valdas
Veteran
C200 - isn't it the same as Vista200? Pretty good film and used to be really cheap. Now I found a source for an expired/discontinued Superia 100 (a bit less than 2.5 EUR per roll of 36) which is also great.
Fujicolor C200
- Thread starter steve kessel
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 227
- Views 23K
CharlesDAMorgan
Veteran
It's invidious to single any of your photos out, but this is delightful!
Argentia1
Established
Due to my experience a film with a very good price-performance ratio. Good all-round film.
Very good sharpness and resolution. Like all amateur color negative films it is a bit contrastier compared to professional CN films.
It is a little bit grainier than Superia X-Tra 400. But also significantly cheaper.
I prefer it to its Kodak counterpart ColorPlus 200.
Argentia1
Established
Yes, AgfaPhoto Vista 200 was repackaged Fujicolor C200.
And Vista 400 repackaged Vista 400.
And AgfaPhoto APX 100 and 400 are repackaged Kentmere 100 and 400.
s_zemliakov
Established
C200 is my everyday-film since I shoot almost only color.
Superia was better, but C200 is the only low-budget color film you can find these days in Italy, together with Kodak Colorplus 200, both sold for € 3,50 in a local shop here.
Personally I don't really like the Kodak counterpart as I find it too yellowish.
Some samples from C200:
Senza titolo by Sasha Zemliakov, su Flickr
near petrivka flea market in kyiv by Sasha Zemliakov, su Flickr
Superia was better, but C200 is the only low-budget color film you can find these days in Italy, together with Kodak Colorplus 200, both sold for € 3,50 in a local shop here.
Personally I don't really like the Kodak counterpart as I find it too yellowish.
Some samples from C200:
Senza titolo by Sasha Zemliakov, su Flickr
Swift1
Veteran
Here's one of my recent photos made with Fujicolor 200.
Huss
Veteran
I think the issue with people getting poor results with film like this is that they view it as a low quality film and so take it to the cheapest quickie lab they can find to process it. Those places more often than not (in my experience) could not care less about your film, do not adequately maintain their equipment or keep an eye on the chemistry, and so give awful results.
If you took a roll of Portra, 400H etc to them, the results would look awful with those too.
CharlesDAMorgan
Veteran
Very good point Huss. Looking at my early film photos from my youth, the mass market processed prints are of shocking quality, while the Kodachrome slides that had proper processing are way better.
To think I blamed my Russian camera!
Great shot btw - gorgeous colours.
To think I blamed my Russian camera!
Great shot btw - gorgeous colours.
dourbalistar
Buy more film
I agree with Huss. Although it's a "consumer grade" film, given good exposure and processing (and scanning and digital post-processing if that's your workflow), you can get great results from C200.
dourbalistar
Buy more film
Nikomat FTn, Nikkor-H Auto 50mm f/2 non-AI, Fujifilm Fujicolor 200.
2018.05.19 Roll #155-000919560009.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr
2018.05.19 Roll #155-000919560009.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr
valdas
Veteran
Ok, Vista 200, but we agreed it is the same film...
rolfe
Well-known
C200 is pretty good, especially considering the price.
However, it does not tolerate ANY underexposure at all. As usual, overexposure, not a problem.
Rolfe
However, it does not tolerate ANY underexposure at all. As usual, overexposure, not a problem.
Rolfe
dourbalistar
Buy more film
My experience with underexposing C200 is similar. Shadows turn murky and grainy. Thankfully, I usually overexpose all my film by at least one stop either by setting the meter to ISO 100 or metering for the shadows (sometimes both).
Jumillar
Never Settle
Brno, I don't really know why, but this image really speaks to me. The Constituent parts seem to be perfectly proportioned to each other.. the perfect frame for the classic CitroenHard to get a better film for the price (an average mortal has to pay):
Jumillar
Never Settle
Jumillar
Never Settle
Huss
Veteran
Thanks!
The only film I have had issues with is Cinestill 800. I've had some rolls come out fantastic, others murky. All treated the same way so I think they have a Quality Control issue or I just got a few bad rolls. Which is the same thing.
nickthetasmaniac
Veteran
I really enjoyed C200, although haven't shot much of it...
M2 and Voigtlander 35/f2.5
M2 and Voigtlander 35/f2.5
richardHaw
junk scavenger
its a bit underexposed if thats what happened. i always use a spot meter with cinestill 800, the camera one or a dedicated one is a must for me 😱😱😱
Huss
Veteran
I exposed them the same way, rated at iso 500 in daylight.
Similar threads
