Your Agfa 200D results

[Intermittent]

Been using quite a bit of 200D and getting some interesting results. It is also worth using a UV filter on the camera lens instead of filming nude (no UV filter) as it does help reduce unsharpness due to the UV radiation thing. Having a top lens on your camera such as a Schneider is also a bonus and overall 200D delivers what it says on the box and I much prefer the results over the old Kodak 160 which was messy and much used here in the early 70’s for low light filming. How is everyone else getting on?

[Tommy]

I remember the original kodak 160 super 8 was ELA (I think). This was beautiful film with reasonable fine grain. Later they replaced with type G 160 around 1975 , this was grainy and was big step down for 160 film. What was Kodak thinking?

[marc]

I What was Kodak thinking?

What are they ever thinking? If we knew then we might get a clue to their seemingly capricious nature!

[David M. Leugers]

remember the original kodak 160 super 8 was ELA (I think). This was beautiful film with reasonable fine grain. Later they replaced with type G 160 around 1975 , this was grainy and was big step down for 160 film. What was Kodak thinking?

Uh, Kodak did not replace Ektachrome 160 with Ektachrome Type G film. Type G was added to their lineup to give better color results in mixed lighting situations. Such results were typically a bit of a fudge and the grain seemed to be more noticeable when the colors were off. Ektachrome 160 with proper lighting gave better results. However, as strange and counter-intuitive as it seems, Type G shot in daylight with the daylight filter in place gave very nice pastel results and was fairly sharp.

If Agfa 200D can at least equal the overall image qualities of Ektachrome 160, then I'd like to shoot some.

[Intermittent]

Yes that’s what I am finding that Agfa 200D is similar to Kodak 160 although with much better colours. Using a good UV filter is worth applying to help with rays and squeeze the max from 200D. It will not ever rival or deliver the results of Kodachrome which one or two seem to expect but it certainly is a handy film to have in the fridge for those lower light situations.

[Tommy]

I dug up an old 1978 catalog from Solar, one of the largest movie film suppliers at the time. Type G was the only Super 8 SILENT 160 film available. But oddly, not available in sound cartridges, ELA was the only 160 Super 8 SOUND film available. At the time I shot only silent. Two different 160 emulsions for silent and sound....strange but true.

[Tommy]

Of course, there would of been a period of time when both formats existed in silent cartridges as the ELA stock was gradually sold off.
Some silent super 8 cameras had to have the Type A filter manually set, so I think Kodak marketed type G for all the people who forgot to set this filter, since Type G produced acceptable results in daylight or indoors with no filter.
Sound cartridges set the filter automatically, so no reason for G.

[8mm]

The Agfa 200D has good colors, better than ektachrome 64T, in my opinion. But the film is very grainy. If I shoot an other 200D, I will try to expose it as 100 iso and then do a pull processing since I now develop the films my self. Might give better result exposed as 100 iso, particularly if you shoot in bright daylight.

[Intermittent]

I was viewing some of my old Fuji 200 single 8 sound films last night and image quality from that was not as good as the Agfa 200D. Mind you the Fuji single 8 processing back then was extremely variable.

[cubdukat]

I have yet to shoot any of the Agfa stock, but given the results I've seen, I'm not really impressed. I remember shooting the 35mm slide film it's based off of, RSX II 200, many years back, and I wasn't really a fan of it. Still, that was over ten years ago, and I have yet to give this stuff a try.

Unfortunately, I just discovered that my Canon 814's dead. I forgot that you shouldn't leave alkalines in your camera unused for long periods of time. It looks like they corroded the battery terminals. Fortunately, Dwayne's is offering it in 16mm, and my 16mm still works quite well.

[James E]

The Agfa 200D has good colors, better than ektachrome 64T, in my opinion. But the film is very grainy. If I shoot an other 200D, I will try to expose it as 100 iso and then do a pull processing since I now develop the films my self. Might give better result exposed as 100 iso, particularly if you shoot in bright daylight.

I'm very interested in your pull results. I'm about to take a long trip and want to do a lot of outdoor scenic. Probably be cloudy most of the time which will help my cause. If you get good results with your under and pull, I'll have to break back out the LOMO tanks and give it as shot!

I'm not sure which camera I'm going to take, but given what I want to do I'm leaning heavily toward my Elmo Super 110. Maybe also Minolta XL 401 just because it has an intervalometer built it.... It will set to 160 and underexpose it anyway...

Your thoughts?

[doug]

The Agfa 200D has good colors, better than ektachrome 64T, in my opinion. But the film is very grainy. If I shoot an other 200D, I will try to expose it as 100 iso and then do a pull processing since I now develop the films my self. Might give better result exposed as 100 iso, particularly if you shoot in bright daylight.

Yes do let us know your results with pull-processing. I entirely agree, the colours are excellent and the latitude also, but the grain is a bit much for say landscapes. Using 16mm I was surprised at first to see the roll of film not full :o then I realised it's thinner polyester. The Bolex camera cutter wouldn't. So out with the scissors. But this film went through the camera so smoothly. Lovely steady images.

[James E]

Oh heck, I meant it will automatically overexpose the film. By 2/3rd stop? Then a 1/2 stop pull should smooth out the grain. The cameras have been in the closet for 4 1/2 years and the LOMO tanks for 5....