We decided to head down to our local beach and compare an inexpensive roll of $3 Fujicolor 200 and the professional-grade $7 roll of Ektar 100 film. Both are lower iso color negative film, but Ektar 100 with its 36 frames and super fine grain costs twice as much as a roll of Fujicolor 200 with 24 frames.
Fujicolor 200 vs Ektar 100
Below are images from the two different rolls of film shot on a Canon 1v. We shot, developed, and scanned in our lab. You may have to click the below images to see them better, but the Ektar 100 is a little more vibrant and has more contrast. The Fujicolor 200 is muted with pastel tones with less contrast. While each film has a distinct look with noticeable differences, we do think they both look great and it comes down to personal preferences.
Click image to view larger photo files.
Some interesting reactions from our Facebook post
I really like these posts because of the information they yield… Thanks for educating us! Personally I like Ektar photos better. Less grain, but just a little to give it that personality. Definitely more vibrant. However, the Fujicolor isn’t bad and looks pretty nice. Ektar is supposed to be a professional-grade film that should yield better quality photos; hence, the higher price. I think it’s true in this case that you’re paying for that better quality, but then again, as you said, it really does come down to personal preference.
I can tell the difference without opening the photographs .. Fuji makes the water look too green ..Right now I’m using Kodak 200 and AGFA 200, and Ektar 100 as third choice !! …. As far as cost, the roll of 36 processes and scans for the same price as a roll of 24, so that offsets the price differential a little !!
Thanks for the post! I have always shot Kodak film, currently Ektar 100. I like the Ektar photos better myself. With the cost of a 36 exposure roll being processed the same as a 24, the cost difference is minimal.
Phillip B Wilson
I like Ektar, more pleasant tones and contrast