Kodak Pro Image 100 Pushed +2 Stops to EI400

Kodak Pro Image 100 (see full film review here) was sold exclusively in Asian and South American markets up until the late 2010s/early 2020s when Kodak decided to make it available worldwide.

In this article: Kodak Pro Image 100 is really good. The experiment. Metering. Colours. Grain. Development. Scanning. Is it worth it? Support this blog & get premium features with GOLD memberships!

Kodak Pro Image 100 is really good.

This film is different from other Kodak offerings. Designed specifically for warm climates, it’s shelf-stable at room (and warmer) temperatures longer than other emulsions. Sold in packs of five, it’s the cheapest “Pro” Kodak film.

Unlike other “Pro” Kodak colour films, Pro Image 100 isn’t available in medium format. Its dynamic range is on the lower end of the spectrum, at 7.5 stops. And it’s the grainiest ISO 100 Kodak colour film. Granted, its competitors are the incredible Ektar (the finest ISO 100 colour film grain) and Ektachrome E100 slide film.

I still don’t quite understand why Kodak chose not to sell this film in NA/EU markets, given that it has no alternatives in its class — but I’m glad that it’s finally here. I found it to be an excellent affordable alternative to the Portra series and almost as good at rendering pastel colours (which happens to be a surprisingly challenging thing to do, especially if the film isn’t right).

I shoot a lot of different films (for reviews and out of curiosity), but if I were to stick with just one emulsion, Pro Image 100 may be the one. It’s easy to scan — as long as you don’t let your scanner software apply inappropriate corrections (try this method instead). It looks good, and, as I recently realized, it is easy to get good results out of when pushed.

The experiment.

I first saw samples of this film pushed +2 stops on Threads (I want to say serendipitously, but that won’t be true, the Algorithm™ thought it was a good idea — so thanks, Meta engineers?)

Seeing those images encouraged me to pick Pro Image out of the pack of seven rolls I took on my recent trip to Ontario. I was on the plane, I liked what I saw, but there wasn’t enough light to meter it at ISO 100.

So I pushed Pro Image +2 stops. (In other words, I assumed that Pro Image is now an ISO 400 film and developed accordingly.)

I ended up shooting this (pushed) roll of Pro Image 100 on my recent trip to Ontario (Canada) to see my family and friends.

A four-hour flight from Vancouver, my folks live in a small town outside of Toronto. It’s amongst fields and farm roads. I think the last time I lived close enough to reach them via a short drive was in 2013 — over ten years ago. Each time it’s a trip.

My partner and I planned to make this one extra fun by adding Montréal to the list of cities we’ll be seeing this year. Lucky for us, Mom and Dad live a mere four-hour drive from the French-Canadian party city. And they were kind enough to lend us their car, which we filled with cheap East Coast gas.

There were no definitive plans to push any of the seven film rolls I took on the trip. The occasion called for it.

Our flight was very cheap, just $60 one-way or $120 return (plus taxes) each.

As such, the airline made sure it was basic. No seat selection, and our backpacks had to fit in a tight metal box. That six-by-thirteen-inch box, manned by an attendant stood between us and our boarding passes — the strictest retail rule enforcement I’ve ever encountered.

Flying Flair felt like extreme couponing. Which is funny and fine with me as long as the pilots and the staff are comfortable and well-paid. After all, we get flung 3,000 feet up into the atmosphere and across a continent for the price of a mediocre dinner.

All this lead to my amusement to end up occupying an entire row alone. As soon as we were airborne, I scooted over to the window and instantly saved $50.

The flight was a redeye. The sky was clear, and the cabin dark — I could see stars clearly. But none of my films would work, as the scene would call for a tripod and steady ground, neither of which was available. Fortunately for my film sweats, we were scheduled to land at 7am and the weather was fantastic.

The morning light was too dim for a shaking airplane zooming past landscapes at 150 knots. And I wasn’t ready for Portra 800. So I grabbed my Pro Image 100 and trusted that I’d get results as good as those of the OP.

Metering.

In addition to trusting the results I saw a stranger posted on social media, I relied on a new-to-me Canon A-1: a heavy but beautiful fully mechanical SLR with a broken light meter and just one lens: 24mm Canon FD 𝒇2.8 ultrawide. To pass the baggage checkpoint, I kept the combo in my hoodie pocket, which bulged and pulled the garment to the right side ridiculously low.

As usual, I got my film hand-checked without any issues.

The camera’s light meter was gone, but that didn’t matter. The average through-the-lens metering system that depends on obsolete battery technology can easily give a wrong reading. So I relied on my understanding of the Sunny 16 rule — which was faster than whipping out an iPhone app each time and accurate enough for every shot on the roll falling within a ballpark.

From what I’ve seen, simple, evenly lit scenes performed best with the pushed Pro Image 100. But I could also see that scenes with an abundance of shadows or low-key light appeared purple when scanned without edits or adjustments.

I can tell my exposure was spot-on because I verified my camera’s shutter speeds with an app earlier and set A-1 to 𝒇8 with 1/2000 while pointing at front-lit subjects in a clear midday light. My chemicals are old, so the purple cast can be blamed on expired blix or developer. But I don’t think that’s the case since the top image in this article appeared immune to the issue.

My conclusion is that Pro Image pushed two stops looks best with a slight over-exposure and an assumed dynamic range of 4-5 stops (i.e., avoid strong shadows).

Colours.

Correcting the cast was possible in most cases, though the results revealed an image that looked good but not quite as realistic as the ones rendered by unpushed Portras. That’s fine by me as Kodak film, particularly Pro Image, distorts beautifully.

After fixing the cast, I found high-contrast scenes looking a little whimsical. While the colours and saturation looked true to my expectations from Pro Image 100, the contrast was hard to miss. Thankfully, the shadows stayed relatively noise-free.

Grain.

It’s visible, but that’s not a significant jump from what you’d see when shooting this film at box speed.

There’s also very little noise in the shadows. This must be partially due to freshness, but may also be the result of the emulsion’s stability at warm temperatures. In either case, this is very helpful for a colour film that yields lots of contrast.

Development.

My chemicals were old, so I held my Pro Image in developer for seven minutes, instead of the prescribed 6.13. If the chemicals were fresh, this would yield less than one stop of extra development over the manufacturer’s time for pushing C-41 film +2 stops.

My Pro Image shared a tank with a roll of Lomography’s original Lomochrome Color’92 formula — which I also pushed +2 stops to EI1600.

Scanning.

Pro Image dries flat, which is great for all scanners. It has an easy range of densities, too. Other than the purple cast, there were no issues.

I’m not sure how your scanning software will interpret the digital negative. If it’s weird or just not to your liking, I suggest you invert the colours by hand and go from there.

Is it worth it?

I think so. The result looked good for what I was expecting from this film. It’s usually cheaper than Kodak Portra 400 and Kodak Ultramax 400/Fujifilm 400. Of course, if you develop your film at a lab, they may charge you extra for each push stop. Developed at home, Pro Image 100 takes just two extra minutes in chemicals (free).

❤ By the way: Please consider making your Kodak Pro Image 100 film purchase using this link  so that Analog.Cafe may get a small percentage of that sale — at no extra charge for you — thanks!