>>3219139>Ok why should I shoot them at ISO 200 or 100 when they are ISO 400?Because negative films, especially cheap colour ones, look really bad underexposed and fine overexposed. Also they lose speed proportionately to the time passed after expiration. You'll get much better results, especially with an auto-exposure camera, if you set the ISO dial at 100 or 200. But you can try it out.
>Like Ilford XP2? Is it better than XP2? That film looks like color blue instead of B&W.Yeah like XP2, but with orange base (XP2 has a clear base).
XP2 is better for scanning and printing in the darkroom because of the clear base (orange base fucks up the contrast of multicontrast papers, since they rely on magenta and yellow to control contrast grades).
Kodak was easier for the automated minilab machines to get a decent print without additional settings, since the machines were optimised for colour C-41 films that have an orange mask.
>Kodak KM 25 on the canister.Forget this one. Very special slide film (positive image and not negative), with a hugely complex dev process for which neither machinery nor chemistry exist anymore. Nobody can develop it. You could shoot and develop it as B&W, but it won't look good. {The yellow filter layer is made of silver that in the original K-14 process would have gotten bleached away, but in B&W process gets developed and acts as extra density, lowering the contrast}
>RealaFuji's version of saturated negative film. Sadly got discontinued.
