Kodacolor 100. New

brbo said:

UltraMax 800 doesn't have the Kodacolor line vibe. It would be a great addition to Kodak's line of colour negative films, but naming it Kodacolor 800 would not do it any service. UltraMax is finer grained than Kodacolor/ColorPlus 200 and is not muddy. It's a modern 800 speed film.

Click to expand...

Let's see what the EK-Alaris evolve (or not). I agree about the branding and it'd be a parallel to selling ProImage as Kodacolor assuming ProImage is superior to a plain Kodacolor 100.

However, do most of the consumers care? Or rather, simplifying these as Kodacolor makes it easier for most?
There is a whole lot of workflow variation by the way of scanning and it's mostly us knowing the film legacy. Still, I found very amusing to browse contemporary late 90s-00s reviews of ColorPlus and the words were not that much positive "a cheap, grainy, dull consumer film". Whereas now I perceive people love ColorPlus!

As I write, I am thinking it might be not so simple as a newcomer to understand film options; most films have a name but it can be confusing.

brbo said:

UltraMax 800 doesn't have the Kodacolor line vibe. It would be a great addition to Kodak's line of colour negative films, but naming it Kodacolor 800 would not do it any service. UltraMax is finer grained than Kodacolor/ColorPlus 200 and is not muddy. It's a modern 800 speed film.

Click to expand...

If you are referring to the film sold as Lomography 800, it is a high quality product indeed. Though I don't find Color Plus to be muddy myself, I'd apply that quality to Gold. The Lomography 800 was always reckoned to be the same Max 800 that Kodak puts into single use cameras, I believe?