Shooting Kodak ColorPlus 200 @ iso 160

[Cholentpot]

Actually, there is a wealth of evidence that proves otherwise!

Welcome to APUG where humor is stilted and experimentation is frowned on.

Do you plan to optically print your ColorPlus film?
If not, and scanning is part of your workflow, then the discussion is off topic for APUG and, more importantly in general, the scanning part of the process will add so many variables as to make analysis of a 1/3 stop variation in exposure essentially meaningless.
Flickr is great for seeing how people are inspired, but it it doesn't tell much of anything about the technical realities of film.
HOWEVER...
If you find that the combination of using an EI of 160, your equipment, your metering technique, your development routine or your lab's development routine, your choice of subjects and your preferences for output gives you results that you like/meet your needs than I would encourage you to use that combination!

I disagree Matt. Scanning is on topic these days on APUG. The majority of film shooters here scan their film digitally and like it or not this is the future of film. No, it's not a hybrid technique any more than using a digital meter on a modern film camera. For the sake and sanity of people who are sensitive we can call it digital duping.

 

[George Mann]

IMO most posters are like you in that they don't understand how it all works.

You are just full of faulty assumptions!

 

[George Mann]

Do you plan to optically print your ColorPlus film?

Probably not, but this is what the KodaColor series was designed for.

If you find that the combination of using an EI of 160, your equipment, your metering technique, your development routine or your lab's development routine, your choice of subjects and your preferences for output gives you results that you like/meet your needs than I would encourage you to use that combination!

Right on the money!

 

[George Mann]

Can you give us at least some of sources of your wealth of evidence? I must admit to not having seen any of this but I am open to looking at any evidence.

Thanks

pentaxuser

The best way for you to learn is to research the subject yourself. Start with a search about shooting Kodak Ektar @ iso 80.

 

[pentaxuser]

The best way for you to learn is to research the subject yourself. Start with a search about shooting Kodak Ektar @ iso 80.

I thought I had researched the subject and had simply failed to find the sources I was hoping you'd tell me about. Presumably you were looking for help in the loosest sense when you began your thread. I was looking for your help in return to point me in the direction of these sources. As others have said if 160 does what you believe it does then that's a statement by you which you are entitled to make as is the advice you have given me to do my own research but it does kind of end the thread at this point, doesn't it

pentaxuser

 

[trendland]

I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to when you use the phrase "grain suppression" in reference to a method or procedure. Are you referring to the effects that over-exposure can have with respect to contrast and saturation, and the resultant slightly more pastel appearance?
If so, it takes a lot more than 1/3 of a stop increase in exposure to bring those effects into being.

I first interprete his question to overexposure in regard of pull this film
to reduce grain a bit Matt.

First Idea is offen the best - but reading
half this treat I asking to myself :
"Whant is grain supression?"
Glad to read now - you asked too.



with regards

 

[George Mann]

Presumably you were looking for help in the loosest sense when you began your thread.

I was not seeking help, just other peoples experiences.

but it does kind of end the thread at this point, doesn't it

Perhaps.

 

[markbarendt]

You are just full of faulty assumptions!

Giggle. There may be some, but your questions and answers indicate that you have a ways to go before you even understand what makes for reasonable testing procedures.

The best way for you to learn is to research the subject yourself. Start with a search about shooting Kodak Ektar @ iso 80.

George, I suggest you take your own advice before you dole it out to people who have more experience. Or tell us what you do.

 

[MattKing]

I disagree Matt. Scanning is on topic these days on APUG.

It is strictly against the site's rules, and in conflict with the intentions and desires of the owner of the site, the moderators, the Council and the majority of the active subscribers and members.

 

[George Mann]

Giggle. There may be some, but your questions and answers indicate that you have a ways to go before you even understand what makes for reasonable testing procedures.

Actually Mark, you are the only one discussing these testing procedures which you seem to be most fond of!

George, I suggest you take your own advice before you dole it out to people who have more experience.

Another false assumption.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Folks, please take the scanning discussion to DPUG or elsewhere. When the grand site integration is in place, we'll just move threads that go digital/hybrid over there, but for now, please respect the long established topic boundaries of the forum.

 

[Mick Fagan]

I have developed squillions of C41 film that was almost always over exposed for fashion and product photography purposes, well before the electronic aids for film photography were generally used.

The lab I worked in, was attached to a studio complex with about 14 in-house photographers. In general we used E6 film for our standard range of product photography; things like towels, blankets, white goods, and so on. If there was a bit of an iffy subject, like white fluffy towels with a white background, then that was usually shot on C41.

With fashion it was the opposite, almost always C41 with the emphasis on getting dead accurate, or as accurate as possible reproduction on the four colour, sometimes five colour, print run for magazines.

It was standard practice to shoot Kodak C41 film, nominally rated at 160 ASA, at or around 100 ASA. This was always after batch testing in a recently calibrated and sweet running C41 Dip and Dunk bath. Mostly, I remember our working ASA was usually 100 ASA, with true film speed in our bath,often between 125 ASA and 140 ASA

Exposed at 100 ASA, the film was always slightly over exposed either a little, or a bit more than a little, this gave us a tighter grain structure for print making and also gave us very good colour control. The fact that we usually kept highlights and shadow limits within a five stop range did help, but the main help, was keeping the grain structure tighter by over exposing.

One could visually see this effect under a loupe, or sometimes in the negatives side by side on a light box if you stood back and looked at the images as a whole without seeing the detail. As much as you can see C41 negatives in detail, that is. I might also add, the light boxes we used, were also of a colour corrected international standard

We usually received a pallet load of any one batch in 120 format at a time, this helped with consistency. From batch to batch, Kodak professional 160 ASA colour negative film, differed no more than a tenth of a stop; they had wonderful control.

Mick.

 

[George Mann]

I think that just about raps it up.

 

[BrianShaw]

I think that just about raps it up.

Not really. We need to know how many zeros are in "squillions"

 

[markbarendt]

I think that just about raps it up.

Have fun.

 

[MattKing]

The fact that we usually kept highlights and shadow limits within a five stop range did help, but the main help, was keeping the grain structure tighter by over exposing.

Mick:
A few questions about the C41 parts:
1) When was this?
2) What films were involved, and did they include contrasty films like the Kodacolour emulsions?
3) Did you observe the same benefits when you were dealing with films where the highlight to shadow range varied more widely?
4) Did the end output (magazine reproduction) affect the approach, or would you have approached the issue the same if the goal was display prints?
5) Was there consistency with respect to the type of lighting (e.g. studio flash vs. outdoor ambient)?
TIA

 

[Huss]

I have developed squillions of C41 film that was almost always over exposed for fashion and product photography purposes, well before the electronic aids for film photography were generally used.....

Exposed at 100 ASA, the film was always slightly over exposed either a little, or a bit more than a little, this gave us a tighter grain structure for print making and also gave us very good colour control. The fact that we usually kept highlights and shadow limits within a five stop range did help, but the main help, was keeping the grain structure tighter by over exposing.

I have to point out that Mick is in Australia - the southern hemisphere - so the opposite would happen to any of us in the northern hemisphere.
Just like this:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-somebody-finally-sett/

 

[Cholentpot]

I have developed squillions of C41 film that was almost always over exposed for fashion and product photography purposes, well before the electronic aids for film photography were generally used.

The lab I worked in, was attached to a studio complex with about 14 in-house photographers. In general we used E6 film for our standard range of product photography; things like towels, blankets, white goods, and so on. If there was a bit of an iffy subject, like white fluffy towels with a white background, then that was usually shot on C41.

With fashion it was the opposite, almost always C41 with the emphasis on getting dead accurate, or as accurate as possible reproduction on the four colour, sometimes five colour, print run for magazines.

