Kodak 400 ultramax

[cameragary]

Is it me or is Kodak ultramax 400 really grainy.i only started shooting film again after a long time away.it seems to be the only film you can get at local drug stores.it seems the grain is like shooting 800 instead.now I have to admit I don't have my dark room yet so I get it locally processed at Walgreens. Could it be just shoddy processing on their part or the film itself.all my rolls seem to have green cast to them also.is this there processing also.

Anyone else experiencing this and is there something I can do to tone it so to speak

Thanks - Gary

[tomspielman]

Is it me or is Kodak ultramax 400 really grainy.i only started shooting film again after a long time away.it seems to be the only film you can get at local drug stores.it seems the grain is like shooting 800 instead.now I have to admit I don't have my dark room yet so I get it locally processed at Walgreens. Could it be just shoddy processing on their part or the film itself.all my rolls seem to have green cast to them also.is this there processing also.

Anyone else experiencing this and is there something I can do to tone it so to speak

Thanks - Gary

 

Are these scans or prints? How old was the film? The last time I had a roll processed at walgreens the scans were low resolution and looked pretty bad.

 

Obviously 400 speed film is going to have more grain than 100 or 200 speed film, - which you can find on-line fairly easily. It's not so easy to find in stores outside of a well stocked photographic supply store.

 

That said, I was pretty happy with the results I got with Ultramax 400 this Summer and Fall. You can see grain (or dye clouds) in shots that have lot of sky in them (or anything with a uniform shade). It seems especially noticeable in parts of a photo that are underexposed or out of focus. But I didn't find it objectionable as long as I got things close to to right. It's all a matter of taste though.

 

For fixing scans, any post processing software that allows you to adjust the white balance can probably make the colors look the way they are supposed to.

 

I asked about the age of the film since it may have been sitting in the store awhile. I do shoot a lot of expired film and one thing I've noticed is that it can look grainier.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 3, 2019 by tomspielman

[john_shriver]

Color film gets very grainy when underexposed. Look at the negatives and see if they are "thin."

[JDMvW]

:rolleyes:

Compare to GAF 500 slide film-- There's grain!

o_O

[ben_hutcherson]

It's been years since I've shot Ultramax 400-in fact I think it was still "Gold 400" when I shot it.

 

I shoot very little 400 speed CN film these days, and when I do it's Porta 400. Kodak loves their superlatives, and I think at one time they claimed this as the finest grained 400 speed CN film made.

 

Even correctly exposed with nice density, I still find it too grainy for my taste when I look close on a 4000x6000 scan. I really don't even have to go to that resolution to see it, but lower resolutions can be worse thanks to grain aliasing(although that's a totally different discussion). At the end of the day, though, an 8x10 from it(again, correctly exposed) looks great and you'd need to look closely at it to see visible grain(or really dye clouds) at that size. Let's face it, too, that if you want to shoot film and need to routinely print larger than that, marry yourself to Ektar 100, Portra 160, or any 50 or 100 speed slide film on the market. Even better than that, move up to at least 645 if not 6x7, and you can shoot 400 speed film to your heart's content and not worry about it on 8x10s.

[tomspielman]

It's been years since I've shot Ultramax 400-in fact I think it was still "Gold 400" when I shot it.

 

I shoot very little 400 speed CN film these days, and when I do it's Porta 400. Kodak loves their superlatives, and I think at one time they claimed this as the finest grained 400 speed CN film made.

 

Even correctly exposed with nice density, I still find it too grainy for my taste when I look close on a 4000x6000 scan. I really don't even have to go to that resolution to see it, but lower resolutions can be worse thanks to grain aliasing(although that's a totally different discussion). At the end of the day, though, an 8x10 from it(again, correctly exposed) looks great and you'd need to look closely at it to see visible grain(or really dye clouds) at that size. Let's face it, too, that if you want to shoot film and need to routinely print larger than that, marry yourself to Ektar 100, Portra 160, or any 50 or 100 speed slide film on the market. Even better than that, move up to at least 645 if not 6x7, and you can shoot 400 speed film to your heart's content and not worry about it on 8x10s.

 

I also tend to avoid 400 as well unless I'm shooting B&W indoors. I got the ultramax to use in an underwater camera where light is a challenge. I got 4 rolls in the box so most of the photos were taken above the surface but I did get a couple under water.

 

 

I noticed that a lot of disposable film cameras use high speed film just so they'll work in a variety of situations. They are as popular as ever at weddings I guess though I can't imagine you get too many worthwhile pictures. My teenaged daughter and her friends like them as well for some reason.

