>>4438518>If it btfo kodak color film would you happily pay more as well?honestly, probably not. Let's compare it to Gold 200. What improvements could be made to this film? Assuming I want a warm rendition of the scene, Gold's colors are already accurate enough. Maybe I'd want a bit more saturation or exposure latitude. I think Gold's grain adds to it's look despite being grainy for a 200 speed film, but let's say maybe I want less grain anyway. And more speed, more speed is always nice.
So in a somewhat realistic scenario, we have a new film that has colors like Gold, but grain like Portra 160 and you can shoot it at 1600. That, I'd say, would btfo Kodak's offering, and I'd be willing to pay more.
BUT since I don't actually NEED tighter grain or higher speed and stuff for the majority of my photos I wouldn't actually want to pay that much more. This hypothetical film would probably be like $20 or more easily and at that point I'd buy a few rolls a year just to have on hand and do my regular snapping with the cheaper stuff anyway.
So to answer the question in short, actually no, I probably wouldn't happily pay more. I would maybe begrudgingly pay more on rare occasions. I'd only "happily" pay more if it were like a dollar or two more per roll and was a 3200 ISO film with nice colors and super fine grain. Then I'd be pretty happy to pay a bit more.
As it is, this film looks like it's more on the level of some of the Orwo/Inoviscoat offerings, so even below shit like Colorplus. I can't see myself using this too much. I was hoping the changs would pull through and save us from Kodak Alaris's retardation especially after their decision to stop allowing bulk motion picture film sales to people for respooling.
