War of the cheapies - Kodak Gold 400 vs Fuji Superia 400

[BardParker]

I like both, but recently bought some Kodak 400 Gold in 36 exposure rolls for really cheap at B&H. I like the results:

[/url]
1946 Globe Swift by http://www.flickr.com/people/64835566@N04/

 

[gb hill]

... Fuji is still the better film, sorry

I really like the look you get out of Fuji Superia Stewart. Do you shoot at box speed?

 

[Pioneer]

Ok, for starters, I rarely shoot ISO 400 films in my 35mm. I know that a lot of people use it for almost everything, but I don't use it very often. If I am going to load film for daylight work then it will be a slower speed film, usually ISO 100. If I do go inside then I pop on a flash. If I know I will need a high speed film in advance then I almost always go to Fuji 800, or even 1600 (I still have some of that left in the freezer.)

Of all the consumer films I absolutely love Kodak 100 and 200 films the most, but Fuji 400 and 800 are the tops in the higher speeds. I just cannot get consistent results out of Kodak UMax 400 no matter what I try with it. The best results I have gotten from Kodak 400 is when I de-rate it and shoot it at ISO 200. But if I am going to do that I may as well shoot Kodak 200.

Slide film is an entirely different matter. I love Fuji Provia 400, I just wish it were not so expensive to use.

 

[Sparrow]

I really like the look you get out of Fuji Superia Stewart. Do you shoot at box speed?

It's my film of choice for very bright conditions (the Med), it's so resistant to overexposure ... I'm using meter-less cameras so I don't really set an actual speed, but I'd happily go 4 or 5 stops into the shadows and still expect to get some detail in sunlight highlights, so to answer the question I overexpose a lot, mostly ...

... of course as with anything else photographic the processing has to be consistent and good quality or one gets the problems Grantb encountered

 

[Joosep]

Superia for me.

But cheap ? I use Tudor. Runs for 1.79€ 200/36.

"Patris, filii, spiritus sancti"

 

[mingkookoo]

Fuji Superia has been my main diet 🙂

 

[van_d]

For the longest time, Fuji Superia was my go-to cheap C-41 film. It was nice and punchy. Most Kodak Gold stuff I found online was pretty crummy. Colours looked unappealing and the grain was chunky.

I decided to give Gold another spin for old times sake. I was absolutely surprised at how well the photos turned out. It was like a slightly grainier Portra.

I guess there are a lot of bad scans out there, then. I also heard that Kodak recently updated their Gold emulsion, though I never verified that, so that could be wrong. But if it's true, that may be part of the reason that Gold looked so good to my eyes.

 

[BardParker]

I like both Fuji and Kodak. I usually buy on sale. Here is Kodak Ultramax 400. Pentax K1000, 100mm f/2.8 lens. Walgreens 1 hour processing.

[/url]
R1-01326-001A by [/IMG]

Kent

 

[Gregoyle]

One thing I have noticed about Fuji Superia is that how it looks depends a lot on where it is scanned. If I scan it myself and use ColorPerfect it looks great, but if I get it scanned at Sam's Club, the reds are WAY out of whack, and difficult to tone down, and the greens have an odd hue. The Kodak scans from Sam's look absolutely normal.

I think Sam's Club uses Kodak photo lab machines, not sure what type. One of the nice things for C-41 for me is the convenience of not having to scan it myself 🙂

 

[ray*j*gun]

I use both although I feel the Kodak has a more natural color where the Fuji feels a little over saturated. I am lucky in that I have a local shop that has good equipment and does a nice job with any c41.

 

[lueej]

I've shot and like them all, and considering I'm on a college student budget, this is as good as it gets for me. Whatever's cheapest is what I buy. Sometimes Gold 400 is a little too warm for me. I do like Gold 200 better but I have a harder time finding it. Skin tones come out weird under different types of light. Superia 400 usually is more balanced for me but the reds disappoint sometimes. The 800 at night was good (the costco print scans below are not good quality whatsoever, but I do like the actual negative scans) Overall, usually nothing some light toying with scans can't fix. I don't always manage to do a consistent post, though. Here are some examples.
Everything color on my flickr is either Superia or Gold.

warmth of kodak gold 400 (shot on my sold minolta xg-m with 50mm f/1.8)

muted reds and sort of a green tint sometimes, fuji superia 400 (olympus 35RC)

fuji 800 at night (35RC again, terrible scans of costco prints)

 

[thirtyfivefifty]

KG400 for indoors, FS400 for outdoors. I shot outdoors a lot more than indoors, so I shot a lot more FS400.

 

[Sparrow]

KG400 for indoors, FS400 for outdoors. I shot outdoors a lot more than indoors, so I shot a lot more FS400.

... who makes that then?

 

[GarageBoy]

FS = Fuji Superia

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I'm buying both at Walmart and they still developing it until machine is broken....
No luck with Gold. Terrible colors. Fuji is fine, but WB is always purple.

 

[02Pilot]

I just burned through my last roll of Gold 400. I've never really been happy with it, but I still preferred it over the Fuji offering - Kodak's colors typically seemed washed out (except the reds), while the Fuji always seemed to have a magenta cast that I couldn't easily deal with. Kodak's Gold 200 is the best of the consumer-grade films in my experience, but it's not so readily available.

All that said, the results from this last roll of Gold 400 were a lot better than what I've seen before. The light was fairly flat, which may have helped bring up the colors a bit, but it's also the first time I've run it through my Konica III, and the combination of lens and emulsion seem to have worked really well together. To wit:

If I stick with the consumer films, I'll still choose the Kodak over the Fuji, though I'm also considering just swearing them off and going to Ektar and/or Portra for my color film needs. However, I'm also a bit intrigued by the Agfa Vista Plus that seems to have appeared on the US market recently. It might be worth trying a few rolls.

 

[GarageBoy]

Just tried Gold/Ultramax 400
Nice, warm and fuzzy in the yellow/reds, muted in the other colors
Kinda nostalgic/summer feeling
The film base feels thinner than Ektar/Portra, but not sure

 

[judsonzhao]

Superia...i sort of like it!


cc mid473.jpg by urbanlandcruiser, on Flickr

It looks like Superia 400 is going to be loaded into my Xpan as the very 1st roll

 

[philipus]

I haven't seen Kodak Gold 400 being sold anywhere for a long time. Online retailers here in Europe that I know of only have Gold/Farbwelt 200. Anyone know where the 400 version can be found fresh these days?

I have shot quite a bit Superia 400 because it is quite readily available in the Hema shop/chain. They sell it rebranded, 3-pack for, I think, something like 10€. The 200 3-pack is 8€ or thereabouts.

I do find it a bit tricky to scan though. Particularly darker areas become quite grainy. And pushing it isn't very easy either. Nevertheless, it resolves detail well.

photokina 2012 | Flickr
M6TTL 35 Summilux II Asph Fuji Superia 400

This photo shows a bit what I mean if one looks at the largest size. Incidentally that's Peter Karbe showing a prospective buyer the new M.

Cheers
Philip

 

[alienmeatsack]

philipus, I was going to suggest trying macodirect.de but it looks like all they have is the Farbwelt 200/400. I did some digging around online and I found some people saying that Farbwelt = Gold in Germany and Europe and others that said it was a variant formulation and not actually Gold. I then also found reasoning for the variation ranging from "Germany's restrictions for chemicals" to "the way the light is is Germany/color balance differences" (not quoting but those are the gists of some of the crazy talk I found online about it).

I know in the US that B&H sell it and it's pretty cheap per roll. However their shipping is very high to Germany, so there has to be another source that is closer to you and cheaper.

I also looked at Amazon Europe and Germany and they want a ridiculous amount for the rolls themselves.

If you can't find it easily in your area and want to buy some, maybe you can arrange a deal with someone who is in the US where its $2-2.50 USD a roll to send you some. Postage from the US to Europe/Germany area is going to be around $50 USD for a box full of film anyway, which is about what B&H was asking for it. Just some things to ponder.

I personally prefer the Fujifilm Superia 400. It has a nicer color hue and does not bow up in the middle when dried like Kodak Gold 400 does. (The expired Gold is really bad about this.)