The differences between those films that some reviews may show could have resulted from automatic or deliberate scanning software adjustments and film expiration dates. Whatever the case may be, those films can not be distinguished on their own if processed the same way.
I know this because I got identical-looking photos on both films (all fresh), having tested them under controlled light and inverted using software I wrote. And if that’s not convincing enough, both films have the same identifying marks in the margins — an ID Kodak, Ilford, and others put on their films. These IDs have been traditionally used to tell films apart.
I could even tell those films were the same by how thick they felt in my hand when I loaded them into my development tank. When I did the test, I compared those films to a third Kodak film in this category: Kodak Gold. Kodak Gold looks nearly identical to ColorPlus (I’ve tested that earlier: analog.cafe/r/kodak-gold-v…), but it has different edge markings and it’s noticeably thicker, whereas both ColorPlus and Kodacolor 200 felt the same.
I wrote about this in my recent article (analog.cafe/r/kodak-colorp…), but the information about the identifying marks in the margins was behind a paywall. Someone has pointed out to me that it may be unfair to keep this hidden, as it could cost money or cause frustration. I thought that was fair, so I’m removing the paywall on this article.
Most of the content on Analog.Cafe is free to read without any ads. Paywalls help me keep this blog sustainable and protect it from being devoured by AI companies. But I would like to balance that with a little more sympathy and respect.
Dmitri