Old Agfa/Fuji film substitutes

[Pseudodionizy]

I am a newbie when it comes to photography, but I've always liked the look of some of these old Agfa/Fuji film stocks, like Agfa Vista Plus 200, Fujifilm Superia 200 or 400 NPH, with bluish/greenish, muted tones and muted contrast. I know that they're all gone now, but I was wondering if you have ever found any other film stocks that would approximate a similar sort of effect? (And I mean mostly among the film that is still manufactured, so as to save myself the hassle of hunting for old, expired film).

I'm sorry if this is a silly question, I was once told that when it comes to colour negative film you still have to print/scan it, remove the orange mask, inverse it etc. and futz with the colours during these steps, which I suppose makes sense. But I've still encountered some film stocks being referred to as inherently greenish, for example, so surely it's not mistaken either? Feel free to explain it to me if you wish And thank you!

 

[koraks]

But I've still encountered some film stocks being referred to as inherently greenish, for example, so surely it's not mistaken either?

For the most part, that's mistaken, yes.

 

[Pseudodionizy]

Well I suppose that was mostly a shorthand of saying "The photos I've taken with this film tend to be greenish/bluish/have this sort of qualities etc.", so you say that it's mostly a result of these people's default scanner settings or something along these lines?

 

[koraks]

so you say that it's mostly a result of these people's default scanner settings or something along these lines?

Stuff like that, yeah. For instance, I've shot a lot of Superia 200 and it's not inherently bluish/greenish, nor particularly muted. It's a moderately saturated film and quite neutral in how it records colors. This is when it's printed optically on RA4 paper. Scanned and digitally post processed, you can make it look any way you want, of course.

Is either one of these versions "more true" than the other? I really don't know. It's evidently the same frame. Coincidentally, it's Superia 200. I've never optically printed this particular frame, but I'm pretty sure it would end up looking more like the one on the left, although probably with even a little more punch, on a modern paper like Fuji DPII. But that's in part because (1) color paper is pretty saturated and contrasty to begin with and (2) I tend to balance a bit more to the warm side usually because I happen to like it.

I'd suggest that if all of someone's shots come out greenish/bluish and with low saturation, it might be worthwhile to look into how the film is being processed - with an emphasis on the digital part of the processing; i.e. color grading. Unless they like their results to be consistently greenish/bluish and with low saturation, in which case it's evidently best to just hope the magic doesn't somehow fade away.

The only thing that comes out *really* green by definition is ECN2 film like Kodak Vision3 optically printed onto RA4 paper. But this very (very!) strong green cast can quite easily be filtered away, leaving a perfectly neutral print. Mind you, this is an extreme case, and even this 'pans out' eventually.

All this makes me very, very skeptical about most (not all) claims online where people state with much confidence that X or Y film looks "very green" etc.

 

[cmacd123]

remove the orange mask,

I guess it is folks who just try to scan with a Digital Camera have this thought, BUT the Mask is an integral part of the film. it corects errors. Oviously the scanning should just render it as Netrial Black so the errors that it corects are also removed.

When I use VueScan to scan a negative the mask never shows. the programs LUT automatically places the three colour records in the right place. (and VueScan when it is tolk it is looking at the negative automatically inverts the image to display a positive.) Fortunately I have avoided using any NON masked film, so I don't know if that would cause a hassle.

 

[loccdor]

When I scanned Kodak Gold or Ektar with an Epson I would tend to see more reddishness in the shadows and midtones than with Fuji color negative films which seemed colder. I always preferred Superia to Gold in the way that it picked up colors.

There are rumors that Fuji is going to begin producing color negative film again soon. But it might be a bit of a wait. I was buying Fuji Pro 400H as recently as last year, which was still fresh.

You also have an option with E-6 that no one considers warm, Ektachrome E100. But it's more expensive and requires you to expose accurately for good results. However, it can be a benefit because it will teach you very quickly when your exposure isn't correct.

 

[Pseudodionizy]

Thank you all for your input, and especially @koraks for your more detailed explanation! In that case, I might like to change my question: if I have a certain colouristic effect in mind for my photos, does it really matter what kind of film I choose, or is it purely a matter of post-processing?

And generally speaking, I would like to learn more about what I should consider when choosing the right colour negative film for my purposes, I'll look into it but if you have any resources I could check out or tips to share, that would be great!

 

[koraks]

if I have a certain colouristic effect in mind for my photos, does it really matter what kind of film I choose, or is it purely a matter of post-processing?

I wouldn't say purely - film choice does matter, a bit. But IMO the effect of film choice is swamped by the possibilities you have in digital color grading. There are many tutorials on this, mostly aimed at pure digital workflows, but it really doesn't matter much with what kind of source material you start. Concepts like exploiting specific relationships in the color circle etc. are useful regardless of where the image data come from.

I would like to learn more about what I should consider when choosing the right colour negative film for my purposes

I'd focus on speed/ISO and graininess. The rest is very flexible.
For general purpose photography I'd recommend more common films like Gold, Portra etc. and not opt for more experimental or 'oddball' films like Harman Phoenix, Orwo Wolfen NC, Adox ColorMission etc., although such products are evidently interesting and perfectly viable in their own right.

 

[blee1996]

If your original photos are in digital (esp Fujifilm X-series or GFX-series), there are plenty of film simulations you can use to get quite close the original Fujifilm look.

On the other hand, it might be quite hard if you start with a Kodak Ektar and try to get a Fujifilm Superia 200 look. A few options:

1) Embrace the different looks, and forget about emulating one film after another
2) Start with motion film stock (e.g. Kodak Vision 3 series) and try to color grading them to your liking
3) In general, use X-rite color target to calibrate between your existing Fujifilm Superia 200 film and other film you will replace them with
4) Find a friend in Japan/Asia, where real Fujifilm color negative films are being sold instead of the Kodak-rebranded one in the US
5) Continue to hunt "recently expired" Fujifilm C200 sold prior to 2021 or so in the US. The last batch I know will expire in 2024, and you can see the difference in packaging.

 

[Pseudodionizy]

Thanks everyone for your suggestions! Regarding all these digital options - I'm sure that they can be very useful, but I have to say, what I find very appealing is the idea of achieving certain effects or looks by purely analog means, with as little as possible digital tinkering. I suppose that for many more seasoned photographers this might look impractical, or maybe too idealistic in a way, I'm not sure, but still - I find this idea appealing and I'd like to see what I could do this way.

I wouldn't say purely - film choice does matter, a bit.

I'd really appreciate if you could tell me a little more about it, or point me to where I could learn more. Most places I've looked seemed to talk in terms similar to those that I used in the opening post, which, as you pointed out to me, are not really correct.

I'd focus on speed/ISO and graininess. The rest is very flexible.
For general purpose photography I'd recommend more common films like Gold, Portra etc. and not opt for more experimental or 'oddball' films like Harman Phoenix, Orwo Wolfen NC, Adox ColorMission etc., although such products are evidently interesting and perfectly viable in their own right.

I understand, I'll keep that in mind, although the Orwo films look quite appealing to me! But well, I'll look into it.

Overall, thank you @koraks for your advice, this is very helpful!