tanjyhhern5 Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 <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> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member69643 Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 <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> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 <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> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andylynn Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 <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> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randall_pukalo Posted May 5, 2013 Share Posted May 5, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User_502260 Posted May 5, 2013 Share Posted May 5, 2013 <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> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasma181 Posted May 5, 2013 Share Posted May 5, 2013 <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> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randall_pukalo Posted May 10, 2013 Share Posted May 10, 2013 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) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
25asa Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 <p>I find Kodak 400 way too grainy for my liking. Fuji 400 is way better in this respect.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now