What do you thik about KONICA films???

Hi folks,

 

I would like too much to know your opinion about Konica negative

films.

 

Yours,

 

Charles

I think you'd do better by loading scotch tape in your camera. If you want quality pictures, use quality film. Kodak for red things and portraits, Fuji for blue and green things. Maybe that's oversimplifying it, but Konika I used for a while because it came free with my processing, and I was never happy.

I used to think that of Konica too, but they have a very highly rated 50 ASA print film called Impreza 50. I have not yet tried it. Just read a lot of good things about it. Supposed to be the best thing since Ektar 25 and Agfa Ultra 50! Also can be difficult to find.

I had good luck with some sample rolls of the new stuff in 35mm. I had the 100 and 200 versions and was taking brightly colored subjects in sunny conditions. I thought that the local Walmart/Fuji Frontier did a very nice job on the processing (this is a well-run one), so I'm guessing the filter packs are somewhat close to what they are accustomed to with Fuji and Kodak emulsions. I've been luke warm to their films from past experience but I was very happy with this new generation Konica.

Konica Impressa 50 is a great film for metallic things. I shot a roll of it at a car show. The prints from a Fuji Frontier machine were great.

 

That statement about Kodak and Fuji being the only quality films is silly.

Check the other thread on this forum about Konica film:

<a href=http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005qdD><U>http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005qdD</U></A>

I've used almost all consumer brand films and Konica certainly holds its own against the giants. Its 400 ISO film is FAR superior to what Kodak offers on the consumer front in terms of general snapshot use. I am talking about VX, Centuria, Super Centuria, you name it. It handles sun/shade contrast situations better than Fuji 400 speed consumer film.

 

In fact I've just loaded up on expired Mitsubishi MX-II film that is repackaged Konica film because it is so good and cheap.

 

The only other films I use regularly are Fuji Press 800, possibly the best all round film available at a reasonable price and Kodak 100 another sleeper.

 

If you don't trust expired film, you can go down to Dollar General and buy their store brand Konica film and get 3 27exp rolls for $5.

 

Konica Impressa film is great, but pretty expensive and not that easy to find. You get basically the same thing in Konica's 100 speed consumer films.

Used them for 3 years on cruiseships back in the 90s. I found them OK for most of the work but nothing special and maybe a little contrasty. I saw your post about the cruiseship pictures bad skin tones and all that I don't remember getting bad skin tones only that the highlights would burnout so easy on the white shirts. I don't think it is a great film for enlargements though it does not look as smooth as fuji thats for sure. Sorry to here your cruiseship pictures were bad. I know during my time on ships a lot of time and effort went into maintaining the quality of the shoots and the quality of the prints.<br>Cheers.........

Stuart,<BR>

 

<B></B><BR>      My wife and I have taken dozens of cruises in the last 20 years or so. The quality of them has gone down steadily, particularly with the less expensive cruise lines, although it is still good. I would think that the same is true of the quality of the photo processing on board as well as the food. Looking at the photo displays of the formals from a distance gave me the impression that they were displayed in different lighting (although it was all the same). The section of the photos with the sea backdrop looked like it was under yellow light, the section with the stair backdrop looked like it was under red light, etc. I have some good formals taken from earlier cruises so I didn't bother to have any taken.

That is quite terrible that the quality has got so bad. I remember when we would check everthing if it was bad it went to the garbage we absolutly strived to get everything right especialy the formal portraits. We stopped using the grey backgrounds because everytime we corrected for the skin tones so they looked good we could see that the background would change color as well for most people it was ok but the rather sunburn ones would end with a blue background because we would have to remove some red which effected the whole print we use blue background instead so the effect was at least less obvious. I guess they should be looking at the quality of their work more closely. I only hope you have better luck next time. <br>Cheers......

Konica Centuria Super 1600 is an excellent high-speed film. I like it better than Fuji 1600. It seems to have finer grain and better skin tones. I use it for nighttime sporting events and concerts.

Konica Pro 160 is a competent portrait film. The higher-speed

Centuria Super films scan nicely, but my Agfa and Kodak-based labs

cannot color balance them correctly. Maybe I should try them

on a Frontier.

 

R.T, do you use Konica 1600 instead of pushed NPZ due to lower cost

or do you like the results better?

<i>[cruises]...I would think that the same is true of the quality of the photo processing on board as well as the food.</i>

 

<p>Living in a country that builds cruise ships and has many cruise ships operating on its waters, I can say that the quality of photos have gone down (the food has pretty much stayed the same or in some rare cases it got better). The idea was probably imported from the US some 10+ years ago, the initial interest quickly passed then. The photographers regularly use Konica films and the prints look hopelessly bad compared to eg. Agfa Vista on a d.lab-3.

Impresa 50 is amazingly fine-grained. Colors can be slightly out-of-tune, and I think it doesn't have as much latitude for overexposure as higher-speed films (which probably explains why it's good for highlights, which will appear slightly blown out, and makes me think that it's really a tuned ISO100 film that develops slower than the standard C41 films).

 

I think that theirs 1600-speed film is slghtly finer-grained that Fuji's 1600, but I have extremely little experience with either, and I like Fuji's 800 better than either of those.

 

I've not shot any other of their films.

Every time this subject comes up, I put in my little cheerleading for Impresa. It is my 120 color neg film of choice; I wish it came in LF sizes. Beautiful palette, and so sharp it hurts. Why not give it a try?

 

I've heard other Konica/cruise horror stories: Konica certainly isn't doing themselves any good or us any favors by giving away bad film.

 

I'm glad to hear some good things about some of their other films, maybe they'll be around for a while...

 

CXC

I tried a roll of VX-100 when I was dealing with the death of Supra 100 by trying a roll of every ISO 100 print film I could find (I'm not sure if I tried VX-100 or Super VX-100, because I ordered the latter but the box label had no "Super" on it). I found that it had low latitude and large grain. For the money (or 20 cents more), I'd usually rather have a roll of Fuji Superia 100.

 

That's the only Konica film I've tried so far. I have a roll of Impresa 50 in the freezer, but I haven't tried it yet.

 

Nonetheless, that doesn't mean you can't take reasonabl pictures with it; I'll attempt to attach one of the better examples from my one roll of VX100.