Fujifilm C200 35mm 36exp Colour Film 5 Pack

Product Information

The other claim was "image quality and clarity you expect from ISO100 films". I'm not so sure about this one. It definitely has a decent amount of grain. Kodak Gold had the same "issue" ( in quotes because grain is not always bad ). C200 has less grain than Gold but it's there. Not sure what ISO100 film has more grain than C200 but I don't imagine there are many of those. I shot mine on a couple of trips I took, as you’ll see from the sample photographs later, and found it did a more than serviceable job. I was genuinely pleased with the results.

And when I returned to the States and received the scans, I was floored. That willingness to explore encouraged by consumer film combined with the unexpected quality of the film itself resulted in some of my best and most personally fulfilling work to date.

Comments

They also mean C200 is ideal for point ‘n’ shoot cameras that might not meter the light so well or be more restricted with their shutter speed. Instead of degrading it for not being a special colour negative film like a Kodak Ektar 100 or a Portra 400, I like to recognise it for what it is. A reliable general use film that gives you exactly what you expect, with whatever working camera you have, in almost all good light situations, and at low cost. Of course that means it’s not as versatile as the Industrial 400, but that doesn’t matter too much for me. If I know I’m shooting an ISO 200 film, I won’t go out and do it in bad light anyway.

Sharpness itself is good and a sharp lens will deliver sharp results on film. A more professional grade film with more refined grain will yield more detail. For the most part though C200 will deliver more detail than is needed for an average human. And potentially even aliens. Fujicolor C200 – one of only two colour negative films to have survived the company’s rounds of discontinuations – is now known as Fujicolor 200 in the US (or Fujifilm 200 on the datasheet). The name change was reported by Nicolas Llasera of Nico’s Photo News on Tuesday (4 January), which you can see in the video at the bottom of the story. Its qualities actually give you more freedom to shoot. The wide exposure latitude and dynamic range, which to be fair most other consumer grade films have too, make it highly unlikely your results are going to be over or underexposed, even on a bright beach.I thought that the reason for this might be a failed development process ( I process my own C-41 ). Then I shot and developed the second roll and got the same results. A slight pink / magenta cast. I was extra careful with my development. I also developed another roll after this to see if the chemicals are starting to wear off. Does not look like it - next roll ( Kodak Ektar ) developed fine with no casts. When I reviewed Fuji’s Industrial 100 film, I mentioned how its greens and reds were the colours that popped the most. C200 is similar with the greens, although the reds – while still strong – come out a little darker and less gaudy than with the Industrial. If you were to look at the outdated box design, the budget price, the ubiquitous availability and the results it gives, it would be easy to conclude that Fujicolor C200 – or Fujicolor 200 as it’s known in some markets – is nothing special. The film also has a wide exposure latitude, which means you’ll have to try hard to really under or overexpose it. I think a good place to test this out would be a sunny day at the beach, with the strong light and bright sands giving the film the perfect excuse if it couldn’t handle it.

I wasn’t so sure. Conventional wisdom would dictate that I leave the C200 at home for casual shooting and trust the bigger names for the truly important moments. I didn't recommend landscape photography for Kodak Gold 200. C200 can handle them better. It won't beat slide film or more professional grade film but together with a good lens - detailed shots are possible. Outside of any casts the colors appear natural with an extra boost in contrast and a tiny boost in saturation. There is no "vintage warm" look of the Kodak Gold 200. It's also not as punchy as Kodak Gold 200 but they are not far off.The grain was always low across both rolls I shot, as you’d expect from an ISO 200 film. Overall, I have to say the image quality and qualities were everything I could ask for and more from a budget, general use, average film. Fujicolor C200 is not like those. As a budget, ISO 200 colour negative film that gives you those more muted Fuji results, and with that dated-looking box design, it’s easy to write it off as the very definition of average. It’s a trend I did my bit to keep going, with these JCH Pan 400 street shots and these CineStill 800T neon signs. C200, which is DX-coded with the number 106254, is processed using the highly common C-41 technique, or CN-16 as Fujifilm call it, meaning any photo lab should be able to develop your rolls once you’ve shot them. But some film photographers on Reddit have discovered elements of the film’s datasheet are the same as that of Gold 200 from Kodak, Fujifilm’s historic rival in the realm of colour negative film.

But that begs the question – why bother shooting second-rate consumer grade film at any time? Why waste my money on cheap film? I could get lots of shots, but those shots wouldn’t be nearly as clean, or characterful, or interesting as if I’d made them on higher-cost film, right? Even if something did somehow go wrong and you lost your shots, dispiriting as that would be, at least you haven’t also wasted an expensive Ektachrome E100 or rare discontinued Fujicolor Natura 1600, for example. Both Fujifilm and Kodak have struggled to meet demand for colour negative film as analogue photography has regained popularity over the last five years. But the situation has been exacerbated since the coronavirus pandemic began in early 2020.Fujicolor C200 is the kind of film that’s available almost everywhere film is sold. If you have a place local to you that sells a large variety of film off the shelf, they probably should have this. Or if not, at least the C-less Fujicolor 200 version. Forget the iPhone’s Portrait mode, Fujifilm C200 is what you need to capture amazing portraits 😅 Specification Format: Could professional-grade film have made even better results? It’s hard to say. On a technical level, probably. Some of the skin tones in my C200 photos are just a tiny bit off and the less-than sharpness leaves something to be desired. But then again, color accuracy and biting sharpness isn’t the point of consumer film. The point was to have fun shooting, to capture moments on film, and hopefully get inspired to create even more great images. Technically imperfect though it was, Fuji C200 did a perfect job, and I’d recommend it to any shooter, especially those on a budget.