what's wrong with 200 film?

Ok here goes the beginner question:

I have been readung a lot on the film jungle and what strikes me is

that 200 iso films are really banned by alot of experts. Is this for a

technical/artisitc/rational reason? or is the sarcastic statement I

read "200 is just for people who can not make a decision between 100

and 400" I guess 200 is still better then 400 concerning graininess

yet not as good as 100 concerning colors. kind of compromiss. Any

way,....just wondering

Nothing's wrong with it; in the 1990s iso 200 films in most lines were just "in-between" films which hadn't received the same care in R&D as iso 100 and iso 400 films. There are iso 200 films which are very nice; one is Royal Supra 200 which is almost the only colour negative film I use (although I usually expose it at iso 100), and many people used and liked Kodachrome 200 for a special look while Kodachrome was still alive. It's just a market acceptance issue I guess. This is why iso 200UC doesn't exist in the US; while Europeans buy RS200 and HD200 with desire.

Even further back in history, in the bad old 1980s, it was exciting to try out new types of color negative films with ASA200 and ASA400 ratings. These were fast films in their day! And Kodak even brought out a 1,000 speed film. Wow!

 

My experience with them was this: The 100 speed film was wonderful stuff. The 400 speed film was pretty grainy, and the colors were muted, but sometimes you just needed the extra shutter speed so okay, it was acceptable. The 200 speed film looked every bit as bad as the 400 film, but wasn't as fast. That's why I never liked it.

 

I do not know about today's 200 speed films. They may be great. I've just gotten into a very comfortable habit of using 100, 400 and 800 films for most color negative shooting. Hmmm... plus Portra 160NC for "people shots." And that's awfully close to being a 200 speed film, isn't it? And it is the sort of film Billy Crystal would shoot, so he could tell his subjects, "Yoooo look MAHvelous." Love that Portra.

 

By the way, the original Kodak 1000 color film was fascinating. Made any subject look as if it were in the middle of a dust storm. Just incredible grain... all grain, all the time... edge to edge and wall to wall.

 

So anyway there may be nothing wrong with 200 film. It just left a bad taste in my mouth decades ago and I never felt compelled to try the new stuff.

 

Be well,

HD200 is my favorite film today for landscape shots.

There are many generalizations about films of different speeds. As I understand it, Kodak's consumer 100 and 200 speed films are essentially the same. The 100 speed film has some kind of coating that reduces the speed by one stop but the grain and sharpness are the same. Every photographer has a favorite film. When it comes to color print film this may have more to do with how his/her lab does with a particular film. I used to shoot Konica Impressa and 3M color print films. What I discovered was that many labs made excellent prints from Kodak, Agfa and Fuji negatives. They just couldn't get the Konica Impressa and 3M films right. The Konica Impressa and 3M films were capable of delivering fine quality but not at the labs I used.

 

Rather than choose either 100 or 400 as a color print film speed, many photographers have stopped using the 100 speed. It's just too hard to see the diference (if there is any) between 100 and 200 speed films. Special films for weddings and portraits, which have a speed of 160, are made for special circumstances. They typically have lower contrast so a white wedding dress and a black tuxedo can both show up well together. They are also used very often in medium format size so the exact difference in grain between one of these films and a 100 speed film is not apparent even in pretty large prints.

 

Find the film you like and use it. Don't worry what others think of your choice.

 

Jeff Adler

In some instances 200 films have almost as much grain as 400 films from the same manufacturer, without a big speed advantage over 100.

 

I personally typically use ISO 100 and ISO 800 film (fuji CN/CS and CZ), skipping 200 and 400 entirely.

