Bargain Film at Target - Heads Up

I think the skin tones look great in that last shot. Nice depth of field too. The guy on the right moved a bit during the flash. Its a neat effect.

Doh, you are right, that was Ray_g. My bad.
 
Stephanie Brim said:
Kodak is known for its ability to pick up reds. Fuji is generally known for its ability to pick up greens. It's why Fuji is generally better when you're shooting tons of greenery and Kodak can be better if you're shooting sunrises or sunsets. Something I read somewhere a long time ago.
Click to expand...

Steph, am I missing something? I know I'm color-blind, so I could be way off, but I can usually see brilliant greens. Did not my 'swamp' shot just now have brilliant greens in it? Did they not 'pop'? That's the Kodak Ultra 400 UC. I'll grant you that Fuji Velvia slide will would have been more saturated, hands down. But color print film? Which one? Agfa Ultra 50 maybe, but that makes everyone look like they just joined the circus. Fuji what? And which of it is $5.98 for three rolls of 36 exposures?

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I'm curious because I joined a photography club recently, and the president of the club has an admitted aversion to anything Kodak. To the extent that he won't even discuss the name brand in any in-class discussions of film types to use for this or that - it MUST be Fuji or he kinda sulks and refuses to talk. I mean, what's that all about?

I shoot whatever works for me and cross brand-lines often. I like Kodak Gold 100 and 200, Fuji Superia XTRA 400, Kodak B&W 400 C41, Tri-X, Ilford Delta 100, Velvia, Kodachrome, you name it. Is there some advantage to having only one brand name in the kit that I'm not aware of?

I mean, you say this UC is flat - is it? I'm not seeing that. You say it costs too much - but I posted originally about a great deal on the price - not like it matters to me, I don't work for Target or Kodak - just trying to pass along good news. Then I post a (what I think) is a ultra-saturated greenery-nature type shot and you say Fuji does well with greens, Kodak with reds. Huh? I mean, we all have opinions and stuff, but is there a problem here?

Again, I mean no disrespect. Just curious, really!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
Fedzilla_Bob said:
I think the skin tones look great in that last shot. Nice depth of field too. The guy on the right moved a bit during the flash. Its a neat effect.

Doh, you are right, that was Ray_g. My bad.
Click to expand...

Not a problem - but with my color-vision the way it is, I was freaked out - thinking OH NO! I knew it was bad, but I didn't know I couldn't tell bright red from bright green now!

LOL!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
Last edited:
To explain myself. I said that *I* wasn't impressed with it. I prefer Fuji film to Kodak. I'm biased. My comment about reds and greens was a general comment, not geared towards one person. I use the film and it's great when I can find it cheap. Reala can get expensive. I just prefer others.

Also, when I was talking about the price, I was saying that the supermarket here charges almost 13 bucks for it and *that* was the price that *I* got it at. It is too expensive for this film, IMO, but 6 bucks is a steal and you should go pick up as much as you can actually afford.

The aversion to Kodak film stems from a really bad experience with some Kodak Gold a couple years back. I now try and stay as far away from Kodak color print film as possible, though I do like results that other people have been getting from the slide film and I'm anxious to try mine. It's a personal preference thing.
 
Stephanie,

I'm cool with that, thanks for the explanation - I'm sorry if I seemed to be pushing it. I think the timing of your comments and my posts was just a bit juxtaposed - it seemed as if you were saying that the green wasn't green, etc. I'm thinking 'what the heck'? If she doesn't like UC, fine, but either I'm truly missing something or she's so biased she literally can't see the color green! I see now that wasn't the case, sorry!

I guess my experience to date with my photo club president is still fresh in my memory. This guy won't SAY the word "Kodak" and will immediately drop out of any discussion if anyone else mentions the word either. What's that about?

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
Maybe when he was a child there was horribly frightening experience involving Kodak and, perhaps, to this day he denies it's existence just so he can go on with business.

Kind of like- Sequehana Hats... slowly I turn... step by step...
Woob Woob Woob... Wise guy eh?
 
Last edited:
A lot of pros seem to prefer Fuji to Kodak and swear that Fuji is higher in quality. When it comes to the consumer and semi-pro grade films I have to agree, but the actual pro films seem to be of at least equal quality to each other. If I'm buying pro film and I'm not on a budget, I get Agfa or Fuji or, surprisingly, Konica. If I'm buying slide film I buy Kodak Ektachrome or Fuji Sensia. Black and white I tend to stick to Ilford or Fuji. It's all a lot of personal preference. I buy the film that I can take the best pictures with.

