Kodak Ultramax 400 Trial

[sailor]

I recently bought a Nikon F on eBay and needed a film quickly to check that everything was working OK. The only film available locally was Kodak Ultramax 400 so I gave it a go, not expecting too much. Here are a few samples from that trial film. It was a horrible grey day but I must say I am pretty pleased with the results, bearing in mind that it was just a cheap photolab scan. I wouldn't hesitate to use it again in the future if I needed a fast colour film.


Kodak Ultramax 400 Trial by Elmer Duck, on Flickr


Kodak Ultramax 400 Trial by Elmer Duck, on Flickr


Kodak Ultramax 400 Trial by Elmer Duck, on Flickr


Kodak Ultramax 400 Trial by Elmer Duck, on Flickr

 

[Ranchu]

I use it everyday, I like it too.

 

[Rob-F]

You have a good eye for color and composition, Sailor!

 

[anjoca76]

Very nice examples!

 

[sailor]

Thank you for your kind comments. Bearing in mind that Ultramax is a 400 iso film, I think the quality is impressive. It certainly seems to scan well. It only cost me £5.50 to have the film developed and scanned (including return postage) so I was well pleased. I also really enjoyed using the Nikon F with my old ai lenses. Made me feel like a real photographer!

 

[Brad Bireley]

I heard sometime ago that it could be portra 400??

 

[Aristophanes]

It's not Portra, but it's also not that different.

 

[philosli]

I heard sometime ago that it could be portra 400??

No, it's not. Ultramax 400 is grainier and more saturated.

 

[farlymac]

I've always got a few rolls of the stuff around. In P&S, or SLRs, it's one good all around film.

PF

 

[02Pilot]

How does the Ultramax 400 compare with Kodak's other consumer line, Gold 400? The big online retailers only seem to carry the latter. Is it just a packaging/labeling thing or are there actual differences in the two emulsions?

 

[Noll]

How does the Ultramax 400 compare with Kodak's other consumer line, Gold 400? The big online retailers only seem to carry the latter. Is it just a packaging/labeling thing or are there actual differences in the two emulsions?

Kodak could probably be a textbook example of poor branding and product identity... The film cartridges for Ultramax say "Kodak 400" on them. Meanwhile, a slightly older cartridge of 400 speed film, probably originally sold as Kodak Gold 400, says "Kodak Max 400". My guess is Ultramax and Gold are the same, unless they updated the emulsion formula slightly

Kodacolor film cartridges have a distinct design, though.

My guess is, at the end of the day they probably have a billion of these cartridges and just spool up whatever they feel like in them as long as the DX code is right.

 

[HHPhoto]

How does the Ultramax 400 compare with Kodak's other consumer line, Gold 400? The big online retailers only seem to carry the latter. Is it just a packaging/labeling thing or are there actual differences in the two emulsions?

I've tested both side by side and couldn't find any significant differences.
The differences in the further workflow (whether optic prints or hybrid, scan quality, on which paper is the print etc.) are much bigger as film differences between this two films (if there are any).

Cheers, Jan

 

[sailor]

I've just had a look at the edge markings on my Ultramax negatives and it says Kodak GC 400. What does it say on Kodak Gold 400? If they're the same then there would seem to be no doubt that it's the same stuff.