Agfa CT Precisa which is over 10 years old.

 

[BrianShaw]

Suggestion: only assess current in-date films.

 

[BrianShaw]

I looked at one of your reviews on a film I use a lot. Very nice writing and assessment. It correlates highly with my experience. Two suggestions, though. Move the color chart to the beginning of the articles so we understand the characteristics in a more objective/standard way before you present your subjective comparisons. And consider using an industry standard color checker. What you use is very cool and provides interesting information but a standard may be more useful to many. But no matter... nice work!

 

[carlostaiwan]

Be aware that quite some of your films are re-branded ones.
Or are very old and should be tested out of competition: As the Agfa CT Precisa which is over 10 years old.

Do you mean old stock or expired? The CT precisa that i bought expires in 2018.

Suggestion: only assess current in-date films.

Yes, I should mention that. The reviews are only for in-date film. Expired will have their own thing called"only for fun" and will be shot in a compact camera.

A very interesting project, I'll look forward to following and reading further reviews.

Thank you! I really appreciate that

I looked at one of your reviews on a film I use a lot. Very nice writing and assessment. It correlates highly with my experience. Two suggestions, though. Move the color chart to the beginning of the articles so we understand the characteristics in a more objective/standard way before you present your subjective comparisons. And consider using an industry standard color checker. What you use is very cool and provides interesting information but a standard may be more useful to many. But no matter... nice work!

Thank you for your suggestions, what film you agree with?

 

[AgX]

Do you mean old stock or expired? The CT precisa that i bought expires in 2018.

The Agfa CT Precisa CT 100 & 200 were last manufactured in 2005.

You likely mix it up with the AgfaPhoto CT Precisa. That manufacturing entity, a take-over of the Agfa consumer division, started in 2005 and only existed for about a year. Coating of these films during that period is questionable. With stocks running out the german-made films sold under the brand AgfaPhoto were successively exchanged by films from other manufacturers. Currently they are from Fuji.

 

[Mr Bill]

Hi, it's an interesting project, and before you get too far along I have some suggestions. I've worked with this sort of thing for a living, albeit with a much smaller selection of films (and papers). Let me just start through a list. (I hope it doesn't discourage you too much, but just think if you got all the way through, and then found that some unknown number of rolls had been improperly processed.)

Processing: there are a number of things that can go wrong, from the degree of development to bad bleaching or fixing. All legitimate commercial processors should periodically process a test strip called a "control strip." I would ask them if they can give me the "current" data every time I got a roll processed; it should include three color density numbers for each of: the clear film base, a fairly light neutral exposure, and a darker exposure, as well as several readings of special patches designed to check the bleaching. You'd like to know how these compare to the lab's "reference strip," the one that was preprocessed. Even if you don't know what they mean, save the numbers, someone else can always interpret them for you later. If you can't get such data, the only real alternative is to have the lab also process your own "reference" film along with the test film.

Color test target: I like the idea of the mixed watercolor target. But... you lose the advantage of this by printing it yourself. Your print has a very limited makeup of dyes; it would be much better, imo, to have an original watercolor with all of its spectral richness. I also agree with Brian that it would be nice to also include an industry-standard color reference. You also mentioned, as I recall, using a 5500K bulb; I would be very suspicious of such a bulb, preferring an electronic flash. (Do not underestimate how misleading a self-printed test chart under a compact fluorescent bulbs can be.)

I'm also uncomfortable with the evaluation method, but I don't have any good alternative. But at least you would have the processed film, so it could always be reevaluated by any other means. When we (where I worked) did our testing, we would do a camera-exposure sequence covering perhaps 6 or 7 f-stops, then hand balance (optical prints) all of the prints to match flesh tones. (These were in a studio portrait setup, and the objective was to establish a useable exposure latitude range.) But today very few prints are pure optical, so that's no longer an ideal method

Best wishes on your project.

 

[pentaxuser]

A very interesting project, I'll look forward to following and reading further reviews.

+1
pentaxuser

 

[chassis]

Looking forward to the reviews!