It was standard practice to shoot Kodak C41 film, nominally rated at 160 ASA, at or around 100 ASA. This was always after batch testing in a recently calibrated and sweet running C41 Dip and Dunk bath. Mostly, I remember our working ASA was usually 100 ASA, with true film speed in our bath,often between 125 ASA and 140 ASA

Exposed at 100 ASA, the film was always slightly over exposed either a little, or a bit more than a little, this gave us a tighter grain structure for print making and also gave us very good colour control. The fact that we usually kept highlights and shadow limits within a five stop range did help, but the main help, was keeping the grain structure tighter by over exposing.

One could visually see this effect under a loupe, or sometimes in the negatives side by side on a light box if you stood back and looked at the images as a whole without seeing the detail. As much as you can see C41 negatives in detail, that is. I might also add, the light boxes we used, were also of a colour corrected international standard

We usually received a pallet load of any one batch in 120 format at a time, this helped with consistency. From batch to batch, Kodak professional 160 ASA colour negative film, differed no more than a tenth of a stop; they had wonderful control.

Mick.

I think that just about raps it up.

Drop the mic.

 

[Punker]

ColorPlus 200 @ 100 is amazing.

 

[George Mann]

ColorPlus 200 @ 100 is amazing.

You need to correct the stated iso.

 

[MattKing]

I think that just about raps it up.

sic erat scriptum
I don't have a lot of colour print film in digital form, because that isn't what I generally do with it, but I thought I'd post my own reasonably pretty picture in order to illustrate a point:

It was shot on Kodak Gold 200 metered at EI 200, and lab developed by a good quality lab.
The rendition is more to my taste than what Punker posted, but that is mostly beside the point.
My starting point with any "amateur" film is the stated ISO, because that is the speed that is most likely to yield excellent mid-tone and highlight detail, along with pleasing saturation and contrast - exactly what those films are designed to do at their ISO speed. The example photo was exposed in those sort of circumstances.
If I am using the film in circumstances where lighting conditions/contrast are unusual, I am much more likely to consider increasing the exposure, because that is likely to protect against under-exposure, and under-exposure is the single most likely cause for problems like graininess and poor image rendition.
In a very few circumstances I will intentionally under-expose the film - usually when the lighting is very high in contrast, and the highlight detail is the critical element I am trying to preserve. In these relatively rare circumstances, it is really important to print the results to ensure the shadows are dark - not washed out.
I do not develop my own C41 film, but even if I did, I would develop to the prescribed standards. I hate the colour crossovers that occur when one diverges from standard developing targets, especially if I am trying to print skin tones.
All of which is to say that with the "amateur" films" I recommend using the ISO speed generally, and diverting from the ISO when the lighting conditions or subject warrants it.
If, like Mick Fagan describes, you are shooting in controlled lighting situations, with films designed for professional use, and have very strict and accurate control of development, it is worth your while to fine tune your results to match your environment . Your intended use of the results is a critical component of that fine tuning.
In any and all events though, you won't be able to glean much from other people's internet posts of their results. There are just too many intervening and un-stated (and potentially unknown) variables involved.

 

[George Mann]

The rendition is more to my taste than what Punker posted, but that is mostly beside the point.

Please note that the samples he posted does not represent the best results that the film in question is capable of.

 

[MattKing]

Please note that the samples he posted does not represent the best results that the film in question is capable of.

I'm sure of that.
Over the year I've had lots of good quality results from the "Kodacolour" emulsions, in their various forms.
Starting (for me) with 127 Kodacolour-X, around 50 years ago and continuing through the current Kodak Gold products.

 

[George Mann]

ColorPlus 200 = Kodacolor VR Plus 200.

 

[MattKing]

ColorPlus 200 = Kodacolor VR Plus 200.

Except that it varies with the distribution market. The lower level distributors in Canada that handle the amateur films (and tend to service drug and corner and grocery stores) often end up with product that is labelled and packaged differently than the lower level distributors in the US or other parts of the world.