In the 1970's the transisition from C22 to Flexiciolor ( C41 ) occured. <BR><br> In 1976 C41 was fully in swing. It allowed the 1 hour lab to evolve. C41 had higher temps; shorter processing times. Kodacolor X became Kodacolor II in C41. The asa was 80. Vericolor II type S was asa 100 for Daylight and strobe. Type S was for short exposures; less than 1/10 second. Vericolor II L was asa 80 from 1/50 to 1/5 second and for tungsten 3200K ; asa 64 at 1 second; asa 50 at 5 seconds. <BR><BR>In 1976; slide films were pushed by Kodak from asa 160 to 400; High speed Ektachrome was 160 stock; 400 pushed; in the E4 process then. <BR><BR>In shooting sports; I used one body with tri-X at asa 400; and another body with High Speed Ektachrome at asa 400. Color print film was too slow; at asa 100 then; for sports manytimes. <BR><BR>In the late 1970's; the asa 400 Fuji and Kodak print films appeared. At first they were not the best; but they helped kill of many of us using asa 400 slide films. The Fujicolor F-II 400 C41 color print film was the worlds fastest film for color prints. This was about 1977/1978. Kodak later had asa 400. <BR><BR>My first usage of asa 400 was in a Rollei A110 camera. The results were abit worse than the normal speed films. The Kodak Disk camera probably had asa 400 films too. Once they camera magazines said 35mm would be replaced by 110 film; then disk film. Today 110 film is at two local stores; and the later disk camera film is long gone. <BR><BR>The 1970's fuji 35mm products were often in like "Kodak type snap caps". Often they would come apart in film mailers; or pop open if dropped. After consumer complaints; they started crimping their cartridges; like Kodak has done for decades before. Some if dropped just a foot would pop out; and one would get a sick feeling of ruined exposures. <BR><BR>The asa 800 films were brought out mostly for the evolving 35mm P&S market. Here disc processing was more expensive than 35mm prints; and more expensive than 110 prints. 35mm P&S allowed the masses to get decent 1 hour c41 prints; and decent prices. The more recent APS "advanture" :) by Kodak made printing here be 25 to 50 percent more in printing costs; than 35mm print films. Here consumers again rejected the more expensive processing gambit. One would think they would have studied past adventures in expensive formats; that consumers rejected. <BR><BR>The coupled zoom P&S than evolved had slow F5.6 say lenses; and really needed asa 800 print films. Way too many blurred soccer shots of the kids. :) <BR><BR>The old Kodak Ektar 1000 I used was great; or average.Later it probably morphed/relabeled? to Royal Gold 1000. <BR><BR>The Kodak 800 print films vary alot in quality; alot due to storage; heat in warehouses/trucks before getting to stores. A lone about expired dusty roll of asa 800 print film; from an unairconditioned store in Texas; might be abit "not up to par".<BR><BR>About 3 years ago; the local walmart had asa 100,200, 400, 800 color print films; in both Fuji and Kodak. Today the 100 is gone; the 200 on life support ; the 400 and 800 the staples.

Re <i>I personally typically use ISO 100 and ISO 800 film (fuji CN/CS and CZ), skipping 200 and 400 entirely.</I><BR><BR>This is mostly what I do with 35mm color print films.

M.I., By my count, the above replies indicate 3 in favor and 4 against the use of 200 speed films. I'll throw my hat into the pro ring to make it an even 50-50 split. My opinion of the worth of any film is the intended use for the finished prints. (not dealing with chrome film here). If one is shooting professionally (for profit) or gallery display as an advanced amature (with deep pockets) then the professional films (read consistantly high quality) are the way to go. If you are a hobbyist on a budget then consumer films (read cheap & plentiful) may be the way to go. Only you can decide if the final print quality satisfies your needs. I fall into the latter category. I shoot consumer grade films for pleasure and professional grade film if I am shooting a family or wedding portrait where skin tones are most important. Your own results should tell you if you should switch or not. Your own posted shot "Capri Harbor" is a good example. Taken with a high contrast film under high contrast lighting conditions it lacks detail in both highlights and shadows & thus falls short of that 'maximum quality' plateau. A lower contrast film like Reala would be better for a scene such as this. For portraits of people perhaps Portra 160 NC or Fuji NPH would be a good starting choice. It's been said that 'most lenses are better than most photographers' and I rather suspect the same is true, more or less, for films with the disclaimer that subject matter should dictate the type (low\high contrast)of film used. I agree with the last 2 sentences in Jeff Adler's reply. Best, LM.

They don't label pro emulsions in ISO 200 (except E200, that's all I recall). However,

remember that ISO is only a relative thing, it doesn't mean much alone. There are a whole

lot of ISO 160 pro films, many of which could be labeled as 200, I suppose as well as some

among those known as 400.

Nothing is "wrong" with 200 speed film. But for professional use, the film companies decided to focus their efforts on other speeds. So inevitably, some snobs will sneer.

 

My (unproveable) belief is that this goes back to Plus-X (125), Tri-X (400) and printed exposure charts, where a one stop difference would have had less visual impact. There are probably historical reasons for 160-speed portrait film as well, but the first film at that rating I remember was "high-speed ektachrome."

Most of the color stuff in the bottom half of <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=292416">Tim Holte's Single Photos Folder</a> is Gold 200. Not a thing in the world wrong with it.<P>

 

The majority of the shots on my really-needs-to-be-updated blog are on Kodachrome 200.<P>

 

200 is a perfectly good all-around film speed for people who don't want to carry more than one film.

I assume you're talking about ISO 200 color negative film.

