What is Kodak 200-8 film?

D.M. Procida

unread,

Sep 15, 2012, 4:01:50 PM9/15/12

to

I have some negatives; I thought they were shot on Kodak Gold, but the
negatives say "Kodak 200-8", and it could be ColorPlus.

Anyway, I'd like to find the best negative profile for VueScan; each
profile gives wildly different results.

Daniele

Alan Browne

unread,

Sep 15, 2012, 4:24:06 PM9/15/12

to

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Kodak+200-8

--
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
-John Keating.

D.M. Procida

unread,

Sep 15, 2012, 5:31:15 PM9/15/12

to

Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> On 2012.09.15 16:01 , D.M. Procida wrote:
> > I have some negatives; I thought they were shot on Kodak Gold, but the
> > negatives say "Kodak 200-8", and it could be ColorPlus.
> >
> > Anyway, I'd like to find the best negative profile for VueScan; each
> > profile gives wildly different results.
>
> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Kodak+200-8

If you had actually bothered to perform a web search you would have
discovered that:

a) a number of people have also asked what the film is, and have not
found a conclusive answer, and

b) that no-one seems to have come up with a very good negative profile
for VueScan.

It wouldn't have taken you very long.

Daniele

Bruce

unread,

Sep 15, 2012, 6:00:10 PM9/15/12

to

But Alan Browne knows everything there is to know about photography.

He has no more need of a web search than Stephen Hawking.

Please show him more respect in future.

Alan Browne

unread,

Sep 15, 2012, 6:17:36 PM9/15/12

to

If you had bothered to read the very first Google Search response you
would have discovered that it is indeed ColorPlus film and that said
film has a dodgy reputation.

As such, serious people doing serious scanning have not used it or
developed profiles for it and that is why you cannot find one.

If you have a good reference scan, however, you should be able to
develop settings that are adequate for a film that does not have high
expectations in the first place.

Or failing that, ask Tony "Bruce" Polson. He's expert in everything and
likely took his Paris March cover photo with that very film.

Alan Browne

unread,

Sep 15, 2012, 6:43:16 PM9/15/12

to

On 2012.09.15 16:01 , D.M. Procida wrote:

Can you post some examples? One person's "wildly" is another person's
"slightly". Also scan it as a positive and post that.

I've found other references that make it = Kodak Gold 200.

I used Kodak Gold 100 many times and it scanned well enough without
using any particular profile other than "color negative" as default.
(probably used the Minolta scanning s/w at the time and not VueScan).

I do recall it casted blue or green a bit so you can just push it
towards yellow or magenta as needed in post.

Alan Browne

unread,

Sep 15, 2012, 6:54:58 PM9/15/12

to

On 2012.09.15 18:00 , Bruce wrote:
> real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote:
>
>> Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2012.09.15 16:01 , D.M. Procida wrote:
>>>> I have some negatives; I thought they were shot on Kodak Gold, but the
>>>> negatives say "Kodak 200-8", and it could be ColorPlus.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, I'd like to find the best negative profile for VueScan; each
>>>> profile gives wildly different results.
>>>
>>> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Kodak+200-8
>>
>> If you had actually bothered to perform a web search you would have
>> discovered that:
>>
>> a) a number of people have also asked what the film is, and have not
>> found a conclusive answer, and
>>
>> b) that no-one seems to have come up with a very good negative profile
>> for VueScan.
>>
>> It wouldn't have taken you very long.
>
>
> But Alan Browne knows everything there is to know about photography.

At least I post photos - unlike some pompous airbags with nothing to
show but 4 poorly badly exposed, soft, grainy choo choos and a very bad
product shot. (Pathetic actually).

Noons

unread,

Sep 16, 2012, 3:36:22 AM9/16/12

to

Alan Browne wrote,on my timestamp of 16/09/2012 8:54 AM:

>
> At least I post photos - unlike some pompous airbags with nothing to show but 4
> poorly badly exposed, soft, grainy choo choos and a very bad product shot.
> (Pathetic actually).
>

Do you? Of film? Judging by all your interventions when the subject is film,
you must have a total understanding, practical and recent, of the subject.
Remarkably, you have NEVER produced any image remotely resembling film. So, by
your own rules, you are pathetic. What can I say?

