Tell me, /p/, am I a huge pleb if I shoot with the cheat shit?

>>2984812
yeah.

almost exact same fikm from kodak is half the price u cuck

c200 is total shit compared to portra 160, even if you underexpose the portra to get 200 iso. It's also smashed by Ektar underexposed by a full stop.

This however has nothing to do with your photographic abilities

>>2984828
Obviously portra costs almost 6 times more than c200

>>2984812
Depends what you like, C200 is noticeably grainy, but it is one of the sharpest / highest resolving C41 films we have (not a subjective perceptual thing due to grain either), sharper than Ektar. But then again its not Ektar isnt good in that area either, has better colour, and very very smooth.

If you dont mind the grain its quite good.

>>2985263
That also basically only applies if your scan is sharp, not a flatbed scan.

>>2985263
I never found that c200 was nearly as sharp as portra 160 when doing dslr scans. I don't know if that's because portra was designed for scanning or because you're spewing horseshit

>>2985351
Neither, C200 has higher potential resolution, as long as it is put there by the user.

I was scanning on a Flextight, my observations fit with Henning's who's extensively tested many films thoroughly.

He's posted more details and lists elsewhere iirc
http://aphog.de/forum/index.php/Thread/9230-Test-Kodak-Ektar-100-vs-Wettbewerb/

Use whatever film you want. I always opt for cheaper, which varies wildly depending on location. For 35mm, the biggest of ever print is probably 8x10 so any film is fine.

>>2984812
i shot one roll of it, it was kinda ok, not very sharp and not much contrast, it was kinda greenish compared to what i usually shoot (color plus and superia 400) but it was good, would shoot again just know what you are getting, cheap low quality high grain film

thanks doc