Pastel shades , lovely brown , very realistic green , grain seems quite fine for the speed , pretty sharp

Maybe some of the whites are blown out , but overload nicely unlike clipped digital .

This was a free film that came with the magazine in 2003 , I mostly shoot Kodak Elite Chrome EC and Fuji Sensia tranny film , but nowadays I use a Nikon Coolpix Digital. Anyway this film languished in my fridge until I got the old film Nikon & it's Nikkors out of the cupboard to take some pictures in my garden .
I've just had some snaps back from Truprint to test the old lenses out , and I was very impressed with this film's lovely warm pastel shades , some highlights are a bit blown .
I realise this film is not everyone's cup of tea but it took me back to the days of the old Agfachrome CT18 /21 films .
I believe Konica /Minolta don't make film anymore but I'll be looking on Ebay to see if I can find any more .
This is what film photography is all about ! , I've only gone the results of a low quality Photo CD but I'll be putting some of this film's negs through the scanner .

Customer Service

Fast service from Truprint .

Similar Products Used:

I used a Konica Ultra 50 Film years ago , very impressed with the results as I was so pro Trannie Film .
Used to use Konica E6 years ago as it was cheap .

Fine grain.

Narrow latitude, weird color reproduction when C-41 process is used.

I got ten cartridges of this 110 film off of ebay, for $1.29 What did I have to lose at this price? Well not much, obviously. This film seems doesn't seem to have much latitude which isn't very good for 110 cameras. Most of the pictures showed a slight purple hue, and low saturation, except for yellows which came out very, very, deep. In other words, the color reproduction is very unrealistic, and even Walgreen's store-brand 110 film beats it here (though it's more grainy) I've heard that these poor colors are do in part to Konica films doing better with processing other than C-41, although the cartridge label states that C-41 will work. Something this film does have going for it, is that it is very fine grain, which is a definate plus when it comes to 110, but probably not as important when you're using 35mm film. Anyway, I'd reccomend you stay with brands like Fuji or Kodak, or even Walgreen's since the colors turn out much better.

Similar Products Used:

Walgreen's 200 ASA 110, Fuji 200 ASA 110.

Fairly fine grain

Everything else Inaccurate colour Low low saturation What else does a film have to do to be bad?!

I bought a role of this film on the way to a cover shoot for a football magazine. Usually I use slide film but I only had a few days before the magazine had to go to print. I stopped off on this, a glorious day, at my local one hour printers under the impression that any film couldn't fail in this light with my set up. How wrong was I!? Granted I usually use slide film and this was my first Konica experience and the printing wasn't on a Konica machine but still I should have got more saturation than what I did. The colours are dead and mostly inaccurate. At the same time I had an Agfa Ultra 100 film printed which came out fine, so the printers weren't to blame. I don't mind poor cheap films but I really can't understand how anyone could manufacture such an appaling film as this. Waste of time and money. The low grade version of Fuji Superia film known as TUDOR given out free at my local Snappy Snaps beats this dreary emulsion hands down any time.

Customer Service

N/A

Similar Products Used:

None quite so bad

Beautiful reds and browns. Very fine grain

Skin tones

I got a free role of this film and by chance happened to take a sun setting with it. Those pics came out absoultely beautiful so I bought some more. I can see why the other users aren't too enamoured with this film for portrait use but as a general outdoor film it is fine. I found the colours held up well - except on skin tones.

Similar Products Used:

Kodacolor DB 200 Agfa Vista 200 Konica VX 200 Fuji Superia 200 Jessops SHR 200

- Low cost. - Natural and accurate color. - Appropriate contrast: Not too light or heavy. - Sharpness by top class lenses. - Good performance for landscape pictures.

- Weak dark area handling. - Under exposure if using regular flash. - Like other print films, color always inaccurate when being scanned by film scanner without color corrections. - Difficult to find labs supporting CNK-4 process; Not fair using C-41 process to compare with Fuji films using their CN-16.

(The price was HK$24 for 2 rolls. US$1 = HK$7.8) Please forgive me that some international readers might not understand some circumstances I mentioned not happening in your country or area. Well, testing a roll of Konica printing is not fair comparing with Fuji. Most films support common C-41 processing, but many photographers have known that their specific process ways are always better like CN-16 for Fuji. Definitely, Fuji films developed by Fuji process machines is always the best. I do not think non-Fuji process machines firstly supporting CN-16 due to commercial factor. Therefore, C-41 is always used by non-Fuji process machine for Fuji films, Likewise, Fuji processing machines always only apply C-41 for other brands. They never give the best for other brands, basically. It is the weakness for Konica. Most film processing machines are Kodak and Fuji, in Hong Kong. It is the reason that Fuji film is always my first choice for the best printing quality. I often shop at Fotomax (www.fotomax.com.hk) because their newest Fuji developing machines and technology ‘Fdi’ can maximize the quality of Fuji printings. Fuji films with their crystal papers and newest ‘Fdi’ developing is the best ptoto printing formula for me currently. You might try to find a lab using Konica process machine. Unfortunately, I can only find one and their staffs look unprofessional. In addition, their Konica processing machine has been used for many years. I doubt them having CNK-4 for my testing Konica films. Finally, I gave it to a common lab using third party (neither Fuji or Kodak) process machine. The printings provide me natural/accurate color in daylight but not saturated, vivid or artificial. Landscape testing is still fine, but under exposure is found if flash is used. Likewise, this film does not handle dark area well. Grain is fine, but Fuji films are definitely better than this product. Grains can be distinguished in my PC when it is scanned by my film scanner with 2400 dpi output resolution (2820 dpi input). Some over exposure area may also be found in scanned output, but they are not found in my printings. Perhaps professional labs can give some help, or even are able to provide CNK-4 process for you. However, is this low cost consumer product expected for high price professional use? If you need to shoot professionally, will you take this film? I would comment it “Films for beginners learning mechanic camera photography, paying low cost, without color assistance”. Although I will not try it again even though I can find CNK-4 process support in the future, I still look forward someone can write the review. Thanks for your reading!

