Is it Fast or Slow Film-?

[larrylmedina]

Aloha Everyone~

Just bought some rolls of Fuji 200-speed 110 film off FrugalPhotographer.com (great site). But what is 200-speed film considered in the 110 world, generally? Is this fast or slow film?

Fuji's 200-speed cartridge is ridged as a slow film. Was this Fuji's intention? Any info?

Mahalo~
//Larry =)

[mickeyobe]

Larry,

Others may have different opinions but I would consider 200 ASA/ISO to be about average speed regardless of the size.
For many years I used 100 ASA/ISO and found it to be satisfactory for all my shooting including action pictures. But I was shooting slides. I once used 400 ASA/ISO slide film and was very disappointed. But that was years ago. It has probably improved considerably since then.

About 5 years ago I was introduced to 400 & 800 ASA/ISO C41 (Colour Negative) film and I was amazed at the remarkable quality obtainable with these, what I would then have considered high speed films. I now think of them as average speed films and usually use 400 when I depart from digital.

I have never found the necessity to venture to 1600 ASA/ISO or beyond but, I presume, this must be considered high speed even by today's standards.

Mickey

[nikonbob]

Mickey

It is true how times have changed with regard to C41 film and what you can get from what was once considered fast and grainy film. I would view 200 asa film as slightly fast using 100 asa as a normal speed film for reference. It is really hard to beat Fuji 800 asa for indoor or night handheld shots. Too bad digital came along and spoiled some of the fun. Film shooters never had it so good. My favourite slow C41 film, Konica Impressa 50, is now long gone and sorely missed by me anyway.

Bob

[John Parry]

Actually 400 is "Normal" 200 is normal too. 800 would be exciting, but you don't see it around too much. The higher speeds get more expensive. I can't notice excessive grain on 400. If you've got a regular source of supply, I'd go for 400. Some 'portrait' landscape people go for 50, but the quality of film nowadays is so good that you don't need to.

Regards - John

[mickeyobe]

Bob,

Times have indeed changed.

I remember Kodachrome at 10 ASA. I think Anscochrome was a speedy 25 ASA.
In black and white I usually used Kodak Plus X at 125 ASA. For fine grain went to Panatomic X at 32 ASA or Ilford Pan F at 50 ASA. High speed was always Kodak Tri X at 400 ASA.
I finally settled on Fujichrome 100 ASA and have over 10,000 slides on that film with a few on Anscochrome and Ferraniacolor and some others such as Ilfochrome ( nice but hard to get) and Agfachrome ( awful ).

Mickey

[nikonbob]

Mickey

I guess that is why a top shutter speed of 1/500 or 1/1000 was not too much of a handicap when when Leicas were born. I now find that even 100 asa is too fast for these old cameras at times in good light. I really don't like to carry ND filters to compensate.

John

You have a good point for making 400 asa a standard with the exception of cameras having slow top shutter speeds. The 400 was my standard travel film with my FM2n or FE2 with there 1/4000 top shutter speeds. I was very flexible indoors or out especially when using a polarizer too. Grain was even less of a problem if you tended to slightly over expose it.

Bob

[larrylmedina]

Aloha Everyone~

Thanks for replies, gentlemen! The reason I asked about whether Fuji intended their 110-cartridge 200-speed film as slow (or average, standard, etc) is that I want to start shooting with a Kodak Pocket Instamatic 60, for which I have just rebuilt the K-battery.

Of course, the Instamatic 60 is only designed for the now-extinct 80 ASA speed, and 200-speed was the next best thing (God forbid if I shot 400 ASA in it, with our nice, bright, blinding, overexposing Hawaiian sunlight).

We have Kodak Colorwatch labs in Hawaii, which are the only guys who will process 110 locally. Like I mentioned, I'll be shooting 200-ASA film in a camera that's only built (and will be exposing for) 80-ASA. Any instructions should I be giving to the processors-?? Anything I can do to the camera to compensate?

Mahalo~
//Larry =)

[kiev4a]

Had an instamatic 60. Had a zeiss lens if I remember right and was capable of taking decent photos. I shot a lot of Verichrome Pan B&W in mine and developed it in Microdol-X

Mickey:
You are showing you age. I, too can remember when Kodachrome's ASA number was barely two digits! Sure produced some beautiful slides, however. Had to send them off to Kodak's Palo Alto lab in a yellow mailer you bought at the camera store.

[mickeyobe]

Bob,

I have 1/4000 on my Canon T90. Since 1985 I have only used it once just to see what it would do. It did do what it is supposed to do. It froze fast action. I was in a boat going too fast in rough water. At the instant I snapped the shutter my feet and the boat's deck had parted company. I got my picture.

Larry,

Bob mentioned ND ( Neutral Density ) filters. I think they are the solution to your too fast film problem.

Wayne,

I'll admit I am a little past 25.
Kodak had a good thing with the prepaid mailers. I have heard that very many of them were never used.
I was not crazy about Kodachrome because no matter what shade of red you photographed all reds came out as Kodak red. But its invention was a great photographic landmark.

Mickey

[nikonbob]

Larry

Why not just shoot a roll and have it processed normally to see what happens? C41 film has a lot of exposure latitude and the little over one stop difference between 80 and 200 may still print just fine. If that does not work you can try Neutral Density filters that reduce the amount of light going into the lens in one stop increments. Lastly you may be able to have the film, and I am guessing here, pull processed at the lab. I still think the first option is worth a try.

Bob

[kiev4a]

Larry:

If it's the Model 60 I think you may be wrong about the film speed it can handle. I think mine automatically adjusted to whatever cartridge was inserted. The Verichrome film was around ISO 100 and I think It would handle film to the 200--maybe 400 range.

[herron]

Larry-
I agree with Bob. The difference from 80 to 200 film is only a little more than one stop...and might not make a significant problem in some instances...and it won't take much of an ND filter to compensate, if it does.

[larrylmedina]

Aloha Wayne, Bob~

Thanks for the heads-up. I've been lucky to have been shooting with 400 ASA-compatible 110 cameras (Minolta Zoom Mk II, Pentax 110 Auto), so exposure has never been a worry for me. I've only used Kodak 400 film in these cameras only because it's the only 110 film available anywhere in Hawaii, and at $4.53 a cartridge from Wal-Mart (can't wait for Walgreens to open up end of this year - they stock Konica and Ferrania 110 film and I'd like to try those out).

I guess I'm worrying a little about that 1-stop difference between 80 and 200 ASA because I'm unfamiliar with any overexposure results on such a teeny tiny negative. I'm sure the local Kodak Colorwatch lab would compensate for this, but I live in Hawaii where the cost of living is high; I live on a poor social worker's salary; so 6 rolls of precious 200 ASA film is something I don't want to waste on poor prints! Yes I sound pathetic but this growing camera hobby of mine is getting expensive (and the cost to ship anything to Hawaii is ridiculous!)...

Wayne, the Instamatic 60 unfortunately doesn't set itself for faster film - when it came out in '72, 400ASA cartridges weren't out yet, so the camera's built around 80 ASA film. I know you mentioned that Zeiss might have had something to do with it, and don't know if Zeiss actually designed or manufactured the lens, but the Instamatic 60's is an all-glass Kodak Ektar f2.8 26mm job (I have no clue what 26mm on a 110 camera would translate to on a 35mm camera). I read a lot of archived press about how sharp this lens is and how the photo community liked to run tests of it against larger glass. I'll post a few photos once I get them back from the lab (a full 2 weeks is how long they want me to wait...oh, the suspense).

May I ask you two kids something? What do you both think of 110? I'd be interested to hear your initial reactions when the format first appeared on the scene. I've heard so many derogatory things about the poor 110 format. Any bad memories you'd like to share? (ha ha)

Mahalo~

[larrylmedina]

OOPS! Sorry, Herron for calling you BOB! (it's 0630 and I haven't had my coffee yet...)

//Larry =)

[kiev4a]

Larry:

I think it's an interesting format to play with. I bought the model 60 for my wife when it came out and used it in the delivery room to get a photo of our first child shortly after she was born. But even being careful it was difficult to blow up anything more than 5x7 and on slides you almost needed the projector built specifically for 110 or you had to invest in a lens for your big projector that had greater magnification than the standard lens. was OK for the snap shooting public who never got a print bigger than 4x6 and thought and recognizable image was a good picture. But they just wanted a point and shoot. The Model 60 had to be manually focused which most point and shooters didn't want to do. Same with the beautiful little Pentax 110 SLR. The target audience for that sort of camera wanted a larger negative.