 

[mhanc]

this will be a great resource. i will follow your progress with great anticipation. thanks for undertaking the project and posting your progress / results here on apug.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Good for you. I look forward to reading you results.

 

[LAG]

Hola Carlos

Lo primero de todo disculpa que responda en Espagnol (sorteando egnes y tildes), entiendo que podras entenderlo bien y a mi me resultara mas comodo y me dara menos pereza escribir, y como va dirigido a ti quizás sea suficiente (mas no quisiera resultar descortes con el resto del foro no obstante, y si hiciese falta traduzco mis palabras sin problemas). Lo segundo (que bien pudiera ir en primer lugar) enhorabuena por tu proyecto por supuesto, y en tercer lugar y, con menos esperanza que el resto, respondiendo a tus preguntas:

the reviews, I would like to know what do you think guys?

No quisiera ser descorazonador, no le veo mucho sentido a este tipo de analisis, porque hay muchos factores involucrados en una revision de este carácter que necesita de unas exigencias ... ummm ... distintas de tal y como lo haces, algo que como bien sabras esta recogido y estudiado en mejor y mayor o menor medida en la propia informacion del fabricante (si, ya se lo que estas pensando, todo eso que esta escrito en las cajas o las hojas de datos que nadie lee, vale). Algo de perogrullo de cara al resto. La buena noticia, es que a titulo personal para ti mismo, desde luego que el provecho lo tienes más que garantizado. Y no puedo dejar de añadir, para resultar menos descorazonador, que tan solo es una opinion o ju¡cio propio mio del que bien pudiera estar errado.

Something that I forget?

Olvidar, no le llamaría olvido, porque es algo que mucha gente en todos los foros de fotografía deja de lado, así que esta a la orden del día, algo que personalmente me produce cierto grado de perplejidad y asombro además de tristeza, me estoy refiriendo a una referencia del NEGATIVO final del que haces el análisis (aunque solo sea una referencia visual d-g-t-l con los indicativos en las perforaciones), o un estudio detallado sobre lo que observas en la mesa de luz sobre el mismo (y no me refiero a tu monitor). Pocos hay que sepan mirar bien un negativo con o sin lupa, para cuanto mas si ese negativo es de color. No te digo mas. Me resulta cuando menos realmente chocante que casi todo el mundo deja el negativo al margen de todo esto, siendo el protagonista de la película (nunca mejor dicho) es lo primero que muere en la sinopsis.

Am I doing something out of place?

Tampoco diria que esta fuera de lugar, pero desde luego estoy de acuerdo con mucho de lo que arriba ya te ha mencionado Mr Bill, no si dejar de comentar yo mismo que la revision de color (corrígeme si me equivoco) no esta basado en un análisis del propio negativo, sino que lo esta en un análisis sobre una carta de color en forma de pixeles sacados de un negativo pasado por scanner y elaborados con un programa o gestor de imagen en un monitor, con lo que todo ello implica para la correcta gestión y estudio del color. Insisto como análisis y provecho personal podría tener cierto grado de valor para ti, si el analisis previo del negativo en estrecha relación con una vinculación final llevan siempre el mismo recorrido.

Something that I should add?

Si te dejas algunas películas de 135 fuera del proyecto Rollei Night 800 y a saber: 35 mm digitalmanifiesto, Novocolor 400, IDS Spektar 200 / Just Clik it 160, Sayat Nova 640 ...) aunque algunas ser experimentales / promo / Lomo (o como te han dicho antes, algunas ya citadas pero que les han cambiado la piel) quizás no aporten mucho salvo por el placer de probarlas, algo que yo mismo hago pero no como proyecto a compartir y analizar sino como coleccionista de chasis (por cierto ¿los guardas o los desechas? Aquí hay un voluntario para recibirlos en el segundo de los casos …)

Con todo lo dicho, espero que algo saques de provecho (o nada) para que tu proyecto vaya a mejor dia tras dia. Y disculpa la sinceridad que llevo por firma.