Customer Service

None, but technical paper cannot be download from Japanese internet site: Site no response.

Similar Products Used:

Fuji Reala 100 Fuji Superia 200 Fuji Xtra 400 Fuji Xtra 800 Fuji Press 800 Fuji NPS 160 Fuji NPH 400 Kodak 160 VC Kodak Supra 100 Kodak Max 400

Low cost. Accurate color. Sharpness by top class lenses. Fair performance for landscape.

Weak dark area handling. Under exposure for regular flash. Difficult to find labs supporting CNK-4 process; Not fair using C-41 process to compare with Fuji films using their CN-16.

(The price was HK$24 for 2 rolls. US$1 = HK$7.8) Please forgive me that some international readers might not understand some circumstances I mentioned not happening in your country or area. Well, testing a roll of Konica printing is not fair comparing with Fuji. Most films support common C-41 processing, but many photographers have known that their specific process ways are always better like CN-16 for Fuji. Definitely, Fuji films developed by Fuji process machines is always the best. I do not think non-Fuji process machines firstly supporting CN-16 due to commercial factor. Therefore, C-41 is always used by non-Fuji process machine for Fuji films, Likewise, Fuji processing machines always only apply C-41 for other brands. They never give the best for other brands, basically. It is the weakness for Konica. Most film processing machines are Kodak and Fuji, in Hong Kong. It is the reason that Fuji film is always my first choice for the best printing quality. I often shop at Fotomax (www.fotomax.com.hk) because their newest Fuji developing machines and technology ‘Fdi’ can maximize the quality of Fuji printings. Fuji films with their crystal papers and newest ‘Fdi’ developing is the best ptoto printing formula for me currently. You might try to find a lab using Konica process machine. Unfortunately, I can only find one and their staffs look unprofessional. In addition, their Konica processing machine has been used for many years. I doubt them having CNK-4 for my testing Konica films. Finally, I gave it to a common lab using third party (neither Fuji or Kodak) process machine. The printings provide me natural/accurate color in daylight but not saturated, vivid or artificial. Landscape testing is still fine, but under exposure is found if flash is used. Likewise, this film does not handle dark area well. Grain is fine, but Fuji films are definitely better than this product. Grains can be distinguished in my PC when it is scanned by my film scanner with 2400 dpi output resolution (2820 dpi input). Some over exposure area may also be found in scanned output, but they are not found in my printings. Perhaps professional labs can give some help, or even are able to provide CNK-4 process for you. However, is this low cost consumer product expected for high price professional use? If you need to shoot professionally, will you take this film? I would comment it “Films for beginners learning mechanic camera photography, paying low cost, without color assistance”. Although I will not try it again even though I can find CNK-4 process support in the future, I still look forward someone can write the review. Thanks for your reading!

Customer Service

None, but technical paper cannot be download from Japanese internet site: No response.

Similar Products Used:

Fuji Reala 100 Fuji Superia 200 Fuji Xtra 400 Fuji Xtra 800 Fuji Press 800 Fuji NPS 160 Fuji NPH 400 Kodak 160 VC Kodak Supra 100 Kodak Max 400

It's faster than ASA 25 film.
Pretty blue box.
Low price.

Colors never accurate.

Very oversaturated.

I've been trying lots of new films recently and I came across this one. Having always stuck to the "big three" (Kodak, Fuji, Agfa) I decided to venture out and try this film. All I can say is that I'm glad I took a test roll. None of the colors are very accurate. Might make a decent film for landscapes but stay away with anything else.

Similar Products Used:

Fuji, Kodak ASA 200 films.

I prefer this for shooting outdoors with lots for browns and reds.

Not good for people shots, too muddy.

For the price, this is a test film for me when I go outdoors and the weather is not too perfect, just walking thru the woods type of thing. Not a serious film, for that I would the Fuji Reala or Superia products.

Similar Products Used:

Fuji Reala 100, Superia 100, 200, 400, Polaroid 400 HD