jaffa_777
Established
I asked a while ago here about E200. Well I finally got around to shooting a whole lot on my last trip. I have just scanned in a few tonight and I am really impressed with this film. It's handy to have that bit extra speed on medium format and hand holding. I was under the impression that it was going to be a little grainy but at box speed I can't see any more grain than you get with E100, and it handles the shadows nicely. I am attracted the warm colours of Kodak, but will also look forward to try the new provia 400x soon and compare.
These were shot on Mamiya 6.
Cheers.
These were shot on Mamiya 6.
Cheers.
erikhaugsby
killer of threads
Those are some nice shots.
I really like how the film renders colors; the low contrast and saturation, along with the warm tone, really fits the subject matter.
I really like how the film renders colors; the low contrast and saturation, along with the warm tone, really fits the subject matter.
akptc
Shoot first, think later
Wow! Gorgeous shots!
mfogiel
Veteran
I have tried this film in 35mm and for me the reaction has been quite the opposite, in fact I think this film is plain ugly, it is not sharp at all, pretty gritty grain and subdued colours. As far as I am concerned Provia 400X does better at 1 stop over, and at comparable speed, if you shoot Portra 400 at 200 EI, you get much better results. Here's a shot of one of my favourite climbing roses, Pierre de Ronsard.
Attachments
erikhaugsby
killer of threads
What film was the rose shot on?mfogiel said:
And I'm intrigued by the differences between your account of E200 and Jaffa's images; would you care to post some examples? It might just be that he's shooting 120 film, which allows more room for grain and apparent sharpness.
mfogiel
Veteran
erikhaughsby
Yes, that rose shot was done on Ektachrome 200, I will attach another shot, a close up of grain, which has really made me sick when I saw how bad the quality was, including unreal colours. For a comparison, I also attach another rose shot (musk rose Albertine), made on MF with Astia 100F
Yes, that rose shot was done on Ektachrome 200, I will attach another shot, a close up of grain, which has really made me sick when I saw how bad the quality was, including unreal colours. For a comparison, I also attach another rose shot (musk rose Albertine), made on MF with Astia 100F
Attachments
40oz
...
mfogiel said:
um, I'm not seeing the problem here. I'm not seeing grain, I'm not seeing "unreal colors," I'm not seeing poor quality. I'm not seeing a big difference in color between the E200 rose and the 100F roses.
I don't like Fuji films in general. None of it that I've ever tried rendered the scene the way I intended, while Kodak's films tend to work for me. I don't like the Portra films for my usage, but the rest I like. That doesn't mean I think the Fuji films are low quality. It just means I prefer the look I get from Kodak. I really don't see anything wrong with people liking Fuji films, and can even like the images they make with it, but prefer Kodak for my images. Taste varies, right? What I see as a poor film makes others happy, and vice versa. The way of the world.
Personally, I really like the images jaffa_777 shared. :thumbup:
Last edited:
Rhoyle
Well-known
Hmm... I think before making any judgments on a film, it's best to decide what film is going to look best for the type of image you're shooting. So consider the right tool for the right job. Some films have a lot of punch and some have less. For example, do you want to use a contrasty film for a contrasty scene? Maybe, maybe not. Since this thread is about E200, I will say one of the very handy aspects of this film is that you can push it to 800 with excellent results. I don't know about taking it any further than that, but for a chrome at 800, it's works quite well. I used it on a trip to Northern Europe in November once because I didn't know what the light was going to be like ie, that it gets dark at 3pm and I wanted enough speed to be usable. I got a lot of great images and it really did the job for me. I didn't expect it to look like Velvia, but the scenery where I was shooting wasn't very colorful, so it would have been foolish to try to capture that look. I was shooting 35mm and the sharpness and grain were quite good. In the summer I opt for other films. Shoot what you feel will do the job and be happy...
BH
BH
amateriat
We're all light!
E200 is about the only slide film I bother to shoot with anymore (besides Kodachrome). In 35mm, grain is accepatble, color balance and saturation are pretty much on-the-money to my eyes, and it pushes well at least to 400 (the highest I've attempted...I tend to go for color neg film beyond ISO 400).
Of course, jaffa shot MF while mfogiel shot 35mm, and there are some differences there as well (and, from my screen, the 35mm rose photo looks lovely, but since I didn't shoot it, I have no other frame of reference).
