Kodak Ultra Color 400 (400UC)

Now that this film is out, as with 100UC, can anyone confirm as Kodak

says- that this film is the exact same emulsion/ film as Portra

400UC? I want to stock up on more of 400UC, but am not sure if the

new film is the same or not. If not then I still have a chance to get

the old stuff while stock lasts. If it is then I'll just go ahead and

get the new emulsion stock. Anyone?

Where did you hear that 100UC is the exact same film as Portra 400UC?

 

They are not the same speed, so unless the 400 speed film is dyed back to 100 speed, there is no way at all that they are the same.

 

Ron Mowrey

No no no- I was just saying that both 400UC and 100UC are now out ("as with 100UC"). I was not saying 100UC is the same film as Portra 400UC. All I want to know if anyone has used the new 400UC and if they've noticed its the same film as the old stuff.

It's a 200 iso film. It overexposes pretty easily.

People are misunderstanding Scott. He's asking if Portra 400UC and Ultra Color (UC)400 are identical emulsions.

 

I can't confirm that they are, Scott, but according to Kodak reps, they are. I'll believe them. They'd be pretty stupid to get rid of a great AND successful film, rework it, release something that sounds almost exactly like it, claim it's the same...but actually release something different.

Yes Chris you are correct. :) I know Kodak says its the same emulsion. I just want confirmation from someone whos actually used the new stuff as well as the old. Its hard to trust Kodak at their word sometimes.

They may use the same emulsions, but there are other changes between the films probably. EK does not just rename products keeping them identical.

 

The Portra in front of that name indicates some difference in product. It may be as simple as different support, in which case there should be no real difference, but it may be as profound as keeping, reciprocity, latent image stability, interimage or color differences, color balance, contrast, etc.

 

Same emulsion, different results.

 

You have to test it out for yourself to have a definitive answer.

 

Ron Mowrey

<i>EK does not just rename products keeping them identical.</i>

 

<p>Really? What about High Definition 400, which even Kodak readily admits is the final version of Royal Gold 400 in a new box. Or, going back further, Royal Gold 100 which was formerly called Ektar 100.

 

<p>Kodak's marketeers may think they have good reason to encourage all the speculation about the provenance of Ultra Color 400 (e.g., the discussion here certainly generates a lot of free advertising). But it does anger customers who have only recently become familiar with the characteristics of Portra 400UC, and after a bit more than a year now have to spend more time getting to know a "new" film that may or may not be the same. It's an additional insult to users of Supra 400 who were "encouraged" to switch to Portra 400UC last year after Kodak discontinued Supra, and now have to switch again.

 

<p>The fact that Portra 400UC is still sold in Europe and Asia <i>suggests</i> that it's the same as the Ultra Color 400 sold in North America and Japan, but there's still enough doubt to confuse and upset customers. It may or may not be significant that B&H sells USAW Portra 400UC for the same price as USA Ultra Color 400.

 

<p>None of this confusion inspires confidence in Kodak, especially when Fuji and digital are such aggressive competition.

First off, there won't be a significant hole between the time UC runs out and the new

one comes in. It may be already in stores. So, why worry? Secondly... what's the

relation between the fact that it is (or not) the same film and stocking up? Do you like

it? Then stock up... it's that simple. Moreover, be sure that the next one won't be

cheaper... so there's one more reason to stock up (if you do like it). Here in Canada,

all dealers that still have the 2x36 pack of UC are selling them for $9.99. That's $7.50

US for two rolls of the (old) amazing stuff :)

It basically breaks down to how much Im going to need to buy at this time. I need to do some shoots which may require it, but I don't really want to get more then I need at this time. If it does turn out to be different, then I need to buy many extra rolls for future use and put them in the freezer. If its the same film, then I can give my freezer a rest and buy only what I'll need at the time. That simple.

Ted;

 

Sorry, let me be more specific. They do not have one film, under two names, in the same market.

 

Eg. XYZ400 and XYZ400 PRO in the US market would be different films if offered for sale at the same time. There would be differences as noted in my last posting.

 

On the other hand, XYZ400 in the USA manufactured here, and XYZ400 manufactured in France might be essentially the same film, but look different due to different aim curves etc. Or they might be different films. They problably would then be named differently as XYZ400 and XYZ400 Super.

 

Different regions or countries, prefer different types of films. They can be the same emulsions and couplers as used in the USA but have different curve shape for example, or be entirely different. They may or may not have the same name.

 

Ron Mowrey

There's no question of two films in the same market since the 400UC is

officially discontinued, inexistent, gone.

 

We'll wait for the specs sheets, we'll take a look at the graphs and then we'll

know if 400UC is repackaged under the Ultra Color 400 name.

When Ultra Color 400 was first announced, I could swear its datasheet

said PGI 42, but now it says 40, just like Portra 400UC. If I were

you Scott, I'd buy a brick of new 400UC and stop worrying.

NPH is great but Vuescan really can't deal with it.

I remember the PGI 42 rating. I also noticed it changed to 40. I talked to a Kodak film tech in the US and he explained Kodak was correcting PGI numbers on its current new lineup to be in line with what previous films were. He mentioned the 400UC PGI difference, Kodak caught it, and made the correction. Doesn't give much faith in how they rate their numbers as if they are almost guessing at them.

What about Supra400? It's stil available at B&H as a fresh film with experation date 08/2005. Where did they get it? This film has been discontinued more than year ago. Is it real genuine Supra400?

Kodak sells pro-designated Royal Supra in some markets, and (nonRoyal)

Supra in other markets. Whether these are the same as before, or as

High Definition in the US, remains a topic of debate. Compared to

previous Supra 400, 400UC has smoother skin tones, lower contrast and better shadow detail, less block-prone reds, but about the same blue

sky grain.

Bill, I remember that 42 PGI too. Now I'm totally confused

with the whole PGI system. The only thing I can count on now

is the actual result I get from my own shooting (and of course

the very helpful example postings here).

 

On relation to sharpness and fine grain, Kodak has posted a

PGI of <25 for BW400CN. Wouldn't that make it as fine

grain as Ektar 25 but in 400 speed black and white?

I am a new and rather estatic convert to Portra 400 UC. I called Samy's camera here in LA and they said they have had UC 400 for a month but still have stocks of Portra UC with no more being received. Price is 4.99 for the new version, .38 more for old. Salesman claimed it is identical emulsion. Have to share an image from my first roll of Portra 400UC. Nikon 50mm 1.8 with 81A.

Hudson<div></div>

If you test both, let us know if they are the same. I've been looking at old Pro 400 PPF specs and though not exactly the same in curves, they are very close to 400UC curves. Im guess this is where 400UC originated from- PPF.

This film (the Portra version) has been such a radical success in scanning over every neg film I tried that I am looking at F5's instead of digital. There seems to be some obvious grain in shaded flesh tones (face)as someone mentioned about HD400. The scan looks almost identical to the Noritsu print except I lost a slight amount of tonal range over the print. There is no other print film I scanned that came close to this quality. I don't know Kodak did but I wish they would do it to an 800 speed. Do you folks know of any other neg film of any speed that scans like this?

Hudson<div></div>

I also like this film (Portra 400UC) a lot. My guess is that Kodak removed it from the "Portra" line and created the "Ultra Color" line purely as a marketing/branding move, because it seems pretty clear that they are trying to market the Portra (NC & VC) line as (duh) portrait films, with an emphasis on "natural skin tone." 400UC may be a little too wild to fit that bill, and so they created the "Ultra Color" brand to cover it, because obviously they have no interest in discontinuing it, but at the same time, want to protect the "Portra" name.

I still have yet to test this myself. Not many people talk about the new version on here much yet.