Kodak Ultra (Max) 400 with edge code GC-8

[Ian Rance]

I have loads of this to use (100+ rolls) but I feel that I am not getting the

best out of it. I have set the camera for 320 and am metering carfully,

however my images are not as good as I had hoped they would be. See:

 

http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/7061620-md.jpg

 

and

 

http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/7061614-md.jpg

 

and look at the shadow areas - they are muddy and mottled.

 

On http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/7061704-md.jpg the colours look compressed

and a bit lifeless to me. All my photos are coming out the same with this film

it seems.

 

I know that it takes time to learn a film's characteristics, but Kodak Ultra

is supposed to be an easy and tolerant film to use - but I am not finding it

so easy. Do I need more or less exposure - or perhaps something else?

 

Thank you for any guidance,

 

Ian

[randall_pukalo]

Looks like expired film - see all the whitev dandruff in the shadows. Fresh film wont have this. Dont use it for night or low light shots, and always shoot it at iso200 in good lighting to overcome this. Using flash will also help clean it up. Or, dump it and get some fresher stuff. In my experience, negative films dont hold up too well after exiration, unlike slide.

[Ian Rance]

Thanks Randall - yes it is a little expired (2005), but I was assured by the shop that it has been frozen from new (and I kept it frozen too) but perhaps time has not been kind too it. Your advice has helped alot - thank you.

 

Ian

[richard f harris]

I have to disagree with the last poster. I have found negative film holds well after expiry even if abused. If the film has been frozen then it should be just fine. All that grain in the shadows is consistent with underexposure; new or old film. Just try and increase the exposure even if the negs get a bit dense. Try not to overdevlop the negatives also. Ultra is known for being a bit grainy but with good vibrant colours. A little overexposure and underdevelopment should help you a lot. If you are using minilab processing than you nay be stuck with what you've got though.

[roger_smith4]

The church shot looks underexposed- the windows fooled the meter.

 

For the third shot, it's fairly easy to increase contrast and color in photoshop. Keeping Max400 looking natural is the harder challenge, I think.

 

This film is fairly grainy in the best of circumstances. Try rating it at 200 and see if things improve.

[Ian Rance]

Thank you for the information. I will try a little more exposure and speak to my lab to see if they can reduce development time.

 

Ian, UK

[randrew1]

Freezing wont stop background radiation. The main effects of radiation are speed loss and grain build up in the shadows. I think you are suffering both.

 

I have K-64 that is fine after 20 years in the freezer, but I wouldn't use any Max 400 beyond its expiration date regardless of how it was stored (unless you have access to a salt mine).

[anthony johns]

I find kodak max really is a little muddy. Maybe try it at 200 since kodak generally holds up

better to overexposure.