Saludos y mucha suerte
Ricardo

 

[iandvaag]

Cool project! One more to possibly add to your list: http://filmwashi.com/

 

[carlostaiwan]

Thank you everyone for the support, the number of visits in the website increased exponentially .
About the processing, I work really closely with two labs, one for C-41 that is a great guy and as much as my Chinese allows me, I can discuss with him the process and so on. It's impossible for me to process by myself since I'm traveling a lot these last 3-4 years. (That's why I decided to start this project). For E-6 developing and films with remjet, I take the film to a professional lab, they are not so nice or easy to talk, but they do a great job.

About the color test target, you guys are right, I should have used a better chart, more standardized and different lighting. I was not really sure if I could do this project and I didn't want to spend any money, and now is too late, I've shot more than 18 films and I wouldn't like to buy them again. I just wanted to incorporate something "objective" to the test.

The Agfa CT Precisa CT 100 & 200 were last manufactured in 2005.

You likely mix it up with the AgfaPhoto CT Precisa. That manufacturing entity, a take-over of the Agfa consumer division, started in 2005 and only existed for about a year. Coating of these films during that period is questionable. With stocks running out the german-made films sold under the brand AgfaPhoto were successively exchanged by films from other manufacturers. Currently they are from Fuji.

You are 100% Right, the film is AgfaPhoto CT Precisa, I will definitely do more research before the review, right now it just rests on my shelf.

Cool project! One more to possibly add to your list: http://filmwashi.com/

Thank you! I didn't know that they also do color negatives.

@LAG Te respondere por privado

 

[AgX]

Thank you! I didn't know that Film Washi also do color negatives.

They do not in the proper sense. So no colour emulsion on washi paper base.

What they do next coating of their slow b&w emulsion is re-branding/re-converting existing films.

 

[iandvaag]

AgX is right of course. Not quite sure what I was thinking when I posted. Apologies.

 

[LAG]

@LAG Te respondere por privado

There's no need for a private message (which I've no received so far), not even an answer here in English if you do not want to ... All the best!

 

[B&Wpositive]

Kodak Max 800 is not on the list. It's hard to get, outside of disposable cameras...but I have a feeling that may change in the future due to the Fuji Superia 800 discontinuation in progress. For now, you can obtain the film buy removing it from a disposable camera, or purchasing 2014-dated film from Ultrafine (you may be able to ask them for newer stock since you're performing a review...it can't hurt). There is much conjecture that Lomography C-41 ISO 800 in 35mm is the same film, but no one has compared them yet and posted.

Also, Fuji Superia 1600 and Natura 1600 are two different products, both currently available...though it's up for debate whether they're the same film or a different one.

Edited to add: Velvia 50 and Velvia 100 are not only sold in Japan (unless maybe you're talking in certain sizes).

 

[dmr]

I see you have one FPP film on the list, but not this one:

Dead Link Removed

I'm curious about it.

 

[David T T]

Whoah. ISO one point six. As in 1 and 6/10.

 

[Les Sarile]

Looks like a really fun project and I know how much time and effort will be required so I commend you for that.

Your color descriptions are poetic and it seems to me you take great care in composing them. Unfortunately, I suspect that your conclusions will be miscolored by the Epson V600 (+Epsonscan?) especially when you state, "the photos are exactly as they come out from the scanner." as in your review of Kodak Gold 200. That shot of you taking a picture of that lady putting on makeup in the bathroom was greatly influenced by whatever color lights were there as Kodak Gold is normally a daylight balanced film. So when you described that the color results from are off, it is because of the combination of light temperature and your automatic scanner results and not necessarily the film's fault.

Further down you show a picture of another lady taking a picture with her Nikon and the filename is "film-taiwan-us-portraits-makiko-test-nikon-fms-kodak-gold-200-006.jpg". Of course I don't have the frame of film to evaluate but I am certain that is not how it should look.

Anyway, evaluating color negatives is not simple since a lot of interpretation has to be done for you. Even Kodak itself acknowledged the lack of standards when it came to scanning although they did introduce a very capable one back when.

