Drug store film ISO fun and games?

[dmr]

Has anyone else heard this one?

I just saw this posted on "another network" and quite honestly it made my BS detector go "beep-beep" very loudly! It came from a discussion on why there's no more house brand ISO 100 film.

Here's what was said ...

The real reason is that drug store 200 is really drug store 400 with a ISO200 DX code on the cannister. You can't pull it two stops and get decent results. Hence, no drug store 400 with an ISO100 DX code on it. Also the reason they sell '800'. It's all ISO 400.

Yes, I can imagine some marketroid coming up with some idea like this, but I seem to recall from inspecting the negatives of Walgreens/Fuji film that what was sold as Walgreens 200 was indeed Fuji 200, etc.

Anyway, this sounds like total bovine doodoo to me! Anyone here ever heard this one, or anyone know anything for sure?

 

[mfunnell]

Of course I can't "just tell". I do know that, say, Kodak Gold 100 and Gold 200 are the same film, but with a 1-stop ND layer reducing the speed of the lower-rated film. While, on the one hand, "it must be true because I read it on the internet", on the other hand I use both films frequently and have noted their very similar grain etc. characteristics. Kodak Max 400, however, is completely different stuff. I haven't read that on the internet but I've seen it in my results. And it really is 'orrible, and I won't use it. Kodak's Gold 800 is different rubbish - still rubbish, but not in the same way as over-rated (if you'll excuse the phrase) Max 400 would be (though I've used little enough of the 800 to be completely sure, I must admit).

For a while, I was able to get Kodak HD 200 "drugstore" colour film. That was very different from Gold 200. I've had only very limited experience with the Fuji "drugstore" grade films no matter what ISO rating, but I don't like a one of them (though Superior 400 is much, much better than that Kodak Max cr*p). Quite different stuff from Reala, their 160C or 160S, NPH, NPZ etc. films which I do like, a lot, for various purposes.

I don't know whether that helps or not, now I look back on my rather free-range tirade.

But, for what little it is worth, those are my current thoughts on "drugstore grade" colour film.

...Mike

 

[Thardy]

(Some of) That drug store 200 looks awfully good too me. I really doubt that it's ISO 400. And in my experience I've noticed that faster film is usually MORE expensive than slower film, so I really don't understand the tactic.

 

[Gumby]

Don't these films all have edge markings? If this is true it seems taht one would be able to very easily verify by looking at the edge marking.

 

[dmr]

Don't these films all have edge markings? If this is true it seems taht one would be able to very easily verify by looking at the edge marking.

That's exactly what I did when Walgreens switched from Agfa to Fuji for their house brand film.

I do know that, say, Kodak Gold 100 and Gold 200 are the same film, but with a 1-stop ND layer reducing the speed of the lower-rated film.

Hmmmm ... That's the first time I've heard that one too. I don't suppose you (or anyone) have any Kodak-supplied cite for this?