Kodak Color Plus 200

[CMoore]

My new years resolution for 2020 will be to "Start Printing Color".
Other than Provia 100,the only color film i use is the Color Plus 200.
Any of you Guys/Gals like to shoot and Print with this film.?
I am just curious.
Thank You

 

[BrianShaw]

Nope. Hate it.

 

[Agulliver]

I don't make my own colour prints but I really like Color Plus 200. As I understand it, this is what was sold as Kodacolor VR 200 in the late 90s. I loved it then and I love it now, I find the colours more natural and pleasing than Gold.

 

[Anon Ymous]

Yes, I like it quite a lot. It's not fine grained, but I don't care, I actually find pleasing. It seems to have a rather warm and muted pallette, not a saturated one. It has a retro look I'd say. Comparing it to modern films would be pointless, it's certainly not Ektar or Portra. I don't print optically, but any prints I've had look nice, up to 30cm width.

 

[Paul Howell]

I shot a couple of rolls of it, seems to be 90s vintage Kodacolor gold, the gain is more apparent, could be a good thing or bad thing depending on the subject. My samples tended towards yellow. I have parts for a LP6700 with color head coming once I get the enlarger set up along side of my D3 I will start to print color, I think I can color correct when printing. I also have very old Kodak color correction filters and holder which will fit my 35mm lens with 49mm filter thread. I wouldn't print larger than 11X14, my test print was ok at 11X14, rather good at 8X10. My understanding is that it does not need to be kept refrigerated, popular in hot clims. I also shot a roll of Kodak pro image 100, like the Kodacolor 200 it tends towards yellow, grain was good, I had a 11X14 printed, it was just fine, I think a 16X20 is possible. For critical work I would stick to Ektar or Porta.

 

[CMoore]

OK..... thanks for the replies.
If i were a professional photographer, and i shot film portraits, i probably would not use Plus 200.
But i am just a hobbyist, and just starting to contemplate printing color.
I think Color Plus 200 will be just fine, for me, for a long time.
Thanks Again

 

[George Mann]

Two things this film is good for is optical analog prints (what it was designed for), and scans made with a properly calibrated Fuji Frontier.

 

[1kgcoffee]

I love my optical prints made from gold 200. If colour plus is similar you're in for a treat. It's not nearly as creamy as portra, which in medium format especially prints very differently. It has great contrast and saturation. A lot more punchy. Only disadvantage is that you can. Print only up to about 8x10 and maintain acceptable grain.

 

[CMoore]

I love my optical prints made from gold 200. If colour plus is similar you're in for a treat. It's not nearly as creamy as portra, which in medium format especially prints very differently. It has great contrast and saturation. A lot more punchy. Only disadvantage is that you can. Print only up to about 8x10 and maintain acceptable grain.

My comment is going to be so vague and incomparable, that i probably should not even make it.

I have shot several rolls of Color Plus.
I have never developed it myself, i sent it to The Darkroom in southern California.
I have seen their Scans, and i DID have them make a few prints of certain frames that we liked.
However, i am not sure how those prints (4x5) were made.
So......with that info in mind... I thought the print quality was very nice. The color.?
I would say it looked "Natural". It looked like prints my family would have had made, circa 1972, using a Kodak Instamatic..
That camera probably used a 110 or 126 film cartridge.?
But you get the gist of what i am saying. The color from the prints i had made of my Color Plus, looked like the colors of life.....not something stunning like Kodachrome.

 

[Agulliver]

@CMoore that makes perfect sense. As I understand it, and perhaps PE can set me straight if I'm mistaken. Color Plus is either Kodacolor VR (the pre-Gold stuff) or something very similar....and Gold was introduced with the intention of making more saturated colours which "popped" and made summer family photos look brighter...especially those shot on dull days.

Personally I've never liked Gold and prefer photos shot on a dull day to look dull, and those shot on a bright day to look bright. Color Plus gives me that. Although I do have a fondness for Kodak Max 400 which I believe is a derivative of Gold 400.

It would make perfect sense that your Color Plus photos share characteristics with those you saw in the 70s. Indeed I shot a roll of Color Plus on a camping holiday with friends a couple of years ago and they specifically remarked that the photos looked like their childhood family photos from 20 years prior.

All ties in with the received wisdom that Color Plus is the last version of Kodacolor VR. All I can hope is that it remains available for many years to come as it is both cheap and my "go to" medium speed CN film in 135. It enables me to shoot colour without thinking much about cost.

 

[CMoore]

Very Informative... Thank You

 

[BrianShaw]

That was my experience too... except I prefer a more modern look. Pictures with ColorPlus weren’t totally objectionable but I felt like I was seeing through my childhood eyes in the 1960 and 1970’s. I’m not into nostalgia like hat but for an “artsy” look I still have some ColorPlus available to shoot.

 

[Agulliver]

It might be worth mentioning that my eyes are a little over-sensitive to the red end of the spectrum including near IR, and less in the blue/green. Hence I have usually tended to prefer Fuji colour film over Kodak and my dislike for Gold. No doubt one can tweak at the printing stage (or electronically with software) but Gold always looks red/brown to me. So my fondness for Color Plus isn't merely nostalgia. I am aware of two things.
1. Photos shot on Color Plus in dull weather look dull, and those shot on Gold look more bright
2. Other people generally see the colours in photographs different to myself - and indeed we all see things differently.