One of the most hype games with all dumpster heroes . <| sep |> To kick ass <| sep |> The png file is called kepregeny 1 What does that mean ? <| sep |> yep going to plaza . Ill send you a trade <| sep |> Kodak Colorplus 200 used to be my favourite film by far and the reason why I got into film I had the opportunity to trade a digital M body for a film M body lens , and I knew that Colorplus 200 was suitable in terms of colour scheme , cheap and plentiful , at the time 2 eurroll , though the price went up sometime this year , now it ' s 3 eurroll in the same store until I got my current scannerMinolta Dimage Elite 5400 , previous one was Reflecta Crystalscan 7200 , after which Kodak Gold 200 slowly started becoming my favourite interestingly , with my old scanner , I never liked Gold 200 , so keep scanner differences in mind when discussing films . The colour scheme is just perfect for what I want to do , Colorplus 200 being more pastel , which , if you process it in a way to really bring out the colours still looks a bit different to a high saturationcontrast film , but Gold 200 just gives me the high saturationcontrast modernbutnotquite look that ' s what I ' m going for at this point , having a more modern lens helps as well , the 40 mm had a very different feel and gave very different results , I now use the Elmarit 28 mm F 2 . 8 IV which has a very distinct 90 ' s look to me , especially coupled with film stock that ' s been more or less changed from around that era or slightly later more easily and the end result looks a bit differentthey do both have the same general colour hue and luminance balance , in terms of WB , Gold being ever so slightly cooler than Colorplus , but the difference is marginal , the bigger difference is in the purple and magenta areas , Gold 200 produces them far more easily than Colorplus 200 , though overall it ' s still a greenish and warmish leaning film like prettymuch all of Kodak stock is . Mind you , I am talking about initial scan files I get with my scanner , which I then process heavily . I just want to get a good starting point that I don ' t have to fight against to get the look I want , but rather just have it go in the direction I want to . I could go into more detail if you want , but that ' s the basics of it . Ultramax 400 is in reality an ISO 200 ish film , at least I rate it thuslythough it seems to be a bit more sensitive than ISO 200 films , but not significantly so , and it ' s grainy regardless of exposure , and so is Gold 200 . Both are grainy stock as is Colorplus 200 , less so than Ultramax 400 , slightly more so than Gold 200 , though the difference with good exposure is marginal compared to contemporary Fuji stuff Superia 400 or 200 , C 200 , let alone Pro 400 H or anything along those lines as well as contemporary Kodak stuff Portra 800 is comparable in graininess to Ultramax 400 exposed at 400 , albeit less coarse and thus more pleasant , Portra 400 is comparable to overexposed Gold 200 , Portra 160 is just a really low grain film , and so is Ektar 100 . Personally I don ' t particularly mind graininess , indeed I often prefer it though in moderation , of course , so I don ' t shy away from using them , also , underexposing slightly really brings out the colours with Gold 200 though the colours are strong even if you overexpose it .