What's with 200 speed print film anyway?

Is 200 speed print film winnerof the award for "best mediocre film"?

Is it the "jack of all trades", but "master of none" film? Obviously

100(and slower)speedfilm was created for more saturated color,in more

controled conditions, and for use with faster lenses. While higher

speed, let's say 400 ISO film, excells in darker conditions, perhaps

where motion is involved, and especially for the slower(can I

say 'consumer')lenses are used. On average I probably shoot

something like(atleast) a roll a week. I have a stock of 100 ISO

(Reala), and 400 ISO (Superia), and NPH films. But based on my brief

definition of what speedgets called on for what situations, I always

seem to have the wrong film in the camera and ready to go for the

situation that I have at the moment. So then we need to rewind, and

then repull the film tab, and put in the 'other' film of the moment.

So it would seem to make sense for me to resort to a 200 ISO print

film and be ready for anything at anytime. Except, no one seems to

feel that 200 ISO is really any good. Or am I wrong? Being that I'm

not an avid user of this speed(200), maybe you could recommend a

brand that is capable of producing very good photo results.

Is my quest for a 200 speed a valid one? My lenses, for the most

part are "consumer" speed lenses. I have a f1.8, but the others are

3.5-5.6ish. So maybe I'm better off keeping 400 ISO in the camera at

all times except for maybe when I'm venturing into that "special"

project where that "special" film is required. What do you think?

Thanks, BT

Robert, While common opinion is that 200 ISO film, in general, is mediocre I don't agree. Fuji Superia 200 for example. I'd never use it for weddings or portraits but for landscapes, on an overcast day, it shines. Sharp, fine grain, high contrast, saturated colour. Works for me. When my brain (most limiting factor in my photography) catches up to the high quality of most films and most lenses I'll upgrade both. It's certainly not the be-all-end-all but, unfairly, much maligned. I have two camera bodies, one with Superia 200 (for low contrast scenes) and the other with Superia Reala (for the sunlit, high contrast scenes) Best, LM.

"If you sell it, they will come."

An opinion I read once I agree with. The one extra stop you get is barely worth the decrease in grain and quality versus some of the great 100 speed films (Reala, Gold 100, etc). And the extra 2 stops you get in a 400 speed film makes skipping from 100, past 200, to 400 more worthwhile. And there are some great 400 speed films such as NPH and Portra 400UC, especially the latter which I beleive has better grain than the standard fare 200 speed films now. The main thing 200 speed consumer films have is price. But unless your images really do not matter then the savings is barely worth the inconsisentcy in color and quality I found through trying many of the 200 speed films out there.

Before we go much further with these comments, let's not lose sight of the reason for this question in the first place. Breaking it down, I'm basically asking what speed print film can be left in the camera most of the time to cover most of my shooting situations; enabling me to get good results? Or, better yet, is there just one?

200 ISO would seem like the logical candidate only because it's smack dab in the middle between 100 and 400. Thanks agian.

I'd leave 400 in by default - or even 800 if you expect situations where the extra stop may be required (depends what you f/5.6 lens is, but at 300/5.6 I enjoy the extra stop that 800 gives me, allowing me to shoot hand-held without being wide-open). 200 is often not much faster than 100 and not much finer than 400, which is why it's often left aside (and if you overexpose 400 by 1/3 to 1/2 of a stop you often won't see any difference with 200 at all).

Richard may be thinking of Philip Greenspun's comment elsewhere on this site.

 

Nothing I shoot is available in 200, except Agfa Scala. But you want the opposite of a black-and-white slide film, so...

 

Unless your 100 results are way better than your 400s, why not keep 400 in? To me, 400 is slow, in any case, and I go for 100 or thereabouts only when I know I can finish a roll before the light goes - unless I plan to use a tripod later on.

 

I know your problem - I have at present just the one camera, so frames 31-37 are routinely bad ones just to finish the roll. Right now, I have Neopan 1600 I'm going to have pushed one stop, but a teleconverter and two filters are bringing exposures down in this fierce sunshine to a manageable 1/8000 at f/22 ;-)

 

Why not get a cheaper second body to keep a different speed film in?

Robert based on your (admittedly needed) attempt to re-focus the answers I'd say a 400 speed film. Especially something like the newish Portra 400UC. Really good grain, great color and scans quite easily compared to most films, IMO.

<i>Breaking it down, I'm basically asking what speed print film can be left in the camera most of the time to cover most of my shooting situations; enabling me to get good results? Or, better yet, is there just one? 200 ISO would seem like the logical candidate only because it's smack dab in the middle between 100 and 400.</i>

 

<p>The answer to your question is 400. The best of the ISO 400 films (e.g., Portra 400UC, NPH, HD 400, but <i>not</i> Kodak Max/Gold/Versatility/Insanity/Whatever) will have good enough image quality for anything you're likely to do. It will be indistinguishable from ISO 100 unless you're shooting with professional-grade prime lenses, consistently mounting the camera on a heavy tripod, and planning to enlarge to mural size. 400 is versatile enough for any outdoor lighting, and for many indoor situations. The only reason you'd need something different is if you need ISO 800 for low light (again avoid Kodak Max/Gold/Versatility/Insanity/Whatever, but Fuji Superia 800 really is an ISO 640 film).

 

<p>I don't really understand why film manufacturers bother any more with ISO 200. It doesn't provide any useful speed advantage over 100, nor does it provide any image quality advantage over 400. The image quality might actually be lower if the 400 is a newer emulsion design than the 200.

 

<p>200 made sense 20 years ago when Kodak introduced VR 200, the first of its kind. It promised (and delivered) image quality at least equal to Kodacolor II, the ISO 100 film it replaced. The ISO 400 film in the VR line-up was a major step down in grain and color saturation (I used both of them at the time), so the 200 offered the best balance between speed and quality. In the intervening two decades, Kodak and Fuji made significant advances in film technology. It got to the point where ISO 400 film offered better image quality than previous generations of ISO 100, while the 100 improved only slightly. The technological improvements generally have gone into the faster films rather than the slower ones. The result is that 400 is now the standard, with 100 increasingly becoming a specialized product. 200 is nothing more than a "living fossil" that inexplicably remains on store shelves.

<p>Robert, I think you've answered your own question. You shoot 100 for special stuff and 400 for general use and sometimes have the wrong film in the camera. By putting 200 in your camera, you would guarantee that you ALWAYS had the wrong film in there. It's not good enough to be 100 and not fast enough to be 400.</p> <p>So I would go with what everyone else has been telling you: stay with 400 for general purpose (especially with those consumer lenses) and save 100 for the tripod... or the beach. :-)</p>

"By putting 200 in your camera, you would guarantee that you ALWAYS had the wrong film in there." He shoots - he scores! Good one!

 

My points:

 

1) 200-speed film is almost always a consumer film. Which means Kodak and Fuji cut corners on dyes and silver like mad to keep their prices competitive with each other and with store brands. This makes for weak, dull negatives that are just about suitable for machine printing, but are noticeably inferior when scanned or pro-printed.

 

2) Therefore, good pro 400 films (I love Portra 400UC but have heard good things about Fuji NPH) will actually outperform the 200s and give the best 100s a run for the money.

 

3) the downside - as pro films they cost up to twice as much (IMHO worth it) and consumer/quick labs can't always print them well unless they have the right programming for the machines.

 

4) When I go 'slow' I shoot slide film - Velvia is still miles ahead of any color neg film I've tried. But when I go 'fast' I go directly to 400UC.

 

In your case I'd shoot 400 as standard - and try a variety, including the pro films - all 400 films are not equal. Someone has theorized that Kodak 400HD(high definition) is 400UC in consumer clothing - but I can't confirm that.

I don't think that racking your brains over one of the speeds between ISO 100-160 and 800 in colour films is worth it when you consider how little it means in practice to what you can do with a camera lens. The gap between films is not as great as it used to be either.

Do people really notice the difference between Fuji professional 400 and 800 films? Please respond.

<i>Someone has theorized that Kodak 400HD(high definition) is 400UC in consumer clothing - but I can't confirm that.</i>

 

<p>When I wrote to Kodak asking about HD 400, this is exactly what their representative told me. But it's plainly wrong. It's more likely that HD 400 is the same film as the <i>Royal Supra [Professional] 400</i> that's sold in Europe and elsewhere, and available through the gray-market at B&H or Adorama.

 

<p>I have had good results with HD 400, but in the tests Bill Tuthill has done it's clearly nowhere near as fine-grained as Portra 400UC.

Kodak Gold 200 is among my most hated films of all time. I hated shooting it, and hated dealing with it in lab because the garbage required it's own channel and wasn't nearly as consistent as Gold 100. Gold 100 had more contrast, but at least it had neutral skin tones and dense colors. The degree of inferiority of Gold 200 vs 100 is nothing less than extreme.

 

I big reason Kodak kept pushing a 200 speed print film is a lack of a decent 400 speed consumer film. Back before UC 400, and even Supra/PJ 400 Kodak didn't have anything in the entire 400 speed realm other than VPH, and that stuff was 'poster child' nasty. This way there was nothing to compare a crappy 200 speed print film to other than NHG 400, which Kodak lived in denial about for a long time. Kodak's lack of pushing a decent, high quality 400 speed print film and wasting R&D on gimmicks like Gold 200 and PPF 400 cost them millions. For the longest time Kodak had only two print films worth shooting and getting most of their market share; Gold 100, and VPS. That was it.

 

Gold 400 is even worse than Gold 200, and Max 400, well..... So essentially there was nothing to lose by pushing a 200 speed print film. The psychology of buying a 200 speed print film is like buying a coke at the fast food place; when in doubt, get a medium, and it still clings to this day. Killing off Gold 100 and RG-100 and leaving Gold 200 is an insult. Hello Kodak, that junk yields green skin tones on Portra paper.

 

UC 400 utterly obliterates Gold 200 in every possible way. Even VC 400 trumps it, and that's not saying much. Fuji's Superia 200 seems a bit tamer than Superia 100 with about the same grain, making it a decent film in the consumer lot.

 

I'm in no way bashing E200 either, which is a great slide film thanks to it's long density and exposure range.

Kodak ex-employee trolls often assert that the Pro division just

appropriates technology from the much-more-savvy consumer division,

but even if this is true, better quality control makes the Pro films

worth buying. For instance Supra 800 was much more consistent than

Max 800, although based on similar technology. And my Macbeth chart tests show HD400 to be 15% grainier than 400UC, implying HD400

should have a PGI of 46, not 39. Looking closely at Agfa minilab

prints, I find Supra 800 @ 640 has finer-grained Caucasian skin tones

than HD400, although blues are much grainier.

 

Vista 200 and Superia 200 are my favorite films in their respective

lineups, except Superia 800, so it's not as if 200 speed films

can't be good. Portra 160NC is almost 200 speed and it is great!

Ted Marcus hit the nail on the head. If you look back 10-15 years ago, ISO 200 was the "general purpose" speed. The ISO 400 films available at that time were pretty bad, and most people viewed them the same way we view ISO 1600 films today.

 

Now that ISO 400 films have improved so dramatically, the current ISO 200 films may not look as nice in comparison.

 

Fuji 200 is a pretty good film, but with choices like Reala 100 or NPH 400, it is difficult to find any reason to use the 200.

 

As far as slide film is concerned, I'm a huge fan of E200/EliteChrome 200, as many of you already know. :-)

Supra 800 may have been consistent, unfortunately consistently bad. It looked too much like the grainy old Gold 800, with blue grains drawing attention to themselves like RG1000. You can say it has better colour though. In my (limited) experience Kodak does not seem to compete well in very fast film.