robert_thommes Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 I'd like to know if 200 speed color print film is even worth fooling with. I've heard it being boo-hooed as a poor "jack-of-all-trades"to other faster and slower films. I often switch between 100 and 400 speed films myself and would rather not mess with changing film as often as I do if a 200 film would satisfy all my needs in one. But if it would, which specific Fuji or Kodak would be the 200 film of choice? I work in a store that sells both brands of consumer films. So they are handy and a bit more economical to me. By the way, my lens's speeds range from 3.5 to 5.6. I welcome you comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anand_n._vishwamitran Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 Although not quite 200 speed, I have found Portra 160NC excellent for indoor use with flash. For outdoor shots, I like Fuji NPC 160. Give that a shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klix Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 Does your store carry AGfa Vista 200?? If so, give it a try... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ted_marcus1 Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 Unless you're using professional-grade prime lenses, mounting your camera on a heavy tripod, and making mural-sized prints (in which case you should be using Velvia or Provia 100F slide film), you're really better off using an ISO 400 film for everything. The difference in image quality between 400 and 100 isn't much, and the faster shutter speed and/or smaller aperture the faster film allows is likely to give you more sharpness. I am unaware of any real advantage in image quality in the 200 compared with the 400. The best ISO 400 films are so good that there's no need for anything slower. 200-speed films had a good reason to exist 20 years ago. Kodak's VR 200 offered image quality comparable to the ISO 100 Kodacolor II it replaced, and the extra stop was convenient. The 400-speed version was still excessively grainy and had noticeably lower color saturation. But over the years, 400-speed films improved so much that 200 seems to exist only because inertia keeps it alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steven_clark Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 Royal Gold 200 if you can find some. The last roll I took looked better than some NPS I took at the same time, on the other hand that could have just been a screwup in development or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r.t. dowling Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 Fuji 200 (either Superia or Super HQ depending on where you're located) is pretty good. The grain is comparable to Superia 100, but it isn't as contrasty and the colors seem a bit more accurate. Blue skies show no grain at 5"x7". When I want (or need) to shoot Fuji print film, I generally choose either Superia-Reala 100 (for bright sun or portraits), Super HQ 200 (general purpose), or Superia XTRA 800 (low light or action). I avoid Superia 100 and Superia XTRA 400. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now