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
divewizard said:
Kodak Gold is obsolete.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.
Click to expand...

Is this a guess, or do you have som insider information? Just curious.
 
Personally I prefer Superia X-Tra to Gold 400 (which is "Farbwelt 400" here in Germany; almost the same film, colors are a little bit adjusted for the German and Austrian market).

Superia X-Tra 400 has better detail rendition (finer grain, higher resolution, better edge sharpness) compared to Gold 400.
The Kodak film has a more warmer color balance. Superia is a bit more neutral.
Both have quite high saturation and contrast.

I am using the Superia often in some cheaper cams for less serious stuff.
For my serious work I go for the best quality available in ISO 400 color film: Provia 400X.
It's the finest grain ISO 400 color film. And the one with highest resolution and best sharpness.
Natural, vibrant colors and excellent skin tones.

Projected with a good projection lens on the screen at 1,50m or 1,75m width the quality is absolutely outstanding for an ISO 400 film.
If you make a poster of the same size from Portra 400 or Pro 400H, than there is just no competition:
Portra and Pro400H are looking awful compared to the projected 400X slide.

Cheers, Jan
 
I accidently got some Superia 200 at half price (don't ask).
Pete

7197794890_237bc41cdc_z.jpg


7197792286_3f1e6a4060_c.jpg


7197790900_2c41f3b880_z.jpg
 
Not sure about the 'Fuji too green' type comments I've always found it pretty easy to get great colour with both, the Kodak might be slightly higher contrast, this being a moot point with digital processing. I think some peoples exposure, process and workflow may be the issue.
Anyhow here is Superia 400
143525496.jpg


I don't find the colours (green and reds) too unnatural of course most of it will be taste and/or workflow skill/ability that drives choices.
YMMV as they say on the internet :)
 
Kodak Gold 400 (aka MAX 400) "vs." Fuji Superia 400: Kodak is grainy compared to Fuji Superia.

When I first used Fuji ten years ago, I promised myself never to shoot their C-41 films with ISO higher than 200. For B&W, I think Kodak is far better than Fuji, with the only exception of TMax 400 vs. Acros Neopan 400.
 
All about film speed. Kodak <= 400 asa. Always. Fuji rules => 800... in color print. Not that Kodak 800 is bad or that slower Fuji is bad - no they're both fine stocks at any speed, but Fuji edges out Kodak at high speed, Kodak edges out Fuji at slower speeds in color print film. Period.
 
I don't see how anybody can compare the subtle differences of these films unless they are doing their own processing under very tight controls, or maybe having it done at the same pro lab. I shot a 4 pack of Superia 400 Xtra and had it developed at four different places with four noticeably (if not radically) different results. Then I shot more and took it back to my favorite two places... different results again. I used the same camera, but acutance, grain size, and color cast were different but consistent across each roll.

Perhaps this accounts for the divergent opinions in this thread.
 
Sparrow said:
... perhaps you need a better lab, mine gives pretty much consistent results
Click to expand...

That's my point. Some comments on this thread claim that x film has a y color cast, etc. Out of the same 4 pack of Superia, I got results ranging from very natural or even vivid colors, to dark muted colors with a green or orange color cast. Other factors such as grain size were different between rolls as well.

If I got one roll out of four with a green color cast and one with correct colors, it's probably not caused by the film. Surely different films have different characteristics, but developing is a big factor and probably accounts in part for the formation of such divergent opinions on these films.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom