Last October, Kodak announced Kodacolor 100 and Kodacolor 200, neither of which is entirely new. Speculation is that they are Pro-Image and ColorPlus with new labels. Generally speaking, I have tended to use Fuji 100 because it was available in 12-exposure rolls. Kodak Ektar, I’ve used only once in 120 format, and was disappointed by how it turned reds into blobs. I bought ProImage during the pandemic, but never used it.
In my experience, Fuji color films, with the exception of Pro 400H, tend to be cool, while Kodak color films tend to be warm. I use Kodak Gold, and like it, so I’m good for warm 200 ISO color film. However, since I like Lomography 100 CN, which is made by Kodak, Kodacolor 100 seemed like a good substitute, since, for some reason, Lomography 100 CN costs a lot more.
A bright autumn day seemed like the perfect time to stroll through Midtown with my Maxxum 70, along with an AF 50mm f/1.4 and AF 28 f/2.8. To get a feel for how the film renders, I looked for the most colorful subjects available. In particular, I searched for scenes that included a significant portion of the sky, because, in the past, such shots tended toward extra graininess.
In all, I am quite pleased with this film. Reds and yellows are saturated, but not blown out. The film looks sharp with a grain level one expects from 100 ISO film. Blues and greens are also handled well. Contrast is excellent. My one complaint is the curl. Kodacolor 100 proved to be very curly, even though I dried it as usual in a bathroom with warm water to increase the ambient humidity. Yet, it curled as much as Fuji film and much more than Portra. It took two weeks of being pressed under a stack of books to make it scan-ready. The film base also seems thinner/lighter than other Kodak films.
Aside from the curliness, I like the film. It has convinced me to thaw out a roll or two of the ProImage.
(All images were shot using the AF 50mm f/1.4 lens.)
I’ve got a few rolls of K100 but haven’t tried it yet. I have tried Pro Image and liked it decently, and Color Plus is one of my go-tos. So if Kodacolor 100 and 200 are what we think they are, I’m happy. I’m glad that Eastman Kodak has gotten back into film distribution again, especially since the prices seem lower than the Alaris stocks.
I’m also so-so on Ektar. It’s got to be treated more like a slide film to get the most out of it. But at that point, I just want to use Ektachrome. Yes, it’s more expensive and finicky, but the results? Wow.
I like the colors of Kodacolor 100, but the curl is too much. I have a second roll, and if it is as curly, I’ll stick with Kodak Gold 200. I’ve never tried ColorPlus-no idea why. I’m wary of Ektar, but only for reds. Now that I have scanned a lot more color, I think I can control the red blob syndrome; I’ll find out this summer.
These are gorgeous.
The more I see people like you scanning your own color film, the more I realize that this is key to getting bright color. Lab scans never quite make it.
Thanks Jim!
Scanning color is somewhat more time-consuming than B&W, but the results can be very satisfying. Try it!