Max 400 vs Ultra Max 400

[craig_sander]

I recently shot a role of the newly boxed Kodak Ultra Max 400 with my Canon

Rebel G and I must say, I'm not impressed.

Has anyone else compared the two?

I shot it outdoors under clear skies, and later on during lower light, and I

found that the new film is not as saturated as the old 400 and less contrasty

(not that the old 400 had much contrast to it).

I don't know if this film is cheaper to produce or what, but I've shot about

100 roles of the Max 400 and had pretty decent results over the years.

But I must say, if I want 400 speed film now, I would HAVE to buy the Portra

400 VC.

[roger_smith4]

How did you conclude that old Max 400 doesn't have much contrast? Are you printing optically? You're not judging from minilab prints are you?

[bill_tuthill]

What is the edge code on the new "Ultra Max 400" negatives? I'll be

something like GC-8 or GC-9. If GC-8 it's not a new emulsion, just

repackaging, and you are imagining a difference, or judging by

minilab prints as Roger wonders.

 

Normal photo.net film forum recommendation would be Kodak Ultra Color

400 (400UC) for you, or Fuji Pro 400H. Portra 400VC has recently

been improved, but was formerly a relatively poor choice for shooting

in non-studio lighting.

[craig_sander]

I'll check on the code...

But yes, they are from minilab prints, but they are from the local lab that I usually go to which is pretty darn consistant.

The fact is, after one role, I'm not in a hurry to buy another role is the problem.

I never considered the old Max 400 to have much contrast as compared to the old Gold 100 which was/is a favorite of mine.

Someday when I can afford a professional scanner that can do negatives, I'll do another side by side comparison.

 

And I try to only buy Kodak products...call me crazy.

[bill_tuthill]

I agree, GC-8 was not very high in either saturation or contrast.

Last year I posted a comparison of blue sky from it and from 400UC.

Let's just say the 400UC was a lot better. On the other hand, GC-8

was a big improvement over GC-6. I never saw GC-7 on the market.

Ah, <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Ca1t">here

is the 400UC post</A>. Please do follow up regarding edge code.

I want to know, as perhaps do other photo.netters.

[omar_fernandez]

If you making prints from a lab, have you considered that they may not know how to handle a film that is new to them. Talk to them about your disappointment in the quality of the prints. It may be that they are not familliar with this new film and may not know how to set the filtration, or are using and unfavorable paper stock.

 

Some labs may handle Fuji or Kodak film stock well, but not both. The quality of personnel running the lab also varies, and poor results may not have anything to do with the film mfgr.

[jack_l3]

Print films can't be accurately compared unless you scan yourself or pay a legitimate photo lab for high quality scans. That aside, Max 400 is trash. 400 UC and 400 HD exhibit much less noise and are considerably closer to the quality of commercial-grade films.

[craig_sander]

The code is GC 400-9.

I guess thats the new batch.

 

But after I thought about it, I think the disappointing results have more to do with the lens I was using. I wasn't using my prime lens (which I usually shoot with), but rather, I was using the kit lens it came with, which is not a super duper performer.

[bill_tuthill]

Thanks, Craig. I found the new datasheet (PGI 46) on Kodak's website

and added GC-9 to the <A HREF="http://cacreeks.com/films.htm">film comparison table</A>. GC-9 appears very similar to GC-8 judging by

the datasheet. Kodak has now revised the entire G (Gold/Max) series.