Kodak Pro Image 100

[waynecrider]

I’m looking for feedback on this film and your thoughts on the attributes of the film, especially the colors it renders.

 

[film_man]

A bit more punchy (contrast and colour) and a bit more grainy, compared to Portra.

 

[M-88]

A bit more punchy (contrast and colour) and a bit more grainy, compared to Portra.

^^ THIS ^^

It's a consumer film, despite having "pro" in name. It's supposed to fare well in hot weather, which it probably does. Grain is comparable to Gold 200, colour palette is better than aforementioned film and somewhat close to Portra 160. Well, closer than any other consumer film, that is. It will NOT substitute Portra.

 

[MarkVII88]

I really like ProImage 100. It's a film that really loves light and I've gotten my best results shooting this film in bright conditions. I like the contrast this film offers as well. For me, I consider ProImage 100 to be what you'd get if Ektar and Ultramax had a baby and I wish it was available in 120. Unless you're buying individual rolls of ProImage 100 from a shop, you can only buy it in 5-packs for about $40-50.

 

[mshchem]

Like old Kodacolor-X ???
Looks like a good general purpose film to me.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

General pourpose film. A bit cooler tones than Kodacolor or ColorPlus on my experience. It is marketed actively on Mexico. Great film for portraits

 

[waynecrider]

Thanks everyone. What little of the greens look good. Waiting till B&H gets it for an order +.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

I don't think you will be dissapointed.

 

[waynecrider]

Marcelo, the greens do look cool to me too. I may not shoot it in the forests except once to get an idea as to what I’m up against in Photoshop. From what I have seen of photos in another forum the greens look not just cool but slightly off.

 

[miha]

Probably Kodak's worst C41 film in every aspect. I remember using it already in the 90s as it was available in my country. I didn't like it, no one did, to be honest, but at that time we could be picky and choosy about the film we use.

 

[Huss]

Probably Kodak's worst C41 film in every aspect..

ProImage 100

 

[Huss]

..I didn't like it, no one did, to be honest...

ProImage 100

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Marcelo, the greens do look cool to me too. I may not shoot it in the forests except once to get an idea as to what I’m up against in Photoshop. From what I have seen of photos in another forum the greens look not just cool but slightly off.

Agree. Normally used on people with some harsh background or sunny days. Mostly casual portrait. Not a film I would use on landscapes to be honest.

 

[miha]

@Huss I'm glad you like it, but I said at the time when I first tried it we had way better films to choose from, like Ektar/Royal Gold (100/400) for general photography or Supra 100/400/800 for press photography, even the standard Gold 100 had finer grain. Sadly all these films have long been discontinued.

 

[Helge]

Find a half frame and shoot Portra 160 @ 100 and get much the same result. And better economy.

 

[Duceman]

I’m looking for feedback on this film and your thoughts on the attributes of the film, especially the colors it renders.

Overall, I think it is a decent film, but prefer Portra 160 over it. Here is a shot taken with Pro Image 100.

Camaro (Explored 17-AUG-2021)

 

[Huss]

@Huss I'm glad you like it, but I said at the time when I first tried it we had way better films to choose from, like Ektar/Royal Gold (100/400) for general photography or Supra 100/400/800 for press photography, even the standard Gold 100 had finer grain. Sadly all these films have long been discontinued.

It's really quite amazing that your experiences back in the past are nothing like my current experiences with this film that I am posting right now.



ProImage 100 scanned at 8200x5300



100% crop from the image above.

 

[Huss]

Overall, I think it is a decent film, but prefer Portra 160 over it. Here is a shot taken with Pro Image 100.

Camaro (Explored 17-AUG-2021)

Who scanned it? Too low contrast and far too much cyan - look at the colour shift on the road.

 

[nickandre]

I shoved a roll into an A24 magazine for medium format. Was pretty cool:

 

[miha]

It's really quite amazing that your experiences back in the past are nothing like my current experiences with this film that I am posting right now.

Ok, let's go 20+ years in the past. These are reproductions of 12"x17" glossy prints. Street snaps, taken in Berlin, Nikon FA, 24mm and 100mm, film was Kodak 400 something, either Supra or Royal, I can't recall. I much prefer these colours to what I see in your scans.

 

[Huss]

Ok, let's go 20+ years in the past. These are reproductions of 12"x17" glossy prints. Street snaps, taken in Berlin, Nikon FA, 24mm and 100mm, film was Kodak 400 something, either Supra or Royal, I can't recall. I much prefer these colours to what I see in your scans.

I see over saturation, blown highlights and blocked up shadows. But that's just me. If that's the look someone is going for - the 1 hour photo process - then cool.

 

[MattKing]

This thread highlights how frustrating it is to attempt to compare films using the internet.

 

[miha]

I see over saturation, blown highlights and blocked up shadows. But that's just me. If that's the look someone is going for - the 1 hour photo process - then cool.

These are reproductions, photos show no such effect, but you are looking someone to argue with, It's not going to be me.

 

[Duceman]

Who scanned it? Too low contrast and far too much cyan - look at the colour shift on the road.

 

[Huss]

These are reproductions, photos show no such effect, but you are looking someone to argue with, It's not going to be me.

Of course not, once confronted with facts. Even basic things like you claiming it had bad grain, and I showed the opposite.

I'm out of this one, but I'll leave with this. You claim the film is bad, but show no evidence of such. What you do is show poor scans from prints from a different film that you took 20 years ago.