Jump to content

Kodak Colour Plus 200


ShivaYash

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm in Melbourne, visiting for a few months and saw this very cheap film on eBay. Just got back first roll back and to be honest, I'm disappointed. I rated it at EI 160 following some online reading. Either the lab has done a poor job of scanning or its just a rubbish film. It was well with the expiry date. Am I expecting too much from this budget film? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

This shot seems to be spot on. I think perhaps I just don't like this film as much as Agfa Vista 400 for daily use.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the issue is that I was expecting a fine grain film given the speed being ISO200. I was really impressed with the colours I got with Agfa Vista 400 but found it a little too grainy, so opted for something slower. I do think the lab have messed the scanning however as in LR6, almost every photograph looks far better with exposure reduced by at least 1 stop, sometimes even 2. BUT could the issues be because I did not rate the film at its box speed? I highly doubt it but that is the only issue I can think of re exposure. My camera was CLA'd just the other week and the meter is absolutely fine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

attachicon.gifImageUploadedByTapatalk1452236784.636351.jpg

 

This shot seems to be spot on. I think perhaps I just don't like this film as much as Agfa Vista 400 for daily use.

The color is good for me !

If you want a well done work , develop  yourself  color and b&w !

Good work and no scratches on film

Can you do like me ?

 

Happy New Year Shiva

Best

Henry

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The first is so overexposed that it does not serve as a reference point for assessing the quality of the film.

you might want to post more samples.

And low res unedited scans in any case aren't going to be that helpful...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The first is so overexposed that it does not serve as a reference point for assessing the quality of the film.

you might want to post more samples.

And low res unedited scans in any case aren't going to be that helpful...

I agree, however this is my second roll from this lab, perhaps the first roll was a one off but every frame was spot on, the colours was magic and I had to do no 'work'. This roll however is different and whilst I'm not adverse to some minor edits, I was expecting the same. Foolish of me perhaps ;-)

 

I have restarted shooting film for this reason, to enjoy the process, minimise computer time and just enjoying shooting and sharing the low res files.

 

I'll speak to the lab and revert but thanks to all for your help. Once back home in London I'll be sure to develop and scan my own, at least b&w to start with.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The film can be scanned better than this. Your exposures at 160, and the film itself, are fine.

The problem with the first scan is that the scanner has exposed the film on automatic, and its exposure meter has been caught out by the dark central area of the negative. It should be rescanned so as not to lose the brighter tones.

Pete

Edited by Stealth3kpl
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one taken with my CM using AgfaPhoto Vista Plus ISO 200. As far as I could find it is rebadged Fuji Superia film. This picture is from a roll processed by Cewe where you get a CD with the digital scans together with the prints. File is approx. 2.7 mb.

 

Best

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1. First picture is overexposed. If with an M camera - likely because you pointed the semi-spot metering area at a dark station entrance, in addition to derating the ISO. See attached revision of that image, with a circle showing the only things the meter saw.

 

2. However, color neg film has a fair amount of overexposure latitude, and the highlights have detail. A good scan could easily have compensated for the overxposure. Even on an automated scan line - provided the operator pays attention to each frame.

 

3. My revision below shows what is actually there, to be worked with. Even from a low-res jpg of a bad scan. Far from perfect, given those limitations, but a definite improvement.

 

4. Remember Ansel Adams' dictum: "The negative is the score; the print [or scan] is the performance."

 

Even Offenbach's Bacarole would be cr*p with poor singers or musicians (Not the case here!) https://youtu.be/Hdc2zNgJIpY

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

The film can be scanned better than this. Your exposures at 160, and the film itself, are fine.

The problem with the first scan is that the scanner has exposed the film on automatic, and its exposure meter has been caught out by the dark central area of the negative. It should be rescanned so as not to lose the brighter tones.

Pete

 

I don't think these statements are true.

The auto setting on the scanner will typically create a scanned file that neither blows highlights or crushes shadows.  The highlights in the first image posted above are blown big time.  So we can't blame the problem on the scanner, assuming the auto settings were used.  It is conceivable that the scanner was set to pump up the whites, which would create an overexposed-looking image out of an otherwise reasonable exposed one.  We just don't have enough facts...

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4. Remember Ansel Adams' dictum: "The negative is the score; the print [or scan] is the performance."

 

 

I'd venture to guess that Adams would not view the scanned file as the performance (which is likely to be flat) but rather the ultimate processed rendition of the scanned file...of which there are infinite possible variations, just like he always used to say that there is an infinite number of renditions of a print of a single negative.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Take a look at the +4 stops over exposure in this link. I'm happy with my statements. It may have been over exposed in camera but I think it can be scanned to give satisfactory results

http://ukfilmlab.com/2014/04/24/film-stock-and-exposure-comparisons-kodak-portra-and-fuji/

Pete

Edited by Stealth3kpl
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...