So you can get an idea of my bias, I've shot five rolls of Ilford, three rolls of Kodak, and about 6 rolls of Fuji since I got my SLR. The Kodak I've shot is the Ultra Color. I've shot various Fuji and Ilford.

*shrug*
 
My take on the whole issue is that arguing Kodak vs. Fuji vs. Agfa vs. Ilford is like getting into an argument on Canon vs. Nikon vs. Minolta vs. Pentax - all sides are convinced they have found the "right answer" and no side will ever convince the others.

It is interesting how availability helps to define our film and camera preferences. I'd shoot Agfa medium format films exclusively if they were readily available in my area, meaning I could walk into the store and pick up as many rolls of a given type as I wanted any time I walked into the store. I love the more natural colors in both the Agfa print and transparency films and I was very happy with the smoothness and contrast of the black-and-white print films.

Sadly, since Agfa is hard to procure cheaply and in quantity locally, I've gravitated back towards 35mm slide film and Kodak Elite Chrome meets my ready-availability criteria. It does the job consistently for a reasonable price and at a quality I'm satisfied with. I rarely shoot black-and-white, so I use whatever's cheapest and available when I'm in the mood. Developing 35mm color print film is too inconsistent around here so I don't even bother with it.

I suppose I could order my film over the internet but I still like walking into the photo store and leaving with film in hand. It also gives me an excuse to fondle the cameras 🙂.
 
Stephanie Brim said:
A lot of pros seem to prefer Fuji to Kodak and swear that Fuji is higher in quality. When it comes to the consumer and semi-pro grade films I have to agree, but the actual pro films seem to be of at least equal quality to each other. If I'm buying pro film and I'm not on a budget, I get Agfa or Fuji or, surprisingly, Konica. If I'm buying slide film I buy Kodak Ektachrome or Fuji Sensia. Black and white I tend to stick to Ilford or Fuji. It's all a lot of personal preference. I buy the film that I can take the best pictures with.

So you can get an idea of my bias, I've shot five rolls of Ilford, three rolls of Kodak, and about 6 rolls of Fuji since I got my SLR. The Kodak I've shot is the Ultra Color. I've shot various Fuji and Ilford.

*shrug*
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm with you now. Really, I completely understand personal preference. I just completely misunderstood your intentions when you posted - I thought it was a "don't buy this" thing, not a "I tend not to like this" thing. Mea maximu culpa!

Personally, I've never even SEEN Konica film up close and personal. I shot a lot of Agfa Vista when my local camera store in Albuquerque (at the time) was danged near giving it away. Didn't care for it - thought the colors were 'cool'. They showed me a side-by-side photo album, presumably done to illustrate how good it was - still showed 'cool' to my color-blind eyes.

I like Kodak Gold 100 and 200 because it scans well (for me). Same for Ilford Delta 100. I don't like Fuji 100 and 200 because it curls up and is hard to get in the scanner - LOL! I do like Fuji 400 XTRA, nice stuff - but don't care for the skin tones. Never found one from Agfa that I liked, but I have some APX 125 that I'm going to try out.

For 'pro' film - like you, a toss up. I shoot Portra 160NC and 400NC and I have shot NPH & NPZ and liked them too. I've shot Provia and Velvia and liked them, but also shot the new saturated Kodak slide films and liked those. No clear winner that I can see - they all work for me.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
dkirchge said:
My take on the whole issue is that arguing Kodak vs. Fuji vs. Agfa vs. Ilford is like getting into an argument on Canon vs. Nikon vs. Minolta vs. Pentax - all sides are convinced they have found the "right answer" and no side will ever convince the others.

It is interesting how availability helps to define our film and camera preferences. I'd shoot Agfa medium format films exclusively if they were readily available in my area, meaning I could walk into the store and pick up as many rolls of a given type as I wanted any time I walked into the store. I love the more natural colors in both the Agfa print and transparency films and I was very happy with the smoothness and contrast of the black-and-white print films.

Sadly, since Agfa is hard to procure cheaply and in quantity locally, I've gravitated back towards 35mm slide film and Kodak Elite Chrome meets my ready-availability criteria. It does the job consistently for a reasonable price and at a quality I'm satisfied with. I rarely shoot black-and-white, so I use whatever's cheapest and available when I'm in the mood. Developing 35mm color print film is too inconsistent around here so I don't even bother with it.

I suppose I could order my film over the internet but I still like walking into the photo store and leaving with film in hand. It also gives me an excuse to fondle the cameras 🙂.
Click to expand...

Yeah, no photo store around here. Nearest one is Peace Camera in Raleigh, one hour drive away. Just visited for the first time Saturday, thanks to an RFF member who showed me around. I order my film online from Freestyle or B&H, whichever has stock and is cheaper that day. I like the Kodak Elite Chrome too. Again, no place around here to get E6 processed, so I do shoot a lot of color print film. I haven't found it that inconsistant at the local 1-hour place, and it's dead cheap $2 per roll for negs only, which I then scan.

I shoot a lot of B&W, still fooling around with various brands and types. Got a ton to shoot up. So far, the cheapest 'name brand' I've found is Fuji Neopan 100 SS (not Acros). Works ok for me, very inexpensive. I'm about to try Acufine developer after being a long-time D76 fan. I keep hearing about Diafine and want to try that too.

I agree that everyone has an opinion on film brands - and everyone is convinced they're right. No problem there. I just thought (incorrectly) that Stephanie was being one of those people who'd complain if they were hung with a new rope - ooh, it's chafing! Yeah, that's a pity - PULL!

I mean, if you walked down the street handing out 100 dollar bills, sure as heck some guy would sniff and turn it down because they weren't printed in the 'correct' year - and then they'd try to convince everyone else to turn you down too. Make sense?

Again, I was definitely wrong - but I thought Stephanie was saying people should NOT buy the Kodak UC because, blah blah blah, and I was saying no wait, look here, and here and here - these are just the opposite of what you say! On and on. We got it figured out, and I apologize for misunderstanding. Love to all.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
Bill, I understood where y'all were coming from, no worries here. Whether anybody changes their minds or not it's always kinda fun to argue the subject so I thought I'd stick my toe in the water and play too 🙂. Good discussion, I picked up a few things to keep in mind next time I go to buy film.
 
Fedzilla_Bob said:
Kind of like- Sequehana Hats... slowly I turn... step by step...
Woob Woob Woob... Wise guy eh?
Click to expand...
...............................
Bob,
Ha Ha, I thought I was the only one who remembered that old Abbott and Costello routine!
Thanks for reminding me. 😀
 
nwcanonman said:
...............................
Bob,
Ha Ha, I thought I was the only one who remembered that old Abbott and Costello routine!
Thanks for reminding me. 😀
Click to expand...
3 Stooges too, aparently it was a big routine in Vaudville. Glad it wasn't lost here 🙂
 
Guys,
Check your local Walgreens. Mine in Ok has TriX on close out for $3.00/box and it was dated in 2007.
 
Next time you're at Target, check out the $1.00 racks of videos and software. I found a Canon Photography Workshop CD-rom that's pretty interesting. It's basically an interactive intro to photography. Most of us probably already know most of the stuff in the CD, but there are lots of cool examples. Like the same photo taken with every shutter speed from 1/15th to 1/1000th and every aperature from 2.8 to 22. Lots of other stuff too. Definately worth $1.00.
 
Problem with film comparisons on color negative film

Problem with film comparisons on color negative film

If you guys are comparing the PRINTS from various budget color negative films, then you are actually comparing the abilities of a PARTICULAR LAB to make prints from that film. It is so dependent on the skill of the operator of the Fuji Frontier scanner station to make the color balance corrections and density corrections for each particular type of film. Even with the modern methods of scanning the film, even to make wet prints (Fuji Frontier and smiliar mini-labs), there is still an operator to set the levels on each particular frame. Their skill, or lack of, is quite responsible for the quality of the end result. Also, many mini-labs have workers who have not received adequate training (due to low pay and high turnover) to even know how to keep the film processing line in control. It is almost pointless to compare prints unless you personally process the film yourself with known fresh chemistry and make prints in your own darkroom with known fresh chemistry at the correct temperature., or you use a known quality professional lab.

I know of a WalGreens near here that just cannot deliver even moderately acceptable results from customer film, and everyone goes away thinking that their camera is at fault, which of course, it is not.

Even if you scan the negatives yourself at home, if the negative film was processed in a machine with under-replenished chemistry, or a machine that has the processsing temperature set incorrectly, etc., then your results will be less than optimum.

I have known of mini-labs that could deliver great results on Fuji film, and terrible results from Kodak film, which is of course ridiculous, as both brands, as well as all the others can deliver excellent results with proper handling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom