FujiColor C200

<p>Anybody try this film ? It is pretty cheap so I got about 5 rolls from the Adorama website. Adorama claims that this is a good replacement for Fujicolor Superia Reala, but I have my doubts being that it is so cheap. </p>

<p>I've used it, but I cannot compare it well to other film types since I do not shoot a whole lot of colour film. I can just show a few samples of this film: <a href="/photo/17618655">this</a>, <a href="/photo/17618650">this</a> and <a href="/photo/17618649">this</a>. These scans aren't heavily edited; film developed by a normal lab (I also got prints, and they look fine, normal, middle of the road colours). Getting the colours right for these scans was a bit a pain, but it was similarly so for the equally cheap Kodak ColorPlus 200 I've used.</p>

<p>I'd be surprised if it wasn't plain vanilla Superia 200(CA-135 edge code). That's my go-to for consistent consumer film with acceptable saturation and contrast. Reala was finer-grained and a touch less-saturated and vastly better than the gawdawful Superia 100.</p>

<p>Unfortunately I had no canister at hand to verify that, but the coding on the developed negatives was CA-24 / C55. As far as I could find Fuji documentation on their codes, this is not identical to any Superia or Reala film.</p>

<p>It's Superia 200 if it's edge-coded CA. Question is: what generation? Superia films were, until a few years ago, tweaked and updated regularly. Often, previous generations were sold as store brands or current versions renamed for other markets.</p>

<p>C200 is an older generation Superia, possibly even Super-G (remember that?)</p>

<p>It is nowhere near as good as Reala and is not as good as the current generation of Superia. Nevertheless, it's cheap. Think Agfa Vista 200, Kodacolor 200...</p>

<p>If you're unsure, the giveaway signal of a crap film is that it's always ISO 200. </p>

<p><em>"If you're unsure, the giveaway signal of a crap film is that it's always ISO 200."</em></p>

<p>For a "crap" film, current Superia 200 performs amazingly well for me--always.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For a "crap" film, current Superia 200 performs amazingly well for me--always.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>What I was inferring is that all crap films seem to be ISO 200, not that all ISO 200 films are crap :-)</p>

<p>I have just finished a roll, and still have the canister on hand, which is clearly marked as "CA 135."<br>

The film needs to be developed and scanned.<br>

Watch this space as I promise to upload a few scans (but it won't be before the end of this week, sorry).</p>

<p>23rd June 2015...still waiting for the scans... as promised by you :)<br>

Got 10 of it recently and I want to see the results from other forum members... </p><div></div>

If it's the same as Superia 200, it is in some ways a decent Reala replacement. The grain and sharpness aren't as fine, of

course, but scanning it myself using Vuescan I've been able to get very similar colors. For me it's really done well in

overcast lighting, where it has a fairly muted and very natural color palette with good skin tones. I can't speak to how it will

do with outsourced scanning. I've had both good results and overcooked results. Some mini lab scanners can't resist

making results as punchy as possible. I also haven't shot any since my favorite local lab shut down. That lab kept its

chemistry fresh and gave results on par with pro labs, in an hour, for $5.