Noons

unread,

Sep 16, 2012, 3:37:56 AM9/16/12

to

Just use auto adjust and then use slight manual trimmingsd: it does the same as
profiles, with a wider range. I doubt you won't be able to correct for any film
that way.

D.M. Procida

unread,

Sep 16, 2012, 4:48:20 AM9/16/12

to

Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> On 2012.09.15 16:01 , D.M. Procida wrote:
> > I have some negatives; I thought they were shot on Kodak Gold, but the
> > negatives say "Kodak 200-8", and it could be ColorPlus.

> I've found other references that make it = Kodak Gold 200.

So, there is indeed some mystery about this film.

Daniele

Alan Browne

unread,

Sep 16, 2012, 9:05:37 AM9/16/12

to

Not really.

Did you re-scan as I suggested?

D.M. Procida

unread,

Sep 20, 2012, 1:43:13 PM9/20/12

to

Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> On 2012.09.16 04:48 , D.M. Procida wrote:
> > Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2012.09.15 16:01 , D.M. Procida wrote:
> >>> I have some negatives; I thought they were shot on Kodak Gold, but the
> >>> negatives say "Kodak 200-8", and it could be ColorPlus.
> >
> >> I've found other references that make it = Kodak Gold 200.
> >
> > So, there is indeed some mystery about this film.
>
> Not really.

Perhaps you should make up your mind then, because you seem not at all
sure.

> Did you re-scan as I suggested?

No, I did as Noons suggested, which was more useful and less blustery.

Daniele

Alan Browne

unread,

Sep 20, 2012, 5:10:45 PM9/20/12

to

On 2012.09.20 13:43 , D.M. Procida wrote:
> Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 2012.09.16 04:48 , D.M. Procida wrote:
>>> Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2012.09.15 16:01 , D.M. Procida wrote:
>>>>> I have some negatives; I thought they were shot on Kodak Gold, but the
>>>>> negatives say "Kodak 200-8", and it could be ColorPlus.
>>>
>>>> I've found other references that make it = Kodak Gold 200.
>>>
>>> So, there is indeed some mystery about this film.
>>
>> Not really.
>
> Perhaps you should make up your mind then, because you seem not at all
> sure.

Perhaps you should read the articles revealed by the prior Google Search.

To make it clear enough for you, 200-8 is sold as Kodak Gold. But that
line also seemed to have other consumer labels like ColorPlus. I have
some Gold here and the markings are similar (100-4 and so on).

Ambiguous compared to their higher end films (E100G, 160VC etc).

Suffice it to say that it's ordinary, consumer color negative film and
should be no real issue to get right in VueScan (etc.) with a bit of
testing.

>> Did you re-scan as I suggested?
>
> No, I did as Noons suggested, which was more useful and less blustery.

So you did re-scan.

I had to go look in GG - his suggestion is no different in the end than
what I suggested - except that I added the recollection of that film
tending to blue and/or green.

What did you find in terms of needed corrections? Just curious.

As to his claim that I don't shoot film - he's just spouting off with
his typical abrasive ignorance.

I shoot and scan 35mm and MF (6x6) color slide and positive regularly
(much less in the last couple years to be sure). I haven't done any B&W
in a while though.

Noons

unread,

Sep 20, 2012, 11:13:36 PM9/20/12

to

On Sep 21, 7:10 am, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca>
wrote:

>
> I shoot and scan 35mm and MF (6x6) color slide and positive regularly
> (much less in the last couple years to be sure). I haven't done any B&W
> in a while though.

Funny, you been claiming that for nearly 5 years now, at least in the
Usenet.
That's not "mush less in the last couple of years".

And I dispute your claim that you use 35mm and MF regularly: you have
claimed here and elsewhere that you haven't used 35mm since 2000 and
that you haven't used MF film at all in the last 5 years.

It's very simple: produce adequate proof that you have used film
recently, as in the last 10 years. Yes, I mean 10 years. And that
indeed you have scanned it and produced decent imagery from film into
digital. With a modern scanner, not a 15 year old Minolta.
No, not a 640X480 down-ressed web miniature. Something decent. As in
for example 11"X14" prints from 35mm. See, life is really simple
when you are asked to stay within reality.