Fujicolor C200

C200 - isn't it the same as Vista200? Pretty good film and used to be really cheap. Now I found a source for an expired/discontinued Superia 100 (a bit less than 2.5 EUR per roll of 36) which is also great.
 
steve kessel said:
Just bought 2 rolls of this, very cheap. First time I'll be using colour film in a good no of years. What's it like?
Click to expand...

Due to my experience a film with a very good price-performance ratio. Good all-round film.
Very good sharpness and resolution. Like all amateur color negative films it is a bit contrastier compared to professional CN films.
It is a little bit grainier than Superia X-Tra 400. But also significantly cheaper.
I prefer it to its Kodak counterpart ColorPlus 200.
 
C200 is my everyday-film since I shoot almost only color.
Superia was better, but C200 is the only low-budget color film you can find these days in Italy, together with Kodak Colorplus 200, both sold for € 3,50 in a local shop here.
Personally I don't really like the Kodak counterpart as I find it too yellowish.

Some samples from C200:

40825128073_fe5e4a8b98_b.jpg

Senza titolo by Sasha Zemliakov, su Flickr


47475243152_eee58fd3ab_b.jpg
near petrivka flea market in kyiv by Sasha Zemliakov, su Flickr
 
CharlesDAMorgan said:
I think they look great - surprisingly so as I tend to dislike the cheaper Kodak films, but prefer Portra to the Fuji equivalents.
Click to expand...

I think the issue with people getting poor results with film like this is that they view it as a low quality film and so take it to the cheapest quickie lab they can find to process it. Those places more often than not (in my experience) could not care less about your film, do not adequately maintain their equipment or keep an eye on the chemistry, and so give awful results.
If you took a roll of Portra, 400H etc to them, the results would look awful with those too.


 
Very good point Huss. Looking at my early film photos from my youth, the mass market processed prints are of shocking quality, while the Kodachrome slides that had proper processing are way better.

To think I blamed my Russian camera!

Great shot btw - gorgeous colours.
 
I agree with Huss. Although it's a "consumer grade" film, given good exposure and processing (and scanning and digital post-processing if that's your workflow), you can get great results from C200.
 
C200 is pretty good, especially considering the price.

However, it does not tolerate ANY underexposure at all. As usual, overexposure, not a problem.

Rolfe
 
rolfe said:
C200 is pretty good, especially considering the price.

However, it does not tolerate ANY underexposure at all. As usual, overexposure, not a problem.

Rolfe
Click to expand...

My experience with underexposing C200 is similar. Shadows turn murky and grainy. Thankfully, I usually overexpose all my film by at least one stop either by setting the meter to ISO 100 or metering for the shadows (sometimes both).
 
brbo said:
Hard to get a better film for the price (an average mortal has to pay):

Click to expand...
Brno, I don't really know why, but this image really speaks to me. The Constituent parts seem to be perfectly proportioned to each other.. the perfect frame for the classic Citroen
 
Jumillar said:
I love what your doing with this film Huss
Click to expand...

Thanks!

The only film I have had issues with is Cinestill 800. I've had some rolls come out fantastic, others murky. All treated the same way so I think they have a Quality Control issue or I just got a few bad rolls. Which is the same thing.
 
Huss said:
Thanks!

The only film I have had issues with is Cinestill 800. I've had some rolls come out fantastic, others murky. All treated the same way so I think they have a Quality Control issue or I just got a few bad rolls. Which is the same thing.
Click to expand...

its a bit underexposed if thats what happened. i always use a spot meter with cinestill 800, the camera one or a dedicated one is a must for me :eek::eek::eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top