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

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

  • Kodak Gold 400

    Votes: 160 32.3%
  • Fuji Superia 400

    Votes: 306 61.8%
  • Other Color 400

    Votes: 29 5.9%

  • Total voters
    495
Ugghh - Superia is okay. Nothing wrong with it ('cept a faint green cast sometimes). But Kodak Gold 400 is far superior. It simply and clearly is the better of the two films at this speed (and all speeds below). At 800 color print, Fuji is the better film - handles color cast better, is not quite as grainy. Kodak <= 400 > Fuji. Always, for color print stuff.
 
Kodak Gold is obsolete. The new film is is Ultramax 400. I believe that Ultramax 400 is the same film as Portra 400. The films are speced just slightly diffrently becasue they are tested slightly differently. The differences are just marketing specmanship.
It does not make sense for Kodak to run multiple production lines any more. I was never happy with Gold 400, but the new Ultramax gives the same results as Portra. You can see some shots from my first roll of Ultramax here.
 
Kodak Gold is obsolete. The new film is is Ultramax 400. I believe that Ultramax 400 is the same film as Portra 400. The films are speced just slightly diffrently becasue they are tested slightly differently. The differences are just marketing specmanship.
It does not make sense for Kodak to run multiple production lines any more. I was never happy with Gold 400, but the new Ultramax gives the same results as Portra. You can see some shots from my first roll of Ultramax here.
Very nice shots. Have you done any side by side comparisons to see if it is indeed the same?
 
For me Superia 200 and 800 are what I like from consumer range. Well, Reala in 135 also is consumer film and is good, tight film.
 
When I've shot color in the past it's almost always been Kodak Portra, but thought I would try something cheaper this time and bought ten 36 exposure rolls of Fuji Superia, for $3.19 each. I just got a roll developed at Walgreen's and like it pretty well so far. I think I'll pick up a couple rolls of Gold this weekend and compare them.

Here are a few from the Superia roll:

6858571072_6bce5c832e_b.jpg
[/url]
Spring 11 by pggunn1, on Flickr[/IMG]


7004686655_1e0cf9e70d_b.jpg
[/url]
Spring 8 by pggunn1, on Flickr[/IMG]


7004685667_4420f536b1_b.jpg
[/url]
Spring 5 by pggunn1, on Flickr[/IMG]
 
memories 200 is fantastic color film, slide-like. i am told it is made from konica's old film equipment and stock.

Paul,

Who told you Memories film was made from Konica's old film equipment and stock ?

I ask because I shot Konica color negative 35mm film from 100 to 1600 ISO before it was unavailable here in the NYC area.
It was a wonderful film with a slide like appearance, like you indicated.

I was under the impression that Memories was a badly made Italian color film.

Kodak UltraMax is my color film of choice now as Fuji Superia is just too weird, unnatural.

George

km_vx_200.jpg
 
Kodak Gold is obsolete. The new film is is Ultramax 400. I believe that Ultramax 400 is the same film as Portra 400. The films are speced just slightly diffrently becasue they are tested slightly differently. The differences are just marketing specmanship.
It does not make sense for Kodak to run multiple production lines any more. I was never happy with Gold 400, but the new Ultramax gives the same results as Portra. You can see some shots from my first roll of Ultramax here.

Ok, that explains a lot. I went to the local film store to buy some Superia X-tra but they didn't have it and the shopkeeper recommended me Ultramax 400. I had never seen it before but bought a few rolls anyway. I shot it like I'd shoot Superia X-tra, one and a half stops over exposed. I got balanced colors (just a bit muted like I wanted) and nice grain. For half the price for a roll of Portra, I'm sold.

7068496575_b6a7c5f87a_c.jpg
 
Last edited:
I just shot a 4 pack of Fuji 200 speed film. Could have been Superia. I have shot the 400 X-Tra, it is grainy and flat but generally good. The 200 I shot at 100, with 1 stop of overexposure, 2 rolls turned out fantastic, and two were pretty bad. I figure since I bought the film at Walmart it was a crapshoot, so 50% is a good return.
 
Superia 400 is the same emulation as Press 400, a pro film, it's bound to be good. While Kodak Pro film has always been good, I've always seen Fuji consumer film as being much better than Kodak's equivalents.

Whatever happened to Fuji True Definition 400? I do belive there is also Fuji Superia Premium 400 sold in Japan, not sure if that's it, is that much better than the standard 400?
 
If Ultramax 400 is rebranded Portra 400, I'd be very interested, can someone put do a picture showing the leaders of both side by side?
 
I definitely agree! Where are you guys getting good color out of the Superia? Mine is generally a crapshoot with most of the roll looking terrible and a select few having good color. It only looks good in a select few lighting situations.

*Fresh* Superia 200 is really really good.
With the lights I have, I can't get anything good using whatever 400 ISO.
I like anything 200 ASA.

6939216465_fa1064f6ea_z.jpg


396128505_0c455f3bb5_z.jpg


5173332114_6c79ccbeec_z.jpg



6851103598_313a643e2a_z.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom