Kodak Color Plus 200 ( Kodacolor 200 ) vs Fujifilm C200 ( Fujicolor 200 )

Minoltafan2904 · Jul 19, 2017

So these are the 2 films i've tried since getting back into film 2 months ago, which one do you think is best?
10x15cm prints scanned with a Canon MG-3650

Show with Minolta X-700 with either a Minolta MD 50mm f/2.0 or a Tamron 103A Adaptall 2 80-210mm f/3.8-4.0

Kodacolor 200 :

Sa Garriga by Capri Driver, en Flickr

Cala Estancia by Capri Driver, en Flickr

Alfa Twin Cam by Capri Driver, en Flickr

1966 Volkswagen Beetle by Capri Driver, en Flickr

Fujicolor 200 :

Jaguar E-Type by Capri Driver, en Flickr

1989 Wagoneer by Capri Driver, en Flickr

Ford-Cosworth YBT Engine by Capri Driver, en Flickr

MattKing · Jul 19, 2017

Clearly, the Kodak is better!
They are both high quality films. The quality of the scans depends as much or more on all the other variables (light and subject, camera exposure, film development, film scanner, printer and operator, print scanner, scanning software and print scanner operator).
Nice pictures though.

Minoltafan2904 · Jul 20, 2017

Hmm, the grain seems a bit finer on the Fuji in my opinion, and it spent around 2-3 weeks in the camera, meanwhile the Kodak roll spent 3 days in the camera.

bvy · Jul 20, 2017

MattKing said:
Clearly, the Kodak is better!
They are both high quality films. The quality of the scans depends as much or more on all the other variables (light and subject, camera exposure, film development, film scanner, printer and operator, print scanner, scanning software and print scanner operator).
Nice pictures though.

You can eliminate a few of these variables by simply scanning a frame from each, side-by-side, in one scan -- ideally with all corrections turned off. Then you'll clearly see that the Fuji is better (!). Truly, though, I think it's an exercise in splitting hairs.

klownshed · Jul 20, 2017

Minoltafan2904 said:
which one do you think is best?

Whichever has the colour palette you find more pleasing.

Minoltafan2904 · Jul 20, 2017

klownshed said:
Whichever has the colour palette you find more pleasing.

Well, i am asking for YOUR opinion, personally i find it hard to decide bewteen the 2.

trendland · Jul 20, 2017

Minoltafan2904 said:
Well, i am asking for YOUR opinion, personally i find it hard to decide bewteen the 2.

Well - I tryed both films - from my mind there is no different wich is as hight to prefer one of these 2 quite cheap emulsions.
But if you asked for personal oppinions -
I will tell you.
For me there is no more need to use allways the very best emulsion you can get - like I did it in the past.
Because of two main reasons :
1.) it is depending more and more on costs wich films you may like - just look to monthly price increase.
2.) I can't find any film today with rather lousy characteristics. Therefore the cheapest films today are just fine.
Only the some "shootings of the year" I would have with high priced and little more quality emulsions.
And if I can decide I would like to have 3 or sometimes 4 cheap films instead of just 1 high quality films (with exeptions ).
Because I have the choice between 36 or
144 exposures to the same price. (forgetting costs for developing if you have c-41 homebrew - it is the most cheapest you could imagine)
Your exposures showed quite clear : There is no bad picture between caused from bad film!
But comming to C200 it is a little sad to have not Superia 200 to quite the same price like some years ago (25% more expensive)
Now it is more than "double priced" in comparison to C200.
But the most sade thing is the lost of
Superior100 because this emulsion was an absolut highest quality emulsion with
best characteristics to real cheap costs.
Coming to Kodak : Ektar 100 is todays champion of all c-41 films but just look to the price. In the very past Ektar25 had better characteristics - I would like to say.And the most remarkable issue to this is the period (Ektar25 was introduced in the 90th).
Some say the best c-41 ever made - I would like to state : "Yes this is true"

with regards

twelvetone12 · Jul 20, 2017

What do you mean by "best"? I personally prefer the color palette of the Fuji film, with its more saturated colors, but that is just my taste.

cramej · Jul 20, 2017

Well, let's see. You got an Alfa twin cam and a rat Beetle on the Kodak, but there's also some random landscape. A nice Cosworth on the Fuji - the Jaguar would have won it over until I saw the "RITZI restaurant". The Wagoneer is a wash for me. As cars go, the Kodak wins. As for the film, I've always preferred the Fuji consumer film over Kodak consumer film and I think I would feel the same with these samples.

Minoltafan2904 · Jul 20, 2017

Hahaha, i mostly shoot at car shows that's why so many different cars.

Wallendo · Jul 20, 2017

Back when I shot primarily color print film, I would go back and forth between the Fuji and Kodak consumer offerings. Usually I would buy the one that was the cheapest.

Is Kodak Gold 200 available where you live? If so, I would give it a shot before picking your go-to film.

BrianShaw · Jul 20, 2017

Wallendo said:
Back when I shot primarily color print film, I would go back and forth between the Fuji and Kodak consumer offerings. Usually I would buy the one that was the cheapest.

Is Kodak Gold 200 available where you live? If so, I would give it a shot before picking your go-to film.

Unless the bargain price of ColorPlus is a highly valued attribute, I'd suggest the same.

Minoltafan2904 · Jul 21, 2017

Locally i pretty much can only get those 2 , but through Amazon and other Spanish companies that sell film online i can get Kodak Gold.

railwayman3 · Jul 21, 2017

I use both quite regularly (and the variety sold as AgfaPhoto Vista, apparently identical with C200). Both good films, and very little to choose....I think that processing and printing/scanning variations would probably hide any fractional differences for all practical uses, unless you were into testing with color charts and
exact control of all possible variables of processing.

klownshed · Jul 21, 2017

it depends on the situation. Kodak is probably nicer for golden tones and sunsets, golden hour light. Fuji is cooler and suits Brutalist Cityscapes and the like. ;-)

I have lots of AgfaPhoto Vista (C200). Not because it's nice, but because it's cheap. In retsropsect I'd have been better off with 1/6 of the number of rolls of Porta instead.

Having said that, I still much prefer B&W film.

trendland · Jul 21, 2017

twelvetone12 said:
What do you mean by "best"? I personally prefer the color palette of the Fuji film, with its more saturated colors, but that is just my taste.

Well - the best film for me is a film with maximum resolution and finest grain.
The reason to this preference is a max.
possible enlargement.
For example : you want to have an enlargement (with fully optical workflow
in darkroom - avoiding any scan) in
30 x 40 cm this is possible with any film.
Coming to 60 x 80 cm it is not so easy!!
Most films grain is not nice in such kind of enlagements - better switch to bw with
Delta100.
What can one do in enlargement formats
with high resolution an particular very smal grain to 80 x 120 ?????
You just have to give up (with c-41).....

.
Ok you use120 films - better 4x5 inch ..

But in 1996 a remarkable cooperation between Kodak and Leitz and some high proffessional photographers have shown where the ultimative maximum to 135 film would possible be.
AND they reached enlargements of
100cm lenght without any visible grain
With Ektar 25 - the same is of cause with
120 films, 4x5 a.s.o. - you have just to multiplicate.
Thats a best possible film to me.
Max. resolution/finest grain.
The color saturation is depending to the film of cause but there are also ways in darkroom to have many impacts in
" color management" <---- in modern language (sorry can't find a better translation).

with regards

George Mann · Jul 21, 2017

bvy said:
Then you'll clearly see that the Fuji is better (!).

Not on it's best day!

George Mann · Jul 21, 2017

trendland said:
Coming to Kodak : Ektar 100 is todays champion of all c-41 films

Except for it's Mickey Mouse color!

kb3lms · Jul 21, 2017

IMHO, I like the Kodak palette just a little better, but it's almost a coin flip. I would (and do) use either.

trendland · Jul 21, 2017

George Mann said:
Except for it's Mickey Mouse color!

Ähhhmm.......? That is often the beginning of a neverending discussion ....

Just look to the great comunity of velvia50 photographers ....
More great as Fuji itself did expect by
preparing the discontinue.
1.) Velvia 100f
2.) Velvia 100
3.) " we proudly pronounce the no more
need of velvia50. ....."
4.)

...

with regards

Minoltafan2904 · Jul 22, 2017

Fuji are being a bunch of idiots discontinuing so many film stocks, Kodak ( Kodak Alaris ) have realised that in the last 5 years or so people are getting back into film, now that is rare, a good decision from Kodak!
I hope that Fuji realise the mistake they have done.

RattyMouse · Jul 23, 2017

Minoltafan2904 said:
Fuji are being a bunch of idiots discontinuing so many film stocks, Kodak ( Kodak Alaris ) have realised that in the last 5 years or so people are getting back into film, now that is rare, a good decision from Kodak!
I hope that Fuji realise the mistake they have done.

Has Fujifilm really discontinued almost all their 35mm color films? I find this astonishing. They are really on the way out of film production if this is true.

kuparikettu · Jul 23, 2017

My experience with Fuji C200 has been a bit varied. For quite some time I thought it was a really nice cheap film, even though it lacked the 4th color layer. Now I'm not so sure anymore.

My guess is that there can be differences between C200 batches. Nothing too radical, but enough for me too decide that in our family only Portra and Ektar will be shot when it comes to color negative films.

Make sure you don't shoot those films or you too might become spoiled by their small grain and color!

lantau · Jul 23, 2017

kuparikettu said:
My experience with Fuji C200 has been a bit varied. For quite some time I thought it was a really nice cheap film, even though it lacked the 4th color layer. Now I'm not so sure anymore.

For a while I was wondering about Superia 400 not mentioning the 4th colour layer. Then there was a thread here, recently. Apparently the 4th layer was a work-around to avoid a Kodak patent. It is not needed and the newer films don't have it anymore.

Still, I've had soso results with consumer colour films. Superia 400 was quite nice, especially outdoors with lots of green and lots of sun. I use C41 mostly in MF, anyway. In 35mm I have a lot of Vision3 to work through, but I'm still inclined to use some Ektar. If I need superfast film then Portra 800 will probably my choice. I love its saturation, but have only used it in 6x6 so far.

emacs · Jul 23, 2017

RattyMouse said:
Has Fujifilm really discontinued almost all their 35mm color films? I find this astonishing. They are really on the way out of film production if this is true.

Fuji and Kodak both have six 135 color films in production, though Fuji does seem to be scaling back quite a bit. Kodak Alaris's still film division continues to exist largely thanks to technological developments and profits from Eastman's motion picture division, but Fuji pulled out of the motion picture film market a few years ago. I don't see Fuji stopping film production all together though, Instax has been very successful for them.

Kodak Color Plus 200 ( Kodacolor 200 ) vs Fujifilm C200 ( Fujicolor 200 )

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency