Kodak 400 UC at Walmart

rover

rover

Moderator
Staff member
Local time
9:56 AM
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
13,899
Location
Connecticut
View My Gallery
I had seen advertisement in a magazine recently, and today bought Kodak 400 UC at Walmart. It is quite a bargin too, 3 rolls of 36 for $12. As a comparison, B&H is selling packs of 5 rolls of 36 for $25, plus you have to pay for shipping. I was at Target this morning too, they do not have the 400 UC, yet. I think it is a good idea to make professional film available at large retailers. I hope that folks will reach past the Max Vesatility packs and give good film a try for a buck or two more.
 
Thanks for sharing this! I like this film, but having to go out of my way to get it has been a hassle. You are definitley right about being able to get a better quality film a this type of retailer. I never have good results with MAX film.
 
For most casual photographers (as far as i noticed) the "good film-notsogood film" decision is based on the ISO speed. 400 is a good film, 200 is so-so. iso100 film should be cheap coz it's bad. Could be different over there, though.
 
I bought film and processing from Wal-Mart once. NEVER AGAIN. Prints came back with an orange pin-stripe across the length of them. It ended up being on the film as well. I know it wasn't the camera because it never happened before or again after that trip.

I haven't been to Wal-Mart in years. Horrible company.
 
I too refuse to go to Walmart unless I'm between a rock and a hard place. However... I'll have to give up and go there this afternoon; my regular minilab doesn't do developing and CDs, whereas Walmart does. I'd go to Target instead, but their lab is off-premises.

Hence, I switched to slide film, and my university lab develops it the same day. And if it's Kodachrome, I send it to Dwayne Labs in AZ.

I've seen the newer 400 film in Jewel and Target. It's true: for a color print film, it sells most reasonably. And true too is that it's getting harder to find ISO 100 film. Probably, as Pherdinand says, the "casual" photographers think it's bad because it's 100, as opposed to "good" film (like 400) or the "best" film (800).

Oh, well... For bokeh, though, nothing beats slow film... and I'm hungry for some good bokeh 😉 ! Where and how can I get some if I have a diet of only ISO 400 stuff? 🙁
 
"bokeh" and film speed???

"bokeh" and film speed???

Solares - do you mean, on this photo above, the neopan1600 might be responsible for the rather ugly out-of-focus background (esp.the highlights)?

(shot with yashica gsn, wide-open)
 
Pherdinand,
I like that shot; has character. My Yashica GT isn't the sharpest lens out there, but I like the package and it shoots fun/easily.
 
Nice shot, and hats off to you, Pherdinand... You're proving me wrong. I used to think that bokeh was easier to get with wider apertures and fast shutterspeeds like the one you can get with, say ISO 100 film. However, I won't blame the film here... The bokeh I like looks like this... and this particular one was done with cheapy chromogenic film (which, as you know, is ISO 400).
 
Now... in your gritty shot above, you don't quite have bokeh. Alas! Neither have I! 😱 However, we do have nice OOF zones, don't we?

In search of good bokeh... is it the film, the lens or the EV? Nobody knows for sure... 🙁
 
Re: "bokeh" and film speed???

Re: "bokeh" and film speed???

Pherdinand said:
Solares - do you mean, on this photo above, the neopan1600 might be responsible for the rather ugly out-of-focus background (esp.the highlights)?

(shot with yashica gsn, wide-open)
Click to expand...

I would say it contributes indirectly - a slower film would require a larger aperture so the background would be more out-of focus...
I try not to go above 400, but I'm considering using 800 or 1600 with a ND filter in the daytime.

BTW, how do you use Neopan 1600? My GTN only goes up to 1000, do you overexpose?

-Nick
 
Chenick - yes, the Neopan is said to be iso800-1000 in fact
(depends on the developer as well - e.g. in agfa refinal it is listed on Agfa's site as iso400!! and that's what they use at the lab I go for) so a 2/3 stop overexposure shouldn't change much... I just set it to 1000 and that's all.

Interestingly, whenever i shoot a roll of neopan1600, there are a few frames that technically are really great (tonality+sharpness good, grains tight and small), a few are okay, and about 50% (!!)have very high contrast and grain is ugly.
I was told that it's the lab's fault - they tend to overdevelop high-speed trad. BW negatives...

By the way, the above shot was at f/1.7 or at least f/2...although i cropped it a bit on the right side (to square)... it was quite dark there and i wanted that 1/30 or shorter shutter time...
 
Just one more addition: what i noticed, Neopan1600 is quite good in daylight/dusk/dawn conditions (lower contrast, mostly) while delta3200 is good at 1600 or 3200 for high-contrast scenes like street in the night, bars, stages. Delta + daylight always gives me giant grains and low contrast (even in 6x6 format), and i'll never ever include the sky in the frame anymore.
Probably it has alot to do with the development too.

My current avatar is on neopan1600. It is a crop of only approx. 20%x20% of the original 35mm frame.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Working with outdated Delta 400
2
Replies
30
Views
833
Freakscene
Freakscene
P
kodak movie film
Replies
1
Views
533
Ko.Fe.
Ko.Fe.
F
“New” Fujifilm 400 film
Replies
10
Views
3K
Freakscene
Freakscene
Velorum
Polaroid Swinger - obsolete camera from my childhood
Replies
8
Views
931
oldhaven
oldhaven
8
Struggling with 35mm Colour Neg Choice
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
das
das
Back
Top Bottom