Results from my $1 colour film test

H

Huss

Veteran
Local time
6:09 AM
Joined
Sep 19, 2014
Messages
9,859
Ok, $1.49 from Adorama for Fuji C200 36 exp.
This is the same film as Agfa Vista Plus 200.

GlendaleNeutralS-1_zps6826554e.jpg


GlendaleNeutralS-16_zps9e0daffa.jpg


GlendaleNeutralS-11_zpsdc339104.jpg


GlendaleNeutralS-9_zpsb0c3ac31.jpg


GlendaleNeutralS-6_zps7daa8f6c.jpg
 
I was interested in doing this test as contrary to the general perception that cheap film is junk, I knew that a company like Fuji is not going to make a poor product.
I read comments like "it doesn't have the 4th layer, it is grainy, it has poor saturation.." etc etc and knew that unsatisfactory results were either from incorrect exposure or issues with the development.
I have plenty of Portra, Pro 100, Superia and Ektar in my fridge and I still would not hesitate to use Fuji C200.
 
Thanks!

I think the problem with film, all film is not the perceived quality but if it gets messed up in development. It doesn't matter how well the image is exposed if it is then printed on an automated avg grey machine, with stale chemicals, by someone who could not care less.
I have a decent place (Costco!) that I use for the dev and scans, then perform editing on my computer, then for prints I upload it back to whoever I am using for printing and make sure that their auto correct (auto ruin..) option is turned off.
With that, no matter what film I use, if something gets messed up it's because I messed up.
Shoot film! Any film! It's the right thing to do.

;)
 
pete hogan said:
Huss, how did it do on green and on skin? It handled the rest of the colors well.
Click to expand...

I try not to take photos of green skin.

Akshully, I looked through the test roll (I shot it during a lunch break) and green seems good but it was not dominant in the scene. No people pics on the roll, so that will have to wait for the next one.
 
Photo under dull, overcast lighting as someone claimed it is only a good light film:

FebFleaMktS-63_zps6215cef8.jpg
[/URL]

The important thing is to get the exposure right. But aren't you meant to be doing that anyway?
 
Looks great! I've shot a couple rolls of Vista 200. I've also heard complaints about the grain, but personally I rather like it. Besides, it's not that bad. It's a *little* grainy, but nothing bad.
 
Huss said:
Thanks!

I think the problem with film, all film is not the perceived quality but if it gets messed up in development. It doesn't matter how well the image is exposed if it is then printed on an automated avg grey machine, with stale chemicals, by someone who could not care less.
I have a decent place (Costco!) that I use for the dev and scans, then perform editing on my computer, then for prints I upload it back to whoever I am using for printing and make sure that their auto correct (auto ruin..) option is turned off.
With that, no matter what film I use, if something gets messed up it's because I messed up.
Shoot film! Any film! It's the right thing to do.

;)
Click to expand...

I'm using a pro-lab now for all color, Costco used to do my 35mm develop only then I would scan and sent the file back to Costco. I always received good quality. I know the people there and the told me before they closed C-41 development when the chemicals were fresh. Today I sent them a (a means one) file to have printed in three formats: two were perfect but one was way lighter. Something tripped the laser. Now I'm thinking I'll have to do one test with each order.
 
I use pro labs for my 120 film, but have found my local Costco scans 35mm cleaner than the pro labs that I have used (two different ones down in San Diego county). If I needed 35 mm scan greater than 3000 by 2000 then yeah, I'll use them again.
Funny thing is they all use the same Noritsu scanners (you can see this by looking at the info of the scanned images). I guess Costco just does not want to offer the highest resolution scans.
I'm not complaining though for what they charge!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom