What is a “Sang”? What is Kodak Pro Image 100 like? I visit one to find out! Having never tried this film I purchased a roll a while back, it sat in my “film to use” box and finally I’ve gotten around to using it! Apparently it’s been manufactured by Kodak since 1997 (Analogue Wonderland), but was only sold to South America and Asia. Not until 2017 did they start selling it in US and Europe. I think this is where the idea that it’s somehow a “tropicalized” film came from. I see no indication or official claims of that anywhere! The film does feel thinner to me, so I suspect that the base may be polyester rather than acetate, but that’s nothing new! Maybe it’s the old Gold 100 emulsion sprayed onto a thinner base? Either way I popped the roll into my Nikon F3, attached the 55mm Micro lens (as Nikon likes to call a Macro lens), and set of the the “Sang”.
Having never heard of a Sang before I was even more surprised to find that there were two or three local to me! It’s becoming a “thing”! A “Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace” aims to take more urban areas and manage them to provide greenspace for locals, to help take the pressure off the truly natural areas – from what I can see, a Sang is a re-invention of a town park! Here’s more detail-
I exposed the film at box speed, it was processed by Analogue Wonderland and scanned by me. I had trouble getting good colour from it, by which I mean correct. It was also VERY curly to load into the scanner. Although it is, give or take about 25% higher in cost, I much prefer Ektar 100 in all respects and have not had any trouble with the colour that gives. I suppose a fairer comparison would be with Gold 200, and I’d also choose that above Pro 100 too.
The quality is fine, I rather like the image of the flowers (above right), and (below left) the wider image are a bit lacking! I don’t expose that much colour film, although I have a bit to use up. When it’s gone, apart for exceptions, I may revert to digital for colour and stick with black and white film. Who knows!
Chatter: Nikon F3 with 55mm Micro. Kodak Pro Image 100 at box speed.
S.H.O.U.T. 
I had the reverse experience from you: I actually prefer Pro Image to Ektar. Despite Ektar’s reputation (or hype), I never warmed up to this over-warm stock, whereas Pro Image just looks more natural. The fact that it’s cheaper than Ektar doesn’t hurt, but it’s still more than Gold or Color Plus for some reason. I still prefer Color Plus in general, as having that extra stop of exposure is more helpful in real-world conditions, but when the light is right (read: summer), I like using 100 speed film.
And I’m also the reverse when it comes to color in general: I like shooting color film and don’t see switching to digital for that, especially since I don’t really have a good digital camera and don’t want to shell out the cash for one.
So I’d say give Pro Image another shot, and color film in general.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Shawn! You are right of course in that the film is fine, it’s just my technique in dealing with it is poor! I suspect that because I do much more black and white (that I enjoy) so when I do use colour film, I tend towards the brighter more vibrant Ektar than the softer films. I’ll try another roll and see if I can do better!! – Cheers Andy
LikeLike
Hi Andy.
By coincidence, I shot my first roll of Pro Image recently too, on a trip to Lincoln back in March (with the rest of the roll finished off in Sheffield at a later date). I was really happy with the results I got though.
I bought a 5-pack of it long enough ago that it’s all expired now (although it’s been frozen since purchase) and I’m looking forward to what I might be able to make with the remaining four rolls.
I’ve not published the images from that first roll on my blog yet, but they’re all on Flickr here:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Nige! I think my issue is that I use much more black and white than colour. I’m well practiced at scanning b/w and getting results that I like – to the point with the last film, I’m happy with then as they are without any tweaks at all. That’s all very lovely but when it comes to colour I struggle to get decent scans in the first place. Although strangely the exception seems to be Ektar. I’m sure the film is fine, your Flickr photo’s prove that — some really nice shots in there! I may try another roll to see if I can do better! Meanwhile I’ve got a roll of Portra 160 on the go!! – Cheers Andy
LikeLiked by 1 person
I sympathise with your struggles scanning colour negatives. It took me absolutely ages to get to a place where I can routinely get colours I’m happy with (and even then, sometimes it can be difficult). I also find that Ektar is one of the easier films to get good results from. Kodak Gold, on the other hand… 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person