ISO 200 color neg - help needed

[Matus Kalisky]

Hi,

Me and my wife will soon be going for a 3 week trip to New Zealand. While my choice of film is ... well ... complicated (35mm, 6x6, 4x5), my wife is looking for some some ISO 200 color negative film. She shoots with Minolta SLR (Maxxum 7) with 28, 50 and 100 lenses.

The print size will mostly be 10x15 cm and maybe a few up to 20x30 cm.

Now my question is: which ISO 200 film to take - for mostly landscapes, flowers, etc. I usually shoot different films so I do not have too much experience here ...

thanks

 

[keithwms]

There are plenty of excellent ISO 160 colour print films, but few good entries in the 200 category.

Look at fuji 160s and 160c, and the similar Kodak films.

 

[Neal]

Dear Matus,

The 200 speed consumer Fuji/Kodak films are both good choices. Saturated colors, inexpensive, easy to find, and all the minilabs know how to print them.

Neal Wydra

 

[2F/2F]

I think Fuji Superia X-Tra is a great film in all of the speeds (100, 200, 400, 800, 1600).

If she can deal with a 160 film, there are also some "pro" films available.

 

[rossawilson1]

If you're going to shoot Fuji Pro remember that whilst it still has a larger dynamic range than slide, it's not as tolerant as consumer print film.. the main result of too over or too under being loss of colour saturation and that specific pallet that accounts for some of what you're paying extra for. They also need decent processing. Not that any of this should be a problem but it's worth baring in mind. In my opinion the Fuji Superia series are a really good value all rounder. I can't speak for Kodak but traditionally they have a warmer feel which may or may not be what you're after shooting nature, Fuji by contrast has a green/blue punch.

 

[Matus Kalisky]

thank you. I guess we will go with the Superia 200.

One more side question. How does the Superia 800 compares to pro films from Fuji or kodak (800Z , Porta 800) ? I have 35mm format in mind.

 

[2F/2F]

Superia 800 is my favorite color film to use, hands down (now that 320T is dead and gone). I use it by the brick constantly. It is wonderful stuff. Natural contrast and color, fast shutter speeds, and not that expensive (about $3.50 a roll, I believe).

 

[railwayman3]

I sometimes feel that 200ASA consumer film is neither-one-thing-nor-another. I find a noticeable loss of quality compared with the high standards of slower films or the 160 pro film, for just one extra stop of exposure which is rarely enough to make the difference between taking or missing a shot.

Personally, I use a slower film for general shooting, but switch to one of the high-quality 400ASA or even faster films if action shots and/or poor light demand it...they are designed for the job.

If you need 200ASA, I'd go for Fuji, otherwise the 160 pro films from either big make.

Just my humble opinion, others may work differently.

 

[Ektagraphic]

How about a 100 speed? For 100 use Ektar 100 but for something closer to 200 use Portra 160VC is close to 200. It is a great film and should suit you very well

 

[PhotoJim]

There's nothing at all wrong with Superia 200. It's a nice film.

If you want to try something interesting and want punchy colour, shoot a roll or two of Kodak Portra 160VC. It's only 1/3 of a stop slower. It is, however, significantly more expensive.

 

[Ektagraphic]

About $5 per roll of film is not that expensive....

 

[MattKing]

Dear Matus,

The 200 speed consumer Fuji/Kodak films are both good choices. Saturated colors, inexpensive, easy to find, and all the minilabs know how to print them.

Neal Wydra

I'm with Neal - although my choice always leans to Kodak.

I am confident that a well exposed properly developed Kodak Gold negative can yield excellent quality prints.

The films have their characteristics (contrast, saturation, grain, etc.) and there may be some situations that they are not well suited to, but generally they are very flexible, high quality products.

Matt

 

[Ektagraphic]

thank you. I guess we will go with the Superia 200.

One more side question. How does the Superia 800 compares to pro films from Fuji or kodak (800Z , Porta 800) ? I have 35mm format in mind.

Portra 800 is an awesome print film too. It works great in low light and has the grain of a 400 film. If you need to shoot in low light I highly reccomend it.

 

[BetterSense]

About $5 per roll of film is not that expensive..

It might seem expensive when Superia X-tra 200 can be had at walmart in $7 5-packs.

 

[Matus Kalisky]

thank you all. Well, although the price is not the main consideration, id does play some role. And as my wife is not so over concerned with the film selection (I know I am), she will probably get the Superia 200.

My own fil choice is a bit different - I take the new Ektar 100 together with some Fuji 400H (or the 800Z - have to decide soon) for the 35mm camera (Olympus XA).
For my Rolleiflex I take the Fuji Pro160C and for my 4x5 some E100VS, E100G and Pro160C.

 

[2F/2F]

It might seem expensive when Superia X-tra 200 can be had at walmart in $7 5-packs.

Really? Wow. That is 24 exp., though, right? 5 rolls x 24 exp. per roll = 120 exp. $7/120 = 5.83 cents per exposure.

That's pretty good, though I find 24-exp. rolls to be a hassle.

$61.80 for a 20-roll press pack of 36 exposure from Freestyle works out to be 20 rolls x 36 exp. per roll = 720 exp. $61.80/720 = 8.58 cents per exposure. The same number of exposures from Wal-Mart would be $42.

That is a very good deal at Wal-Mart. I would willingly pay the extra $20 for several reasons, however:

First, I support Freestyle whenever possible, as I believe we all should. Not only are they taking steps to ensure that analog products are continued to be offered in this day and age, but they are also a local business to me. I like the idea of using my money to make a statement, and I like the idea of supporting local businesses. I keep my money in the community, helping out a worthy cause, while Wal-Mart is an incredibly horrendous corporation that I 99% boycott (sometimes while on the road I give in and stop there for a gallon of water or something, though only a couple times).

Next, to me, it is well worth paying a little extra so I get 36 pix per roll. You have to change film 1.5 times less often this way, make the most efficient use of processing chemicals or lab fees, and the rolls fit my standard contact sheet format. If you shoot very little, the 24-exp. rolls are nice, however.

Thirdly, there is no question that the film from Freestyle has been properly stored and is fresh.

Finally, you know when you buy a press pack, that you are getting 720 shots with the same properties, or even more if you buy several packs from the same batch at once. If you do your own RA printing, this saves a lot of time, paper, and chemicals.

If you don't shoot a lot, don't do your own printing, and place value above all else, the Wal-Mart deal is very good!

 

[Matus Kalisky]

Well, I am buying in Germany so US prices are not tht important to me.
The Superia 200 is indeed rather cheap. It is about 1.8 euro per 135/36 roll here.

But what about Kodak 200 UC ? It does cost more (twice as much) , but would it be worth it?