- Barrett
Of course, jaffa shot MF while mfogiel shot 35mm, and there are some differences there as well (and, from my screen, the 35mm rose photo looks lovely, but since I didn't shoot it, I have no other frame of reference).
- Barrett
jaffa_777
Established
Hey mfogiel, interesting to hear you say that about e200. I have heard some other people say it as well, so thats why I was expecting less than average results, but when I saw it on the light table, I was very impressed an knew it was gonna scan no problems. I haven't tried it in 35mm though. The rose shot looks fine to me.
I used some portra 400nc as well, and have to say it is very grainy. I think it's the old portra but still, I can't see the new one being much better, or is it? I have to say that Fuji NPH kicks ass for low grain in a 400 print film, and talk about latitude. I have shot straight into the sun with this film hoping for nice rich black sillohettes and I still get details in the shadows without blowing the highlights! I choose that over kodak for 35mm every time. I may have to start using it in 120 as well. Hey when you shoot Portra 400 at 200, do you ask the lab to pull it, or process as is?
I am looking forward to trying the new 400x. Even though I don't like the cooler colour balance as much, I am especially interested to see how well it pushes to 640 and 800.
I used some portra 400nc as well, and have to say it is very grainy. I think it's the old portra but still, I can't see the new one being much better, or is it? I have to say that Fuji NPH kicks ass for low grain in a 400 print film, and talk about latitude. I have shot straight into the sun with this film hoping for nice rich black sillohettes and I still get details in the shadows without blowing the highlights! I choose that over kodak for 35mm every time. I may have to start using it in 120 as well. Hey when you shoot Portra 400 at 200, do you ask the lab to pull it, or process as is?
I am looking forward to trying the new 400x. Even though I don't like the cooler colour balance as much, I am especially interested to see how well it pushes to 640 and 800.
mfogiel
Veteran
jaffa_777
You might not see a lot from my small jpegs, but I did 11x14 prints from these slides, and they really sucked. When I make a comparable print from, say Astia 35mm, the difference is abyssal. The C41 negative films are IMHO overrated by 1 stop, especially for normal dynamic range subjects, so unless you are shooting something really flat, you should rate it at half the box speed, and then you see no grain in the shadows, and still get a wonderful latitude and skin tones.
You might not see a lot from my small jpegs, but I did 11x14 prints from these slides, and they really sucked. When I make a comparable print from, say Astia 35mm, the difference is abyssal. The C41 negative films are IMHO overrated by 1 stop, especially for normal dynamic range subjects, so unless you are shooting something really flat, you should rate it at half the box speed, and then you see no grain in the shadows, and still get a wonderful latitude and skin tones.
jaffa_777
Established
One more photo on E200. I have trying to get these results on digital for a while, and well in my opinion now, film kicks ass. I have no reason to be complaining about this film but I wonder what it would be like if I had a 100 speed film loaded at the time.
Rhoyle
Well-known
I'm a real supporter of E200 for works such as that above. Late day, handheld. Good shadows and highlights, good color balance, natural saturation, and yes, sharp. In reference to new vs old Portra, at least in my scanner there is quite a big difference. Should be explored.
BH
BH
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Jeeze, the 120 stuff looks superb to me. Is the 35 that different/worse? I'm almost tempted to get a roll to take to Lake Superior with me next week ... nah, I'll stick with K64.
stephen_lumsden
Well-known
I would agree also that E200 is quite warm and has good latitude also. I have used it quite a lot on my 124G in MF. Its good for handheld grab shots. It has the extra stop over Fuji 100f also.
Stephen
Stephen
le vrai rdu
Well-known
very interesting pictures
will try to shot more color film thisyear
will try to shot more color film thisyear
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
Nice images, Jaffa. Thanks for posting these results.
As for any possible differences between the 35mm and 120 formats of this film, they're all cut from the same master roll. Same emulsion. Perhaps the differences folks are reporting come from changes Kodak has made over the years? Or differences in exposure between cameras. Color balance can change when film is over or under exposed, since the various color layers have differing response curves.
~Joe
As for any possible differences between the 35mm and 120 formats of this film, they're all cut from the same master roll. Same emulsion. Perhaps the differences folks are reporting come from changes Kodak has made over the years? Or differences in exposure between cameras. Color balance can change when film is over or under exposed, since the various color layers have differing response curves.
~Joe