Thoughts on Kodak Ultramax 400

<p>Hi guys,<br>

What are your thoughts on this cheap film and can it compare to its Fuji counterparts, specifically the Fujicolour Superia X-tra 400? Thanks in advance.<br>

Cheers<br>

Jyh Hern</p>

<p>To me, the Fuji scans better and produces more saturated color. The Kodak version is not far off, but, if I had to choose between them I'd select the Fuji. Both are good films and if I wanted less saturation (more natural color) I'd go with Kodak.</p>

<p>I just get whichever one is on sale or that I can get on a Sunday when the camera store is closed. There are slightly different color balances and rendering, but I don't see a lot of difference once it is scanned in and 'developed' in Photoshop.<br>

This may be seen as heresy, since, for all I know, there are people who feel strongly about this matter, but I'm not one of them.</p>

<p>I like Ektar, but it is neither cheap nor is the color exactly what I would prefer.</p>

<p>This might be based in reality or might be more about my scanning technique but I've found the Kodak better for people shots, and a touch warmer, and the Fuji better for shots of things and plants.</p>

Kodak wins hands down if people are in your pics. Fantastic skin tones. The Fuji 400 has a problem with Caucasian faces going too red.

Perhaps optimized for Asian skin tones? but at any rate, it exaggerates the red in faces. The Kodak has portra like effects rendering

fantastic skin tones. Note that the Fuji 800 and 200 emulsions though do not share this problem and also give great Caucasian skin

tones.

In fact, Kodal Ultramax 400 is now my standard inexpensive film for everyday snap shots. I save the Portra and slide film for special

occasions due to cost.

<p>I am looking at two rolls of the Fuji film on my desk now. I prefer it to the Ultramax 400 but after doing some experimenting with exposure I see the Kodak film is not bad. You just have to make sure you don't underexpose it at all or it looks terribly grainy.</p>

<p>I have used Ultramax 400. It's not bad and it scans well.<br>

I used to really like the Kodak High Definition 400, but they don't seem to make it anymore. </p>

It is actually a fantastic film, particularly for people, but also, as you can see here, not bad for flowers either. Actually, it is pretty good at

everything. It will never match a slide film sunset, but neither will any other print film, except maybe Ektar 100 (about the only thing Ektar

can do as we'll as slide film)

<p>I find Kodak 400 way too grainy for my liking. Fuji 400 is way better in this respect.</p>