kodak 400uc

[paul_fisher3]

Just got back from a "foliage trip" in New England and shot 10 rolls of Kodak

400UC. My first time for this film. Does anyone have suggestions as to where

to get developed and printed, or maybe questions I can ask some local photo

finishing places about their equipment, paper used, etc. that will give me the

best results?

[cameradude]

I thought most places could process and print this stuff, unless I have been mistaken. A friend of mine says that is all he is using right now, but I have not any experience. Post some when you get them!

[psul_aul]

I like this film a lot and find that it looks good processed and printed on a fuji frontier system.

 

That being said, the word seems to be that kodak films look best printed on kodak paper. I dont have a lab near me that does both, a decent job and uses kodak materials, so I don't know for myself. But, if you have that oppurtunity, that is where i would take the film

[steve_dunn2]

<p>As far as development, it's a standard C-41 film, so any lab that can process any other C-41 film can process 400UC. As always, some labs take more care with their equipment and chemistry than others, so your mileage may indeed vary ... and of course no lab is going to admit to a customer or potential customer that they're cutting corners, so it's a case of buyer beware.</p>

 

<p>For printing, traditionally, Kodak films (and Kodak pro films in particular) worked best on Kodak papers, and not so well at all on Fuji papers, particularly so for skin tones. Kodak Royal paper is a good choice for just about any Kodak film. Some of the newer films, including 400UC, do better on Fuji papers than the older films, so your friendly neighbourhood Fuji Frontier will likely do a decent job.</p>

[bill_tuthill]

I think my local Frontier lab prints 400UC too green, so I recommend

finding a Noritsu QSS digiminilab using Kodak Supra or Royal paper.

My preference is an Agfa dLab printing on Crystal Archive

(e.g. Keeble & Shuchat in Palo Alto) but such labs are rare.

[stan_belyaev]

Get some A&I mailer and send the films to CA.

Those guys know what they do. Do not try to seve $1-2 per roll developing film in a supermarket.

[joe_nash1]

I plan on doing the same this weekend with the same type of film. I have read on other boards it is a good choice for fall colors. Please upload your results!

[russ_butner___portland__or]

Paul

 

As of late, I've been burning quite a bit of this film. It's a really nice film, with nice vivid colors and very fine grain. It also handles flesh tones fairly well. I seem to get nice prints on Fuji paper and Kodak Endura. I think it's a matter of having a decent operator at the controls...

 

Russtopher

[mike_buckles]

I've used A and I with this film and the prints had a greenish cast to them...they use Fuji paper and machines..I've also used other places for Kodak 400UC, and the only place that really has done my prints justice is MPIX...they use Kodak machines and Professional Endura paper, and do a fantastic job with Kodak film, especially with 400UC...if you just wanted to use a local place, be sure they use Kodak machines, it does seem to matter with the color balance and overall look...but I would highly and strongly recommend MPIX...I shot about 50 rolls of Kodak 400UC in a years time, and I've never been disappointed!<div></div>

[mike_buckles]

Whoops, made that way too big, here's a smaller size<div></div>

[mike_buckles]

Here's another portrait done with Kodak 400UC, processed and scanned by MPIX..the prints actually look better than the scans.

[tales of a flaneur]

Like many colour films, Kodak 400UC does poorly when underexposed. Wow. Very poorly.

 

Rated at 320 and developed normally, all is colouricious.

 

I scan my negs, so I'm not particularly aware of how the film prints. I did get a contact sheet for giggles last week at Jessops printed on Fuji paper and was amazed at the wacky - unrepresentative - colours on offer.

 

Of course, Fuji Pro 400H gives realistic, vivid colours ... but I've discovered there's something comforting and familiar with the base look of Kodak films.

 

The only problem I'm having is finding a cheap source of the stuff in London (hell, any source beyond Calumet or mail order). It is considered "pro" negative film after all!

[ted_marcus1]

Before I switched to digital, I used 400UC as a slide film. The film went to <a href="http://www.dalelabs.com">Dale Labs</a>, where they process the film and print it onto Kodak <i>Vision</i> motion picture film. Then they return the negatives and mounted slides. The slides have better color than typical paper prints, which makes them useful for choosing negatives for scanning or printing. I'm told they also make good 4x6 prints, but I've never ordered them.

[Tim_Lookingbill]

I can attest to everything that's been said here concerning the

differences between what a Fuji Frontier does to Kodak UC400

negs compared to what a Noritsu minilab on Kodak Royal paper.

 

Fuji does interpret Kodak film quite strangely.

[bill_tuthill]

Mike Buckles, was the 1818x1228 scan you posted direct from MPIX?

I assume so, because a post on the Mpix.com forum says that is their

normal scan size. Interesting that JPEG quality is only 81-82

although chroma subsampling is 1:1. Also it appears that the

"sharpness" setting is on, because the background texture looks

similar to a Frontier scan.

[doug_gallagher]

I concur with John Matthews. I shot a test roll of Pro400H recently since my local photo store/lab uses Fuji equip/paper. I was impressed with the realism and pop of the colors, the great shadow detail (rated 320) and fine grain but I just found it to be a bit too neutral, especially for Caucasian skin tones. As with John I've always preferred the warm tones of Kodak films, but as others have noted 400UC and Fuji processing/paper yields some absolutely horrific colors - weird greens, neon reds and fuscias which are completely over saturated and out of proportion. I'd love to shoot nothing but 400UC since its relatively cheap and locally available (Wal-mart) but I can't seem to find any local processing (within 10 miles or so) which uses non-Fuji equipment and paper. I may try a mail-order quality lab like MPIX if someone can make a suggestion?

[ully]

I just got back some KodakUC from A&I in Los Angeles and it was outstanding. I don't know what machines they use but they get it right.