 

I salvaged a roll of 800 film out of a fuji disposable camera. Haven't been able to bring myself to use it.

Edited November 3, 2019 by tomspielman

[cameragary]

The pictures in question is a roll of fresh 400 ultramax that I shot with my canon A1 with 50mm 1.4 with s 2x televonverter.used a remote with my motor drive on a tripod to take pics of hummingbirds at my mom's house.i thought other rolls I shot weren't that bad as far as grain go but this roll looks like I shot 800 spd. Do you think the teleconverter loses that much definition.its not a prime converter but the lens is.the 135mm prime was too slow so this is why I tried the 50 1.4 x 2 setup.

Funny you talk about my camera as I recently picked up a bronica s2a for a song and i am now running my first roll of xp2 thru it now.cant wait to see these results.

[tomspielman]

The pictures in question is a roll of fresh 400 ultramax that I shot with my canon A1 with 50mm 1.4 with s 2x televonverter.used a remote with my motor drive on a tripod to take pics of hummingbirds at my mom's house.i thought other rolls I shot weren't that bad as far as grain go but this roll looks like I shot 800 spd. Do you think the teleconverter loses that much definition.its not a prime converter but the lens is.the 135mm prime was too slow so this is why I tried the 50 1.4 x 2 setup.

Funny you talk about my camera as I recently picked up a bronica s2a for a song and i am now running my first roll of xp2 thru it now.cant wait to see these results.

 

I think you lose about 2 stops with a 2 X teleconverter so it may not have been faster than your 135 in the end. Photos also tend to be less sharp with teleconverters. Did Walgreens give you the negatives back and if so, how did they look?

Edited November 3, 2019 by tomspielman

[cameragary]

Walgreens does not return negatives.pics and a disc. Unfortunately that is all I have now.i had a darkroom in my school years but not yet not now.i did only black and white then but I do want to start developing myself and scan myself onto my computer.my true wet darkroom will have to wait until I move.

I'll probably try another roll just to test.and I do order film online.i guess there are too many variables using box store labs.no consistency. I do have a roll of Fuji 200 in the same camera now.when done I'll see what those will look like.

[Karim Ghantous]

Tom's examples are pretty darned good, and that's the most graininess you should see. But, if you use a good scanner that doesn't accentuate grain, you will get even less. Sadly very few scanners are up to that standard.

[glen_h]

Find a place that returns negatives. I suspect that, as noted above, they are underexposed,

which makes them look grainier.

[cameragary]

Thanks for all your responses . Will try and find a lab from now on.

[glen_h]

Places that don't return negatives might not be so bad for disposable cameras,

or otherwise when you don't care so much about the results.

 

Well, I have enough scanners to scan myself, so I only need film processed.

 

There is a pro quality lab near me that does C41 for $8.00 (135) or $8.50 (120), which

seems reasonable enough for me. I might do a few rolls a year.

 

I usually use a roll of black and white film, and develop it myself, when first trying a newly

acquired (but not new) camera.

 

About a year ago, I got a Canon IID2 rangefinder, and it seemed to me that

it was fine. The shutter times seemed right, and I put a roll of C41 films through it.

 

The exposure was fine, but it has a pinhole in the shutter. I would have known this

if I tried it with black and white first. Yes, the fun of cloth shutters, and why later

Canon rangefinders have stainless steel shutters.

 

But also, I have not so far away a store that has a good assortment of black and white,

and color, film. Or you can mail order, though then you have shipping charges.

[cameragary]

given my circumstances right now local box store labs is all i have right now.and yes i do care what my results are otherwise i would not have asked this question.for me it works now only in respect to the digital disc i get to load in my computer to make prints out of.as i stated before i did have my own darkroom when i was a teenager in the 1970's but times change, life moves on and i had to let everything go.it was only a couple months ago i just realized that film is not dead,and aquired my old canons again.

just going to have to wait on getting my darkroom back again after i move .

i do have a photo shop available (about 20 minutes away ) . they are very expensive especially black and white ( which i have about 6 rolls due for developing) . they charge 36.00 bucks for a 36 exp roll.so i hold off thinking i should get a tank and develop my own, but the problem is i do not have a scanner to upload into my computer.i just saw a canon 8800f scanner pop up locally real cheap that i am researching a bit.maybe a easy way to start.have to find out if it is compatible with windows xp os first

[glen_h]

When I was a teenager, I did my home darkroom developing in the bathroom.

 

Using a changing bag avoids needing a really dark room.

Then you need a tank and chemistry.

I usually keep the tank in an 8x10 print tray to catch any drips, but otherwise

there isn't anything special about film developing.

 

$36 sounds a little high, but maybe not if that includes scans or prints.

But yes, many charge more for black and white than for C41, which makes XP2 convenient.

 

I have some scanners that won't run on anything newer than XP, and work pretty well.

 

For scanners available new, many like the Epson V700 or V800.

 

Otherwise, there is mail order, which works best if you send about 6 rolls at once,

to keep shipping costs down. (You are in luck!)

 

The 8800f sounds like a fine choice.

It might even work with modern OS.

[tomspielman]

given my circumstances right now local box store labs is all i have right now.and yes i do care what my results are otherwise i would not have asked this question.for me it works now only in respect to the digital disc i get to load in my computer to make prints out of.as i stated before i did have my own darkroom when i was a teenager in the 1970's but times change, life moves on and i had to let everything go.it was only a couple months ago i just realized that film is not dead,and aquired my old canons again.

just going to have to wait on getting my darkroom back again after i move .

i do have a photo shop available (about 20 minutes away ) . they are very expensive especially black and white ( which i have about 6 rolls due for developing) . they charge 36.00 bucks for a 36 exp roll.so i hold off thinking i should get a tank and develop my own, but the problem is i do not have a scanner to upload into my computer.i just saw a canon 8800f scanner pop up locally real cheap that i am researching a bit.maybe a easy way to start.have to find out if it is compatible with windows xp os first

 

I went through much the same thing a few years ago though I've never had my own darkroom. The first roll I had processed was through a local Walgreens. At the time there were still a few locally that processed film in the store. I had to wait until the one person who knew how to operate the machine came into work so it took a few days. The results weren't that good as I've mentioned. I did get the negatives back however.

 

There is also a lab not far away that has pretty decent rates on processing only if you don't need prints or scans. It was still more than I wanted to spend though so I invested in a changing bag, found a tank and reel on craigslist along with an Epson V500. That got me started. The V500 has a scratch in the glass in a spot that meant I could only scan four 35 mm frames at a shot.

 

Eventually I got really lucky and found a Nikon scanner for $100 than needed only minor repairs. The Nikon software won't work on modern macs but I prefer it to VueScan so I keep an old mac around just for using the scanner.

 

From what I've read the Canon 8800f was pretty good. You can always send the negatives out for higher end scans if you had something you wanted to make a good sized print out of.

[Dave Luttmann]

Rate at 250 and the world is your oyster. If you want higher, you can push a stop and rate at 500

[glen_h]

The 8800f is 4800x9600 dpi and 48 bit color, which should be good enough for most uses.

 

Personally, I prefer dedicated 35mm scanners for 35mm film, as scanners like the 8800f

and the Epson V series are like using a telephoto lens when you should be doing

close-ups, maybe with a quality macro lens. The whole optical system, including

lenses and mirrors, needs to be able to see the full width, but you are only using

a small part out of that.

 

For most uses, though, unless it isn't working right, it should be fine, and

likely enough better than one that the film processor uses.

[Dave Luttmann]

:rolleyes:

Compare to GAF 500 slide film-- There's grain!

[ATTACH=full]1316569[/ATTACH]

o_O

 

In this case, the grain has more to do with underexposure than the film itself...but cool shot!!!

[ben_hutcherson]

:rolleyes:

Compare to GAF 500 slide film-- There's grain!

[ATTACH=full]1316569[/ATTACH]

o_O

 

Well, if one wanted to be overly pedantic, I don't see any grain in that photo posted :)

[JDMvW]

I don't see any grain in that photo posted

 

Hmm. It's pointillist, 'ent it?

 

And GAF 500 was pretty much always underexposed -- the secret of its ASA (~ISO).

 

:D

[ben_hutcherson]

Hmm. It's pointillist, 'ent it?

 

And GAF 500 was pretty much always underexposed -- the secret of its ASA (~ISO).

 

:D

 

My pedanticism is from the fact that, after processing, color film doesn't(shouldn't) have any "grain" to speak of, but rather dye clouds.

 

Of course, I'm guilty too of calling color film grainy/not grainy.

[glen_h]

This is my high school, taken on the last week of school.

 

Since I didn't buy a yearbook, I wanted something to remember it with.

(I have pictures inside the classrooms, with teachers and students, too.)

 

I bought a roll of, I believe, Anscochrome 200 from the (recently) outdated

bin at a nearby store, half price, processing included.

 

[JDMvW]

rather dye clouds.

 

Of course, I've made the same "pedantic" point myself.

 

It's one of the reasons I really am an enthusiast for Ilford XP2