Kodak UC Films Overrated

[craig_sander]

I usually stick to my 3 films that I like to shoot, but lately I've tried a few new ones out, and I have to tell ya, in my

opinion, the Kodak UC100 and UC400 films were not what I expected.

I shot UC100 a few weeks ago, along with my favorite film Gold 100 (old emulsion) and some Gold 200.

Although the UC100 was buttery smooth in terms of grain, the color was just not there. Gold 100 was sharper and

had MUCH more saturation (albeit much more grain).

 

The UC400 was the most disappointing though.

Grain similar to Max 400, and the colors were no where NEAR as good as Portra 400VC. Again, this film was shot at

the same time with more Kodak Gold, and processed and printed at the same place.

 

Since Kodak changed Gold 100 on me, I've been attracted to 160VC lately, but I'm looking forward to Ektar 100.

And I'm not gonna miss UC100 or UC400.

[phule]

[[uC400 was the most disappointing though. Grain similar to Max 400]]

 

This is completely at odds with my experience, the exception being when using expired UC400.

[randall_pukalo]

You must have had expired or improperly stored (think Heat) 400UC, as it has very very fine grain, as good as 100 speed film in my experience.

 

I always avoid expired negative film for this reason.

[starvy]

porta vc160 is my favourite kodak print film. the smoothness and neutrality is just wonderful.

[arjun_mehra]

I'm not sure if your experience can be traced to simple difference in taste/opinion, or to faulty film, but mine has shown 100UC to be an absolutely beautiful emulsion. It has some of the finest grain I've seen in color negative film, it's sharper than any other emulsion I've handled, and its colors are stunningly brilliant (perhaps too strong for certain applications). As for 400UC, I'm aware it's a staple for many photographers, but I resort to it only when I require the extra speed — it's a nice film, but I can't, in comfort, liken it to 100UC.

 

My impression of the newest emulsion (GA-7) of Gold 100 is only lukewarm. Even the previous formula, GA-6, which was quite sharp and had punchy colors, always struck me as having a somewhat ugly pattern of grain. GA-7 is about the same as its predecessor, only with mildly finer grain, and unfortunately more tame colors. Honestly, I'm sometimes surprised to hear how much praise is stacked upon the shoulders of this product.

[russ_butner___portland__or]

That's completely the opposite of my findings. I hated the Gold & Max films. I always overexposed my UC films by 1/3 a stop, with very good results. Wonderful color and fine grain. I've since tried the new Portra 400VC, and gotten very good results with it. I still haven't burned any of the new Ektar 100, but from what I've seen of others work, it looks to be very good too.

 

Russ

[arjun_mehra]

Russ, how would you compare the new 160VC with 100UC?

 

I've found the Ultra Color films to tolerate under-exposure surprisingly well (for color negative film), especially 100UC. I try not to over-expose with the emulsion, as contrast can become somewhat unwieldy.

[johnw436]

400UC is my all time favorite film. I really do like the Portra 160, both NC and VC. I've never been so dejected and angry as when Kodak discontinued 400UC in 120 size.

 

Some people report that 400UC gets unweildy when used for portraits, but I haven't found that. Yes, you do have to be careful of very fair skinned people, especially under strobes, but in my experience it's not the film but rather the pinkish tones in their skin can look slightly blotchy as the reds tend to be saturated. I'm a pasty fellow and just about any film makes me look blotchy, especially with flash.

 

My real love for this film is that I have overexposed it by 2 or three stops and the sky should have been completely blown out due to this, but UC400 still hangs on to details as well as subtle blues in the sky. In portraits where one person is very dark and the other is very light, or wearing white clothing, I can get both properly exposed with details in the highlights as well as the shadows.

 

Truly great film. I have only seen wacked out colors once and I'm not sure if it was due to severe underexposure or bad lab work. The pictures were still usable.

 

I have nothing bad to say about theVC or NC films at all. I don't find the VC films different enough from NC to be worth stocking both. Either VC or NC works just fine in either case for my purposes.

[constance_cook]

The UC group is my favorite since they came out. Beautiful!

 

You can't have it processed and printed by Fuji, though. That's bad news.

 

Conni