Ещё 088 был в этой рекламе.

Кстати ответ автору фото, по поводу фотопленки Konica, она ведь была одна из самых любимых у фотографов, её ценили за эмульсию, потому и цветопередача была просто шикарная, до сих пор есть около десятка роликов в холодильнике!

The story is more complicated.
Like now, you needed 3 elements to make a good picture: the camera itself, the lens and the photographer.
About the films themselves, I can write books... The different brands had different types, theoretically destined for different markets: retail versus supermarket, richer countries versus poorer countries... but also in Belgium I once came across a box 'made in Cambodia'. Especially in the last years of analogue film, there were quite a number of different types of well-known brands in circulation.
Another story is the development of the film rolls themselves. This could happen in two ways. The first was in a large lab and there they had different lines. The difference was in the use of the chemicals, to develop the films. Apart from the initial quality of those chemicals, they also had a limited lifespan, both in number and time. In a large lab, it was quite common to use the very last (and least quality) for the low-cost customers, i.e. the supermarkets that sold photographs at rock-bottom prices.
The second possibility was the development of film rolls in a small lab, by a local photographer. Here, the problem was exactly the same: either the lab had too little turnover, causing the quality of the chemicals to deteriorate, or it was too avaricious to replace it itself in time, or even worse: its staff was incapable of operating the machine correctly.
Finally, there was the paper. Here (but maybe everywhere) there were 3 types: low-cost, standard and luxury.
The whole story makes that the price varied from 50 - 200 % per photo...
So the whole story is complex. There were some brands of films where I found the result more mediocre: that was Elka (Belgian brand?) and Konica.

Цитата (focus1965, 21.04.2020):
> Especially in the last years of analogue film,

That time I've heard theory, that some brands of film were better for some parts of colour spectre...For example, AGFA is better for red and orange colours, and KONICA for blue. But I think, it is impossible?

The story's complicated. Kodak had warmer colours than Konica because of more red in the film, while with Konica, the blue light dominated. Many years later one can see the result: either the pictures become even redder, or the colours fade and the blue starts to dominate. Ideally, of course, the quality would be preserved... And indeed: when editing my old photos, I either have to eliminate a lot of red, or just the opposite: eliminate the blue and add red.

Цитата (focus1965, 23.04.2020):
> Kodak had warmer colours than Konica because of more red in the film, while with Konica, the blue light dominated. Many years later one can see the result: either the pictures become even redder, or the colours fade and the blue starts to dominate. Ideally, of course, the quality would be preserved...

Yes, you are absolutely right! I also notice it, when scanning from film which is already 20+ years old it turns out more red or blue, but if you compare it with the photos printed from this film (immediately after its shooting)- on the photo colors are balanced! Probably due to the storage conditions of the film, or the emulsion changes after many years, but this suggests that the 35mm film is something alive and real!