Shot a few frames of Kodacolor 200 at 160

[Minoltafan2904]

I accidentally shot a few frames of Kodak Color Plus 200 @ 160 without noticing with my Canon today ( haven't used it for nearly 10 years, duh... )
Do you think they will be overexposed? Really sunny bright conditions.

 

[MattKing]

Welcome to APUG.
That is 1/3 of a stop - well within the latitude of a colour negative film. Many people do that intentionally. In fact, some people give it even more exposure intentionally.
You should be fine!

 

[wiltw]

Scarcely an issue with color neg. In shooting weddings I routinely underrated ISO 160 film dowjn to ISO 125 or even 100 so as to reduce the likelihood of 'muddy colors' in shadows. Color neg is well known to be tolerant of +3EV overexposure and still retain most of the quality of rendering at rated ISO.

 

[Anon Ymous]

I've shot it at EI100 and it was fine...

 

[Minoltafan2904]

Ok thanks, not that familiar with film chemistry and i have always been taught to shoot film at the box speed.
Also on my Canon you cannot always see the ISO you have set unlike with my Minolta which i'm more familiar with where you can always see it.

 

[Chan Tran]

I too often use Kodakcolor 200 at 100 so you're fine. You would have problem if you set the camera to ISO 250. The ISO 200 is the highest ISO you should use with that film.

 

[railwayman3]

I always shoot colour neg at slightly less than the box speed.....160 or 125 for ColorPlus and for AgfaPhoto Vista 200. It was a habit I got into years ago when I was interested in shooting steam locomotives and similar, where there are often dark shadows in the areas around the wheels and mechanisms (often painted black). Something that was suggested to me by an old-time railway photographer, just enough extra exposure to retain detail in the shadows and avoided them "clogging up".
So your shots should be perfect.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Film tolerates overexposure very well; many photographers deliberately overexpose to ensure they'll get shadow detail.

Somewhere, on the net there's a web site where color film images were overexposed progressively up to about six stops and you could still get a decent print out of it.

Underexposure, however, is bad. You can't print what's not there.

Note that this is the opposite of digital, where overexposure blows the highlights out to max white, but underexposure still retains detail.

 

[MattKing]

Film tolerates overexposure very well

For clarity, Negative Film tolerates overexposure very well.
Slide film - not so much.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

For clarity, Negative Film tolerates overexposure very well.
Slide film - not so much.

Oops! Yes, slide film is a demanding mistress.

 

[Minoltafan2904]

So can i have the whole roll developed normally as a 200 ISO film?

 

[Anon Ymous]

So can i have the whole roll developed normally as a 200 ISO film?

Yes

 

[Cholentpot]

So can i have the whole roll developed normally as a 200 ISO film?

Sure.

I routinely overexpose my film. Even when shot at box I aim for a bit of over exposure.