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

[taskoni]

Sometimes I am on the road or just desperate and stop by a drug store to get film. Which would you choose?

Whatever they have with the right ASA for that moment.
Regards,
Boris

 

[tunalegs]

I don't know who makes it (but I suspect Fuji) - but Walgreen's store brand 200 usually works good. A tendency to get too blue in shadow areas though.

I avoid 400ASA of any brand as much as possible.

 

[FalseDigital]

^ nah dude, Fuji all the way. I can't argue against the new porta 400 though but that's not a cheap film. I think kodak consumer films are generally pretty weak.

 

[FalseDigital]

^ The post above was in reply to the fellow on the first page who said we were "smoking something" for liking Fuji. I'm posting on my phone and it's not loading correctly, oops!

 

[redisburning]

I hate both so very, very much.

I would go for the box of 400cn. that's color, right? lol at least green.

I'd rather buy expired portra or 400h than fresh kodak gold / fuji superia but like someone said you don't always have a choice.

since I would only ever shoot this terrible **** for websizes or small prints normally I really just buy whatever is in the store and expose it at 200. if my picture is good enough then it wont matter anyway, right?

I suppose jpigj I have a slight preference for the Kodak stuff.

funny, reading this you wouldn't guess Im actually really fond of c-41.

 

[Pikapig]

i love colorplus 200...its the most consistent film i have used...
In a roll of ultramax 400 or kodak gold, i can get inconsistent colors...

but colorplus nv fail to amaze me, the soft color is just nice for me....plus considering its a low quality film...
Indoor outdoor and even harsh lightings...or under shade..it just works...and it cost super cheap

 

[denmark.yuzon]

I love Kodak Gold 400..

But my favorite is the Konica Centuria 400

 

[Sparrow]

.... a few more from fuji, under different lighting ... what's not to like?

 

[Sparrow]

 

[cliffpov]

Kodak Gold for me, but what do I know, I also dig Mogan David wine.

 

[Platinum RF]

I just tried Superia, and I think the color rendition is better than Kodak Gold, especially for low-light:

I would go with Superia again as a cheap color film.

Randy

You are absolute right, I have the same experience.

 

[boomguy57]

Superia 400 is my go-to C-41 film.

 

[Dante_Stella]

If you guys like Kodak Gold, you can still get Kodak Gold 100 on Amazon - it's packaged for Mexico, requires no refrigeration, and is called Kodak ProImage 100. The ironic thing is that it is grainier (at least I think) than the most recent version Gold 400. Skin tones are fantastic.

One of the best films for scanning was the Kodak HD line, particularly HD200.

Dante

 

[gb hill]

I like kodak Gold 400.

 

[gb hill]

This is Superia 200 asa film.

 

[gb hill]

And this is Fuji Superia 800 film.

 

[Mablo]

Superia X-tra 400 @ 200 or even @100 is a good everyday film. I don't like it at box speed but when overexposed it becomes really nice. It's good with shutter speeds up to 2 secs or even longer.

 

[thirtyfivefifty]

I don't like any 400s, but if I had to choose, then it would be Kodak Gold 400, as I've had good results. Didn't like Fuji Superia 400, but I did like Fuji Superia 800. Weird, I know.

 

[KoNickon]

I had long favored Superia 400, but I've used Gold 400 recently and have been very pleased. A tossup, I think.

(I wish Gold 100 was still being made.)

 

[braver]

I've shot some Superia, 'xtra' I think, never dared try Gold. I think the Superia is ok, but I picked up some real cheap Agfa Vista recently and really really like how that came out. Cheap ISO 200 color film always works out very nice for some reason.

That said, in general, when I shoot color I splurge on the new Portra. It's amazing.