AGFA optima II, any good?

[derek_c.]

My friend gave me a bag of AGFA Optima II Prestige 400 ISO made in

Germany.<br>

They are about 2 years old and only been kept in the refregerator.<br>

I am going to test one roll soon, but...<br>

Let me know if you are familar with this one.<br>

I want to know if this is OK film for weddings.<br>

[j.martin___]

Ctein gave it a rave review in a fast colour film comparison a few years ago. He

thought it was especially good for non-caucasian skin tones. Note, however, that

since that review NPH has been improved, and Portra UC (or whateve they're calling it

now) has come onto the market. Optima II is grainier than both, which is more likely

to bother you if the film is 35mm as opposed to MF. I was one of those who was not

a big fan of old NPH, and took the Optima when I went to Bolivia. It also had the

advatage of being very inexpensive in Canada when the Canadian dollar was the pits.

More recently, though, despite the price I have opted more for the Portra UC and NPH,

and would probably go with the NPH for the weddings. Have fun with the Agfa in

other contexts though.

[jason_fitzmaurice]

Optimae II is a great film. I don't know if I'd use it for weddings though. IF you normally shoot weddings with a low contrast, low colour film like Portra NC then I wouldn't recomend it. If you prefer the look of a slightly higher (though not high like UC) colour or contrast film ie Portra Vc. Then I would say give it a shot.

 

Like all films this is a matter of taste. Many people don't like it.

[tomw]

I like it. I find it has a nice color palette. As others have observed, its grain structure is not as fine as the newer offerings from Fuji / Kodak. But it is not objectionable -- you owe it to yourself to give it a try. FWIW, I have found that by far the best result with it is if printed on Agfa paper using an Agfa D-Lab.

[bill_tuthill]

Jason implies Optima II 400 is a high contrast film, but according to

Ctein's review, it was the lowest contrast of all higher-speed films

tested, even lower than Portra 400NC. It is grainier than 400NC but

not as grainy as 400VC. Agfa has since replaced it with the 400Y

emulsion, which neither Ctein nor I have tested. If medium format and

with decent processing and printing, it should be OK for a wedding.

If 35mm I'd use a less grainy film.

[roman_kuznetsov]

Great film! But I have experience only with ther latest version, marked with 'Eye Vision' logo. Not sure for weddings, but it is good for nature, flowers, landscapes, escpecially nature in winter. Good skin tones, too.

[www.antiquecameras.net]

<p>see Ctein's old <a href="http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/film.htm">HERE...</a>

[scott_eaton]

It's not a bad film at all when scanned, or printed on Kodak papers.

 

Not a good film combined with Fuji printing / Frontier.

[jason_fitzmaurice]

Didn't mean to imply it was a high contrast film (although I do find it a little more contrasty than 400NC) I just meant that in my ewxperience it isn't ideal for say picking uo the difference between the black of the tuxedo, and the black of the lapels, and the blakc of the sil stripe. It's a great film though, one I like a lot.

[scott_eaton]

Optima is a bit hotter than Portra NC, and I've never found Agfa print films to have the finesse at picking up shadow detail as Kodak and Fuji pro print films are. There's just a wee bit of difference in the amount of R&D being spent on their respective film technologies.

 

That said, I'm curious if your assesment of Optima was being based on the prints, or a direct scan. If your using printing as a reference, you'r better be using Portra III or Endura as a reference. Amatuer mini-lab papers like Edge can wall up shadows in Kodak VPS.

[jason_fitzmaurice]

Scot:

Endura, or ocassionally Royal Gold when I'm in a hurry. I would definately agree to NEVER print it on Fuji papers. Unlike yourself I do like the look of Some Kodak products on CA, but have never seen any Agfa film that prints well on it.