What Color print 400 film do you use?

What Color print 400 film do you use?

  • Fuji Superia

    Votes: 49 38.6%

  • Fuji Pro

    Votes: 24 18.9%

  • Agfa

    Votes: 4 3.1%

  • Kodak Max Gold

    Votes: 10 7.9%

  • Kodak Hi Def

    Votes: 5 3.9%

  • Kodak Portra NC

    Votes: 21 16.5%

  • Kodak Portra VC

    Votes: 18 14.2%

  • Other

    Votes: 24 18.9%
  • Total voters
    127
Where does one buy 400UC now? Kodak did a heroin dealer trick to me, got me hooked at low prices from the CVS and Wal-Mart, now it's no longer stocked there, or anywhere else I've been to lately, save for the real camera stores, at multiples of the price I once paid..
 
For my education, could you guys elaborate on what's wrong with the Kodak Max lineup? my Olympus XA seems to produce good results with the 200ASA. It's not too vivid, and the color tones are in general pleasing to see. Of course it may just be me :)

Here's an example:

476884457_57c5851fde.jpg
 
Ultra 400UC gone from Wal-Mart

Ultra 400UC gone from Wal-Mart

uhligfd said:
Why not put Kodak 400 UC into the line up?

It is by far the best (from my experience); the NC is too dull, the VC too poppy. 400UC is just super all around. Also very cheap at all Walmarts at three 36 exp rolls for 12$ ...
Click to expand...

When I use up all 21 rolls of Kodak Ultra 400UC I will evaluate a replacement.

I am picking up a roll of Portra 160NC in a few minutes. I did use a roll of Portra 400VC. It was nice. I did notice a bit of grain in some large featureless painted walls. That may be normal of any 400 film.

By the way, I almost always shoot 400 film at 200. If I want 400 speed, I buy Fuji 800.
 
I've tried. Over a period of years. I have never ever liked the pictures I get from Kodak Max film. Maybe it's me. Maybe it's my meters. Maybe it's the minilabs. Don't know. I just know I don't like Kodak Max or High Definition film. A lot of folks swear by Kodak Gold 200. I haven't used it.
 
I love Portra NC both 160 and 400. NHP was my favoriate until it discontinued. I did try pro400 but felt like it was different film. (though it's not)
Never used 400UC but it sure looks really nice.
But at the end of the month multi-pack cheap supermarket films works for me.
Developing color film and scanning is quite expensive in seoul korea. :(
 
Kodak Gold 100 was well-respected for color and sharpness, and Portra 400UC was widely said to be the best (400-speed?) color film, period. Odd that it's now discontinued while the NC and VC have been re-issued in new versions.

One thing I've noted about UC is that it doesn't handle mixed lighting as well as the Fuji Pro films.
 
If I must shoot a 400 color I pick the Fuji Pro- I like that color the best, and shooting what I do- storefronts, reflections, etc. this one seems best at giving less harsh differences with mixed light sources. (we agree again Doug!) I rarely do shoot fast color film- I was a big fan of the Agfa Ultra 50 when it was around, now it's Ultra 100 for 99% of my color print. This deals darn well with said mixed light- something about the cast of flourescent that I like very much.
 
Still working off some free rolls of Portra that I got from Kodak. I like it well enough when I have the luxury of enough light to shoot iso400 at.
 
sepiareverb said:
If I must shoot a 400 color I pick the Fuji Pro- I like that color the best, and shooting what I do- storefronts, reflections, etc. this one seems best at giving less harsh differences with mixed light sources. (we agree again Doug!) I rarely do shoot fast color film- I was a big fan of the Agfa Ultra 50 when it was around, now it's Ultra 100 for 99% of my color print. This deals darn well with said mixed light- something about the cast of flourescent that I like very much.
Click to expand...
Partial as I am toward Kodak Portra in the proverbial broad daylight, I'm with you about Fuji Pro and mixed lighting: the more mixed the light, the better it seems to get:

Fuji Pro 400

attachment.php


Fuji Pro 800

attachment.php



- Barrett
 
Largely depends on the goal.
Up until few years back negs were my main stuff for general shooting (SLR) and historically I'm with Fuji. I found for general, all-around stuff Superia was good enough, whilst Reala (100) was more then adequate for slow-speed adventure. On the other hand, specific serious work (events, wedding) - a professional-grade film comes into acount (NPH400, NPS160), while high-speed job (rock concerts, some moderate sport) - required Press 800.

However, since then I converted to slides for general stuff (Sensia 100, Velvia 50/100 for specialized work) leaving fine C41 films for particular kind fo job (official events, dedicated portraiture) and/or when immedaite printing is required (at pro lab).
 
Hey Barrett great example of what the Pro can do- what's that 6 different light sources in the Macys shot? All fits together in a very natural-looking way.

I used to work for Macy's (over the river in Newark, Bambergers) in the photo studio. Printed all the black & white stuff for the newspaper ads & supplements, did some color compositing to put football games in TV screens and did a little bit of propping help for the photogs (cigarettes while on break- remember those smokeless ashtrays?)
 
Interesting. According to the poll results, the majority seems to use Superia, but there's barely a mention of it in this discussion. Are we using it reluctantly? I find that it's cheaper than the rest, easily available, and actually does a fairly decent job... I guess others agree.
 
Joe Vitessa said:
Interesting. According to the poll results, the majority seems to use Superia, but there's barely a mention of it in this discussion. Are we using it reluctantly? I find that it's cheaper than the rest, easily available, and actually does a fairly decent job... I guess others agree.
Click to expand...

Also no takers on my question as to why Kodak Max is "not desirable".

This thread is kinda weird, a lot of subjective opinions without (IMHO) enough pictures to draw an objective conclusion from, oh well...
 
shadowfox said:
Also no takers on my question as to why Kodak Max is "not desirable".
Click to expand...
Okay, I'll bite: Most all of the Kodak MAX emulsions I've tried – mostly 400 and 800 – struck me as grainy, early-generation hand-me-downs compared to UC400, or even the older Supra. Scanning was a bit wacky with MAX as well; I'd say this was a dead giveaway of MAX being an older Kodak formula, but then I recall how easy Gold 100/200 usually scan (for me, anyway, with the last few Minolta scanners I've used), and I doubt the MAX formula is as old as Gold's.


- Barrett
 
The only thing I have against Kodak Max is the the word 'Max'.
Other than that I tried one roll about ten years ago and it didn't look like I thought it should so I never bought anything with the words 'Max' or 'Gold' and heaven forbid 'Gold Max'!
Plus I read on the internet about this guy who's sister knew a guy at her job who said it was no good, so that's good enough for me to consider a fact!.. or maybe it was the guy's mom, not her sister.
 
Keeping it cheap, Fuji Superia 400 Xtra. When I want better results and cost is not a concern, Kodak UC 400. When there is plenty of available light outdoors, Fuji Reala.
 
amateriat said:
Okay, I'll bite: Most all of the Kodak MAX emulsions I've tried – mostly 400 and 800 – struck me as grainy, early-generation hand-me-downs compared to UC400, or even the older Supra. Scanning was a bit wacky with MAX as well; I'd say this was a dead giveaway of MAX being an older Kodak formula, but then I recall how easy Gold 100/200 usually scan (for me, anyway, with the last few Minolta scanners I've used), and I doubt the MAX formula is as old as Gold's.


- Barrett
Click to expand...

Barrett and Clint, thanks for trying :)

I guess it's just me, I like the results from Kodak Max especially the 200ASA on my XA. Now, I just got a hold of a couple of barely expired (2/2007) Kodak High Def 200. Let's see how those perform on my XA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom