Kodak ColorPlus 200

Nesster · Expire: 2014-02-20

I bought this film at the camera show as I wanted a roll to test out the Miranda D. Never heard of it before... but so far I think it is good stuff. Less grain, more transparency than the Ferranias, less garish than the consumer Fujis and Kodak Golds...

I paid $5 for 2 rolls of 36 exposures... B&H wants $2.99 per roll... and I see one can get 10 rolls at $1.49 shipped via ebay. So it is low cost.
Click here to see on Ebay

(At the show the guy also had ColorPlus 100 but I don't see it on the web...)

All with the Miranda D / Miranda Soligor 5cm 1.9 PAD lens

Overbrook, Essex County Asylum by Nesster, on Flickr

Entry gate wing, Overbrook, Essex County Asylum by Nesster, on Flickr

A few more samples here
http://forum.mflenses.com/miranda-d-t40338.html
http://forum.mflenses.com/1936-franka-solida-6x4-5-steinheil-cassar-2-9-7-5cm-t40429.html

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

Excellent! Thank you for tip!

Excalibur · Expire: 2014-04-21

Well like you (after using many rolls mostly expired) I can get decent results, but IMHO for 200asa film Kodak Colorplus is inferior to Fuji superia...in some shops (in the UK) it's �1 for 24 exposures.

I've posted this one before, the smudge on the right side is my finger in the way:-

Nikon P&S AF210, kodak colorplus

rbelyell · Expire: 2014-01-31

seems totally real, absolutely what you see, no?

Excalibur · Expire: 2014-04-21

Nesster · Expire: 2014-02-20

Well, internet opinion can tend to have a large sheep quotient to it (as in a herd) where some one proclaims something with conviction, and this is picked up by others, till it is accepted as true and repeated each time. And often by people who haven't actually tried it (whatever it is) and never will try it, yet are absolutely convinced of the truthiness of what they believe.

Sometimes this opinion is correct, often times it is only partly correct. (Excalibur, I hope this isn't coming across as an attack on you or your opinion, it isn't.)

We've all seen this, with vintage lenses in general, something which mflenses has put right... with all sorts of semi technical / subjective claims... such as how big can you print from a given sensor size... or that you should automatically use a wide angle lens for 'landscape' photography... or that lenses that change character wide open vs stopped down are automatically and always inferior to those that do not. Or that a 4 element lens is automatically better than a triplet on vintage medium format cameras. All of the above depends on what you're after, and why, and how skilled you are in getting there Wink

I can see where this film would be boring in some situations... but it has certain virtues: cheapness and color/tonal fidelity. I do not see a huge difference in quality between this and the Fuji 160S I shot at the same time, in a more modern camera/lens combination - the Fuji grain may be a bit cleaner, but neither film seems to have major color issues.

One advantage we have with film is that we can dial in different looks by using different films.

At any rate I ordered 10 more rolls and will see how this film fares in the longer run.

I just finished a roll of the new Portra 400 in the XE-5 and will report on it.

Excalibur · Expire: 2014-04-21

Well Nesster all I can add is that out of all the different films I've used, my best shots do not seem to be on colorplus film, but then that might be explained by:- for anything important (e.g. holidays, weddings) I wouldn't use colorplus.

Nesster · Expire: 2014-02-20

neither would I, probably

hexi · Expire: 2011-11-18

Great color reproduction, i had 15 rolls of this film and sold it, cos color isn't my best in film :s paid about 30$

Katastrofo · Expire: 2013-11-19

Colors look purdy good to me. Nice set of your future home, when are you
moving? Smile

A friend sent me 10 rolls of KG200 and a 3-pack of Kodak HD 200, will
see how it goes as I've never tried the HD 200.

Nesster · Expire: 2014-02-20

While I can understand there are consumer-Fuji fans and consumer-Kodak fans when it comes to color print films... I really do not see why there is such antagonism towards ColorPlus 200 on the internet. Maybe it is too cheap? Very Happy

Now I've tried it twice, in two different packaging designs, in two different cameras. I find it to be very low grain and with excellent latitude and good natural color. Yes, a bit different than Portra or Fuji 160 films, but definitlely those expensive films are not 3x better.

Here's a sample from a Kiev 4 / Jupiter 8M:

Stationary bicycling by Nesster, on Flickr

While I've been poking around the net looking at various comments, I've seen some intriguing rumors: that towards the end DNP Centuria AKA Bill's Memories 200 was rebadged Kodak, in fact something very similar to this ColorPlus film. Who knows?

At this point I would not hesitate to use this film for shooting anything that's suitable for its speed.

Now that I think of it, it may be that years ago ColorPlus was some other film, which might account for 'it sucks' comments... Maybe this is Kodak's way to sell off overruns of some other film stock, otherwise sold with more expensive labeling? I do recall a couple of years ago being very disgusted at some Kodak 200 film - that same emulsion may have ended up as ColorPlus back then. At any rate, I think the currently available ColorPlus is damn nice film.

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas

I find it difficult to tell from Internet scans the actual particulars of a film. They always seem to be nicer on the 'net than in real life. Cool

As for this Colorplus 200 -- the photos I'm looking at right here -- it appears to have a very neutral color bias, which to me is a good thing, and does not particularly over saturate one color or set of colors at the expense of others.

So this is enough to get my interest up. My primary concern with color print film is always grain. Because when I scan with my Epson 4990 it just seems to emphasize the grain, so the finer the grain, the better.

I'm wondering also -- do you guys shoot it at box ISO speed? Many color print films I've tried in the past often respond better when they are slightly over exposed. Like shooting ISO 200 at 160 or 125. Given the latitude of modern print films, this slight amount of over exposure will likely not affect it in any substantive way, except perhaps for increasing color saturation all the way around -- which is why many folks have traditionally shot at less than box speed.

martinsmith99 · Expire: 2013-11-18

I have 10 rolls of this and the 1st one has been in my EOS 50 for over a month unused. Sadly the rain stopped play over here when I did have the time, now time is my enemy.

Excalibur · Expire: 2014-04-21

***do you guys shoot it at box ISO speed? Many color print films I've tried in the past often respond better when they are slightly over exposed***

For me, I always set asa to 160 on the camera for 200asa neg film.

Nesster · Expire: 2014-02-20

Yes, the ASA 200 crowd is really the same as the 160 crowd.

Although this depends on the camera. With meterless ones, I don't compensate ASA, I compensate by what I read, or what I want to expose for. With the Minolta CLC cameras with the lower center bias mechanism, often ASA 200 does the trick already. With something like the Nikon FE with a slight under exposure bias, down rating the ASA is a good thing.

Laurence · Expire: 2016-06-19

Well, I go by what I see. The skin colors are really nice indeed. Also, the
shots themselves are obviously by a GREAT photographer. So, based
on what I see, this film rocks! At least on the web! Very Happy

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas