Rounding up the C-41 Survivors

[Prest_400]

One of my big mistakes in life was shooting Superia 100 instead of Gold 100. In hindsight, Gold 100 had much better colors. But of Superia 100 was smooth! It gave you smooth gradations... of rather fake colors , while Gold 100 gave you a grainier image, of really tasty colors.

This is why I found interesting if Lomo 100 is Kodacolor Gold, or a close relative, under another vise. Kodak used to make TriX under arista, so why not. I passed on the film while it was available (until 2011?) as I was focused on Kodachrome instead. My interest is because Gold was THE consumer film and it has that "Classic snapshot" look. Options are good, and if it is for 3€ a roll (cheap) more so.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I still have Kodak Vivid Color in 35mm, 120 and 4"x5" and Kodak Ultra Color in 35mm and 120 in my freezer. I bought them up to keep them from the hoarders.

 

[flavio81]

This is why I found interesting if Lomo 100 is Kodacolor Gold, or a close relative,

There was a table on the net where they listed what film was each Lomography film.
For Lomo CN 100 it said it was either Ferrania or "Kodacolor VR 100". VR being of course, the film before Kodak Gold. The progression in technology is:

Kodacolor II ---> Kodacolor VR ---> Kodacolor VR-G ---> Kodacolor Gold ---> (more Gold generations)

There is people suspecting ColorPlus 200 is Kodacolor VR.

I still have Kodak Vivid Color in 35mm, 120 and 4"x5" and Kodak Ultra Color in 35mm and 120 in my freezer. I bought them up to keep them from the hoarders.

Kodak Vivid Color? Where did you find it?
On my freezer i only have 20 rolls left of Kodak Poor Color 100 and some 10 rolls of Kodak Fake Color 200. In 35mm, 818, 620 and 126 format.

 

[mjk]

I wonder if there's any sort of good reference to what the Kodacolor VR/Colorplus stocks look like when they haven't been deliberately abused. Something about the idea of shooting fresh stock of 80s emulsions sounds fun, but I haven"t found many good examples of what it SHOULD look like.

 

[RPC]

Kodak VR film, released in the early 80s was a consumer film with modest contrast and color saturation and gave a natural look, similar to the Portra films of today. But at the the time it was on the market, up-and-coming Fuji was selling films with higher color saturation, but not necessarily natural colors, that was liked by the public.

So Kodak eventually countered with the VR-G and Gold films that had higher saturation than VR, and natural colors. Not to be outdone Fuji came out with the original Reala that was supposed to see color "the way the eye sees it" with the addition of a fourth color layer, yet had slightly enhanced colors but with pleasing contrast.

About that time, Kodak hit the market with the original Ektar, touted as having the finest grain and highest resolution.

This competition resulted in what photo magazines were calling "film wars" among the manufacturers. Agfa, Konica, and others were also joining the race for films with more natural and/or enhanced colors, and sharper images.

Similar things were happening in the color slide world. The 80s was an exciting time for color film lovers like me!

 

[ME Super]

I would chime in here with my own list, but it seems that everyone has already covered all of the C-41 films that I know about. I will say this, in low light in 120, Kodak Portra 800 is da bomb. I have some photos I took indoors at Christmastime that were lit with 5000K LED bulbs with Portra 800, and they look very natural. I'm hard-pressed to see any color cross-over or anything (not surprising, since I did match the temperature of the bulbs with the film I was using). OP, are you shooting 35mm or 120? There are a bit fewer choices with 120 relative to 35mm, but still the films that we have available now are all pretty good to downright excellent.

Now, if we could just get some faster E-6 films back on the market. Even one or two?

 

[mjk]

I'm shooting 135. Around ten years ago, I had a choice between getting an afforable digital body or getting a medium format "starter kit" (body, holder, a couple lenses). Given that film processing waa getting increasingly unaffordable for me at the time, I went digital. Now, when I have the resources to start shooting film again (at least for special projects), I find that the price of 120 gear has gone back up to a point where I can't even consider buying it.

 

[Agulliver]

What I find odd is that the earlier colour films such as VR - to my eyes - do reproduce colours naturally. The Fuji Superia and Kodak Gold are more akin to watching NTSC television...yes, you can make an overcast day look sunny but that isn't what it actually looked like.

Back in the day I always sought out VR or Portra NC rather than the gold and Portra VC films. I also preferred Fuji Superia over Gold because it was less over blown. But that's just me. I remember shooting formula 1 cars on a grey day using Ektachrome...and people complained "but it looks dull"....and I would say "it was a dull day"..and they would reply "But when I shoot Kodak Gold a dull day comes out shiny"....

 

[Harry Stevens]

I always use to buy 10 brick packs of 36ex Konica VX200 for when I used colour and it was as cheap as chips......

 

[mjk]

Well, I just got my first roll back. At $20 for development, 4x6 prints, and low-res scans, I think film is going to be a "special projects" tool but I'm mostly pleased with what I got back. I like the way Ektar 100 handles color and while I found it a bit slow for the handheld streetscapes I was shooting as my test roll, I want to try it for some future landscape work.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Here. It took me 45 seconds to find out what is easily available for USA/Canada.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Film+Type_Color+Negative&ci=2545&N=4093113317+4130468183

But I don't know what might be available for OP. Maybe he is in Cuba?

I like cinefilm in C-41, more than in ECN-2.
I do C-41, ECN-2 at home and print from scans at home. It is not as expensive as in the lab. Home printed 8.5x11 costs me same or less than 6x4 lab prints.