Select Page

Advertisement
Film review: Kodak ColorPlus 200 and Fuji Fujicolor C200 comparedFilm review: Kodak ColorPlus 200 and Fuji Fujicolor C200 compared

Film review: Kodak ColorPlus 200 and Fuji Fujicolor C200 compared

The two most popular consumer films used today are Kodak ColorPlus 200 and Fuji Fujicolor C200. For someone new to the analog world, these two films are good for starters and often overlooked and underused by experienced amateurs because of their price. Speaking of which, they happen to be in the same price range, and are among the least expensive color negatives readily available, if you look in the right direction.

Considering all this I decided to put them into a head-to-head to see how they perform. Although they may not be the “pro choice”, for you professionals out there, I’m still happy if my little project entertained you though.

 

 

The film and methodology

I ordered the online and it cost me RMB15 and RMB17.90 per roll for the Kodak ColorPlus 200 and Fujicolor C200, respectively (roughly USD2.20 and USD2.62, plus shipping.

I used two Nikon F3 bodies, one with a Nikkor 50mm f/ 1.8 E Series lens and the other with a Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 AF-D. I also had a Nikkor 20mm f/2.8 AF in my test kit, which I used for ome comparative shot.

Nikon F3s loaded

Nikon F3s loaded

I’ve noticed differences between the two 50mm lenses, as the design of the E series makes it prone to flare under direct and harsh light. But the optical design of the lenses is similar (6 elements in 5 groups). The AF-D is multi-coated, which may affect the result under certain lighting conditions, so I tried to shoot in a way that the differences would be minimised.

Since I prefer consistent and reliable results, I used a Sekonic L-358 incident light meter to measure exposure.

The film was developed and scanned in a lab with the same scanner (Noritsu HS-1800) on the same afternoon on the second day after exposure.

Let’s jump straight into the results.

 

 

Results

Ten frames shot on each film, are shown side-by-side below. To view the images in fullscreen, click or tap an image.

Each gallery shows Kodak ColorPlus 200 on the left and Fuji Fujicolor C200 on the right

 

 

Thoughts on Kodak ColorPlus

Under the testing conditions, Kodak Colorplus 200 offers vivid yet restrained and realistic colors.

With subjects or frames that have large green or red areas, images rendered by Colorplus 200 looked mellow and firm to my personal taste. For these subjects, the colors are not as bold as other films in the same league, so it may not provide a very appealing first impression.

 

 

Thoughts on Fujicolor C200

Fujicolor C200 is rich and yeilds beautiful green tones. This extends to shady and underexposed areas.

With well-lit subjects, C200 offers a crisp and clear result. The colors look cool and clean on a MacBook Pro Retina display, maybe the Noritsu HS-1800 also has something to do with it. The colors don’t go overboard and I’m curious about how they may look when scanned with a Fuji Frontier SP-3000.

Shot in the same time, the film shows almost the same dynamic range as the Colorplus.

 

 

Final thoughts and conclusions

Well, it looks like my Nikon 50 1.8E needs a hood 😉

The two films yield different color tone on subjects under shade, as we see in this test. Kodak appears to be slightly warmer while Fuji has extended greens. Under wel-llit conditions the difference is not as obvious as long as the result are not compared side by side.

In my opinion, these features can contribute to intentionally creating different results. Let’s say I happen to have these films to hand and choose to shoot portraiture in a forest on a foggy morning, I may want to balance the mood in the organic result with Kodak Colorplus 200. If I want to lead it in a different direction, I may use the Fujicolor C200.

…or maybe I’d just shoot every frame twice as I did in this article. You know what? Wandering around with two loaded cameras, you’ll feel alive!

~ Howard

 

 

Write for EMULSIVE

The driving force behind EMULSIVE is knowledge transfer, specifically creating more of it in the film photography community. You can help by contributing your thoughts, work and ideas to inspire others reading these pages.

Take action and help drive an open, collaborative community: all you need do is read this and then drop me a line.

 

 

Lend your support

Like what you see here? You can support EMULSIVE by helping to contribute to the community voice on this website (see above), or by heading on over to the EMULSIVE Patreon page and considering financial support from as little as $2 a month.

As if that’s not enough, there’s also an EMULSIVE print and apparel store over at Society 6, currently showcasing over two dozen t-shirt designs and over a dozen unique prints of photographs made by yours truly

In short, I want to continue building this platform and I’d love your help to make that happen.

About The Author

Howard Xiaopeng

Xiaopeng, Howard, or XP, is a professional English-Portuguese translator of a global news service. He has also been managing a small office while working primarily as a photojournalist in Africa.Howard shot his first roll of B&W film at the age of 5, received his first digital camera in 2005, fell in love with analog photography after achieving merit recently in his formal education in photography in University of Hawaii.

5 Comments

Comments are welcomed and encouraged on EMULSIVE but there are some instances where comments will deleted, and authors of those comments banned. They are as follows:

  • Comments deemed to be spam or solely promotional in nature will be deleted. Including a link to relevant content is permitted, but comments should be relevant to the topic at hand.
  • Comments including profanity, containing language or concepts that could be deemed offensive will be deleted. Note this may include abusive, threatening, pornographic, offensive, misleading or libelous language.
  • Comments that attack an individual directly will be deleted, as will comments that harass other contributing authors. In short, please be respectful toward others.

 

 

  1. Thanks for the test – exactly what I’ve always found over decades of use. Kodak warmer, yellower. Fuji colder, greener. Both brilliant, both worth shooting, and IMHO, neither is quite as good as GC Ultramax 400 – which costs round about the same and is just plain phenomenal.

    Reply
  2. Excellent comparison. It’s nice to see these emulsions get some love. I shot Kodak Color Plus for a short stint and I got some very pleasing results with portraits in the shade. It kept the skin tones nice and warm while other emulsions tended to become too cold for my taste. Thanks for sharing!

    Reply
  3. Funny that my short experience with fuji f200 and superia, both gave too much green which I didn’t like much. So for color I usually shoot kodak.
    I think these kind of basic tests help a bit the beginner on the general look of a film stock.

    Reply
  4. I am sorry to say, that -in my humble opinión- the test is flawed. Reason Is, if you want to put films to the test, you cannot use different lenses. You should use the same, switching between camera bodies. If possible, tripod is recommended, et.
    Best. V.

    Reply
  5. Interesting comparison, I’ve shot both myself (although a lot more C200 than Colorplus) and always liked the results. I think some people still don’t realise the results you can get from a cheaper film.

    Reply

Add your voice to the discussion

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Find out how you can help support EMULSIVE from as little as $2 a month on Patreon.Learn more



All Categories

All Categories

Recieve the latest from EMULSIVE by email

Recieve the latest from EMULSIVE by email

By subscribing, you agree that your information will be handled in accordance with the EMULSIVE Privacy Policy.

You've subscribed successfully, thanks. We promise to keep your information safe and not sell it on to third parties.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This