 

Nothing's really wrong with it. But there's nothing right with it either. It doesn't gain you much image quality over an ISO 400 film, and it doesn't gain you much convenience over an ISO 100 film. It doesn't offer much of any advantage. Much of the research and development work in emulsion technology has gone into ISO 400 and 800 films, improving them to the point where there's really little advantage to anything slower than 400. I would thus recommend the latest ISO 400 film (e.g., Ultra Color 400) for most shooting, supplemented with some 800 (e.g., Fuji Superia/Press 800) when you need a bit more speed.

 

Slide film is another matter. For some reason, ISO 100 is the "sweet spot." Anything faster than that has dramatically coarser grain and reduced color saturation. Fuji seems to have found an exception to this rule with Provia 400, which has grain comparable to older ISO 100 films. But other than that a faster slide film entails a significant sacrifice.

Instead of thinking in terms of "200-speed film" across the board, look at individual films. Fuji's Superia 200 is, in my opinion, inoffensive at best. Kodak's Bright Sun and Flash (Gold 200) is a good film if not very exciting. Kodak's HD200 is excellent for a variety of uses; I use it now and again for landscapes, and the colors are gorgeous. Experiment and see what you like.

<I>But for professional use, the film companies decided to focus their efforts on other speeds. So inevitably, some snobs will sneer.</i><P>If by beeing a "snob" means I'm not buying print film in truck stops and drug stores, and actually care how my pictures look, then call me a snob. No offense, but 200 speed print films, and amatuer print films in general, are used primarily by consumers (housewives and teenagers) and not real photographers. My feeling about the entire lot in general is simply close your eyes and grab any box off the rack because that garbage (consumer print film) all looks the same anyways. It's sold by Kodak and Fuji with the intent the photograper simply won't care and you'll be attracted by the shiny colors on the box.<P>Kodak Gold 200 is about the most worthless material on the market next to the far superior Gold 100, which regretably is becoming tough to find. Gold 400 sucks almost as bad, and I don't have much good to say about Superia 100 and 400 either because of the way they make skin tones look like Ebola victims. If I want a decent print film I'll use UC 400 or NPH or Reala vs encourage Kodak and Fuji to dump more amatuer films on the market and lay off emulsion engineers by buying that crap. How good is HD 200 and Superia 200? I don't care, because I don't use either and never will because both are inferior to UC 400, WAY inferioir to Reala, and we all know it. <P>200 speed print films were introduced for the same reason McDonalds introduced medium size soft-drinks - marketing, and Gold/Max 200/400 need to be regarded as the fast foods of the film industry: Absolutley no nutritional value what so ever. Gold 200 lacks the dense color saturation of Gold 100 (the films are radically different with good printing), and it's totally blown away by UC 400 and NPH. However, we being a bunch of fat and lazy consumers, we justify buying it because we can also pick up a loaf of bread, toilet paper and deodorant at the same place we buy film. Do yourself a favor and get some UC 400 or Reala 100. If you can't see the improvement over Kodak and Fuji's garbage amatuer print films, then your photofinishing is so bad you might as well use what ever film you can find cheapest because it doesn't Matter anyhow.<P>RE: Kodachrome 200 was proof Kodak could apply the same poor exposure lattitude of K64 and give it Ektachrome 400 grain at half the speed. Boy, I sure regret not saving bricks of that in my cooler (not). When I first drum scanned K200, I thought the A/D deck on my scanner was going out because of the horrendous grain.<P>Ektachrome 200 is the only 200 speed slide film I recall that's been endorsed by pro photographers, and I still don't think it's worth using next to Astia 100F and E100G. <P>160 speed portrait films are far closer to 100 speed than 200, and they have nothing in common with amatuer films in general.

To back up what Scott said above, my test indicated that HD200 is

17% grainier than 400UC, measured by PNG compression of all colors

in a 2400 dpi Macbeth chart scan. Royal Supra 200 might be better

(it's touted as a professional film) so I should test it. But notice

that nobody above is saying "I tested both and RS200 is better."

At one time Superia 200 and Vista 200 were comparatively good,

but that was back before 400UC and new NPH. (Old NPH-- now that was

a good 200 speed film! ;-)

Scott, you never grow up do you?

 

Royal Supra 200 is a very nice film in my opinion and since 400UC or 100UC aren't available in Europe (in 35mm), it is their closest equivalent. I would have preferred Supra 100 to be continued but apparently Europeans are quite different from Scott and will consider any film based on its merits instead of bashing at them mindlessly with only his own applications in mind. Scott, ever thought that people shoot different subjects, on different papers, and in different conditions, with different preferences? Why is it so hard to get it to your head that you don't have some supreme gift of divine taste which everybody else must agree to?