BTW, another failure you are already misjudging is the evaluation of grain. The Epson scanner process will introduce a lot of grain aliasing. Combine that with JPEG artifacting due to that format and your conclusions about this will also be inconsistent.

 

[carlostaiwan]

I can't edit the original post, so I upload my updated list here


REVIEWED

Fujicolor SUPERIA x-tra 800

Kodak Gold 200

Rollei Redbird Redscale 400

Kodak Ultramax 400

FUJICOLOR INDUSTRIAL 100 業務記錄用

Adox color Implosion 100-400

Fujifilm Fujichrome Provia 100F

Fujicolor ETERNA 250D

CineStill 50 DayLight


SHOT BUT NOT REVIEWED

Kodak Pro-Image 100

Rollei CR200

AgfaPhoto CT Precisa 100

Kodak EKTAR 100

Kodak Colorplus 200

Fujicolor c200

Fujifilm Superia 200

Lomography color Negative 400



IN PROCESS

Fujifilm Superia x-tra 400

Kodak Vision 3 250D

AgfaPhoto VISTA PLUS 200

AgfaPhoto VISTA PLUS 400





BOUGHT BUT NOT SHOT

Lomography Lomochrome Purple 100-400

CINESTILL 800 ISO TUNGSTEN XPRO

FPP Retro Chrome 320



NOT BOUGHT YET

Fujifilm Superia Natura 1600

FUJICOLOR INDUSTRIAL 400 業務記錄用
Fujicolor Fujichrome Velvia 50

Fujicolor Fujichrome Velvia 100

Fujicolor Fujichrome Provia 400x

Fujifilm PRO 160NS

Fujicolor PRO 400H

FUJI PROVIA 400X

I.D.S. Color-Spektar (ISO 200)

I.D.S. Just Click It 160

IRO 200 (not yet released)

Kodak Portra 160

Kodak Portra 400

Kodak Portra 800

Argenti VIVID ARROW 400

Lomography color Negative 100

Lomography color Negative 800
Lomography Lomochrome Turquoise 100-400

LOMOGRAPHY REDSCALE XR ISO 50-200

Lucky Color Negative Film 100

I.D.S. COLOR-SPEKTAR 200

I.D.S. JUST CLICK IT. 160 35MM

Kono! Kolorit 125 CN

Kono! Rekorder 100

Kono! Kolorit 250

Kono! Kolorit 400 CN

KODAK SUPER LOW SPEED iso f1.6

Revolog 36exp 460nm

Revolog 36exp 600nm

Revolog 36exp Plexus

Revolog 36exp Kolor

Revolog 36exp Rasp

Revolog 12exp Tesla II

Rollei Digibase CN200 Pro (C-41 Process)

Rollei Vario Chrome 135-36

Rollei Crossbird 35mm

SAYAT NOVA 35mm-36 exp.

Sunny 16



ONLY IN JAPAN

Fujicolor 100

Kodak SuperGold 400

Superia Premium 400

Fujicolor Natura 1600

Superia Venus 800

Velvia 100

Velvia 50


EXPIRED – JUST FOR FUN –

Ferrania Solaris 100

Kodak Gold 100

MACO TCS Eagle 400

Ferrania Solaris 200

 

[carlostaiwan]

BTW, another failure you are already misjudging is the evaluation of grain. The Epson scanner process will introduce a lot of grain aliasing. Combine that with JPEG artifacting due to that format and your conclusions about this will also be inconsistent.

I think it is too difficult and subjective to judge the grain. I noticed that the Epson V600 add lots of grain, other scanner (even more expensive ones) too, especially when saving the JPEG in web quality. The only way to really analyze the grain would be printing different sizes. That's why in further reviews I haven't been talking about grain that much, except when is really evident, (like in Superia 800).

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Excellent project! I look forward to your reviews.

I see you have one FPP film on the list, but not this one:

Dead Link Removed

I'm curious about it.

Whoah. ISO one point six. As in 1 and 6/10.

Nice. I must try it.