<i>If by beeing a "snob" means I'm not buying print film in truck stops and drug stores, and actually care how my pictures look, then call me a snob. No offense, but 200 speed print films, and amatuer print films in general, are used primarily by consumers (housewives and teenagers) and not real photographers.</i><p>

Thank you for proving my point so well. Bad film comes at all speeds, including 200-speed. It also comes in a variety of brands. To condemn all 200-speed film because Kodak's baseline consumer speed film is crap makes just as little sense as to condemn all of Kodak's products for the same reason.<p>

I prefer Agfa Vista 200 to either HD200 or Superia; it has the contrast I'm looking for with good color saturation and grain structure. When it was available fresh, I preferred Supra 200 to any of the above.<p>For portraits, I shoot NPS. Occasionally, for a session with a darker-skinned subject, I'll use NPC. I've only shot 1 roll of UC400 for some artwork in a quasi-studio setting, but I found its predecessor 400UC to be almost garish. If you like the enhanced contrast of Reala for all your shots, more power to you.<p>

My experience has been that at least half the people who buy "professional" films waste their money. Many don't bother chilling them at all. Others take shuttle them in and out of the 'frig many times or leave them in the camera for a month or two. Still others freeze them forever, and don't bother letting them warm enough before use. But the easiest way to waste money on pro film is to take it to the wrong lab. Even assuming the lab just doesn't toss it into a machine between rolls of consumer stuff, the lab may do better work with Fuji than Kodak or the other way around. That even applies for the better grade consumer films.<p>

In short, I pick a film I feel is appropriate for what I'm expecting to shoot, the lab where I'm planning to get the work done, and the results I get, rather than relying on labels and high price tags.

Ah, yes...once again, Scott shows up to rain on the parade. Heaven forbid we should like a certain film's color pallette in spite of the Big Giant Head. Like it or not, Scott, taste is subjective, not objective, and you can't choose for us. Let's all keep in mind that Scott likes virtually NO films out there, and he's a very polar person: love it or hate it, no in-between.

 

And Bill, while I won't argue with your test, I'll point out that (a.) grain is not the only factor in aesthetic pleasure, (b.) seventeen percent is realistically very little when dealing with films that aren't grainy to begin with unless you're making posters, and (c.) lab tests such as this, in my experience, have little bearing on real-life shooting conditions, so there's much more to a film than the MacBeth Color Chart.

Scott, did you look at Tim's pictures?

I think Tim's images are a bit too non-mainstream to judge whether Gold 200 is a good film or not in general. Lots of abstract color casts, almost cross-processed looks. But maybe that's why he used Gold 200!

Oh, this is about mainstream? Then do whatever Scott says.

Hehehe so much fun..just asking a silly question about film, and voila....o many opinions.. :) Thanks guys! Basically it is all about personal preferences after all. ahh btw:

 

"If by beeing a "snob" means I'm not buying print film in truck stops and drug stores, and actually care how my pictures look, then call me a snob. No offense, but 200 speed print films, and amatuer print films in general, are used primarily by consumers (housewives and teenagers) and not real photographers"...yes Scot you are a snob...and btw why are you make such a fuzz about 200 films...when you photograph with a DIGITAL CAMERA.....no that is for amateurs and housewives and spoiled teenages hanhing bored behind there PC....

Skull-boy, if one is to test or judge a film for general work, then yes, mainstream, typical circumstances are best. It's call proper evaluation. For Tim's work I guess 200 works. But seems to me since he pushes film beyond typical limits and circumstances then most anything might work. The original poster said it was a beginner question so I just assumed typical, standard photographic circumstances would apply. Once that's established, as sort of a "control", then a person can take it from there in the direction they want. Tim's got nice stuff, certainly not anything to proper judge the film by though for standard, typical photographic purposes. People can pretend they are cutting edge and radical all they want (most are not) but I would guess to say that 90% of film use is for snapshots, portraits, landscapes, travel, etc. Not such esoteric, artsy purposes.<p>Everyone loves to bash Scott these days, and based on his attitude and history it's no wonder. He can be an A-1 jerk. Does not change the fact that he probably has more experience with film than all the posters on this thread combined and is extremely knowledgeable about these films and their characteristics. Ignore his attitude, I've learned to, but ignore his knowledge and advice to your own disadvantage.

"premade" sandwiches vary widely in quality at convience stores and truck stops. They are never like a homemade sandwich. Some are decent; and great if super hungry. Others are crap ; old; like cardboard; and only are eatable if one is totally starved. <BR><BR>This is my take on print films bought from unknown ratholes; in a total emergency. Here the storage conditions are unknown; and the quality varies alot. <BR><BR>ASA 200 films are just there; nothing to get excited about. In emergencies I have used it in place of asa 100 films; and had a mixed bag of results. <BR><BR>