War of the cheapies - Kodak Gold 400 vs Fuji Superia 400

[gb hill]

This is Superia 200 asa film.

[gb hill]

And this is Fuji Superia 800 film.

[Mablo]

Superia X-tra 400 @ 200 or even @100 is a good everyday film. I don't like it at box speed but when overexposed it becomes really nice. It's good with shutter speeds up to 2 secs or even longer.

[thirtyfivefifty]

I don't like any 400s, but if I had to choose, then it would be Kodak Gold 400, as I've had good results. Didn't like Fuji Superia 400, but I did like Fuji Superia 800. Weird, I know.

[KoNickon]

I had long favored Superia 400, but I've used Gold 400 recently and have been very pleased. A tossup, I think.

(I wish Gold 100 was still being made.)

[braver]

I've shot some Superia, 'xtra' I think, never dared try Gold. I think the Superia is ok, but I picked up some real cheap Agfa Vista recently and really really like how that came out. Cheap ISO 200 color film always works out very nice for some reason.

That said, in general, when I shoot color I splurge on the new Portra. It's amazing.

[NickTrop]

Ugghh - Superia is okay. Nothing wrong with it ('cept a faint green cast sometimes). But Kodak Gold 400 is far superior. It simply and clearly is the better of the two films at this speed (and all speeds below). At 800 color print, Fuji is the better film - handles color cast better, is not quite as grainy. Kodak <= 400 > Fuji. Always, for color print stuff.

[jesterthejedi]

Originally Posted by charjohncarter

I've used both, and I feel like fdigital. The best deal around here WAS at Costco. $1.39 for a 24 Superia. I used to buy the 6-7 packs, but they discontinued. I should have gone in there and bought them out.

Have you had a look at the discount/dollar stores? Film just sits on the shelf in those places.

[divewizard]

Kodak Gold is obsolete. The new film is is Ultramax 400. I believe that Ultramax 400 is the same film as Portra 400. The films are speced just slightly diffrently becasue they are tested slightly differently. The differences are just marketing specmanship.
It does not make sense for Kodak to run multiple production lines any more. I was never happy with Gold 400, but the new Ultramax gives the same results as Portra. You can see some shots from my first roll of Ultramax here.

[dallard]

Originally Posted by divewizard

Kodak Gold is obsolete. The new film is is Ultramax 400. I believe that Ultramax 400 is the same film as Portra 400. The films are speced just slightly diffrently becasue they are tested slightly differently. The differences are just marketing specmanship.
It does not make sense for Kodak to run multiple production lines any more. I was never happy with Gold 400, but the new Ultramax gives the same results as Portra. You can see some shots from my first roll of Ultramax here.

Very nice shots. Have you done any side by side comparisons to see if it is indeed the same?

[dallard]

Originally Posted by KoNickon

I had long favored Superia 400, but I've used Gold 400 recently and have been very pleased. A tossup, I think.

(I wish Gold 100 was still being made.)

You can still get Gold 100.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search...tialSearch=yes

[btgc]

For me Superia 200 and 800 are what I like from consumer range. Well, Reala in 135 also is consumer film and is good, tight film.

[OwenStegemann]

I like them both. I use superia as a cheaper pro-h, and gold as a cheaper portra vc.

Superia 400



Gold 200

[pggunn]

When I've shot color in the past it's almost always been Kodak Portra, but thought I would try something cheaper this time and bought ten 36 exposure rolls of Fuji Superia, for $3.19 each. I just got a roll developed at Walgreen's and like it pretty well so far. I think I'll pick up a couple rolls of Gold this weekend and compare them.

Here are a few from the Superia roll:

[IMG]
Spring 11 by pggunn1, on Flickr[/IMG]


[IMG]
Spring 8 by pggunn1, on Flickr[/IMG]


[IMG]
Spring 5 by pggunn1, on Flickr[/IMG]

[paulfish4570]

really nice whites, greg.
memories 200 is fantastic color film for you guys who live west of the mississippi. get it at dollar stores. shoot box speed. to my eye, slide-like. i am told it is made from konica's old film equipment and stock.

[George Bonanno]

Originally Posted by paulfish4570

memories 200 is fantastic color film, slide-like. i am told it is made from konica's old film equipment and stock.

Paul,

Who told you Memories film was made from Konica's old film equipment and stock ?

I ask because I shot Konica color negative 35mm film from 100 to 1600 ISO before it was unavailable here in the NYC area.
It was a wonderful film with a slide like appearance, like you indicated.

I was under the impression that Memories was a badly made Italian color film.

Kodak UltraMax is my color film of choice now as Fuji Superia is just too weird, unnatural.

George

[Mablo]

Originally Posted by divewizard

Kodak Gold is obsolete. The new film is is Ultramax 400. I believe that Ultramax 400 is the same film as Portra 400. The films are speced just slightly diffrently becasue they are tested slightly differently. The differences are just marketing specmanship.
It does not make sense for Kodak to run multiple production lines any more. I was never happy with Gold 400, but the new Ultramax gives the same results as Portra. You can see some shots from my first roll of Ultramax here.

Ok, that explains a lot. I went to the local film store to buy some Superia X-tra but they didn't have it and the shopkeeper recommended me Ultramax 400. I had never seen it before but bought a few rolls anyway. I shot it like I'd shoot Superia X-tra, one and a half stops over exposed. I got balanced colors (just a bit muted like I wanted) and nice grain. For half the price for a roll of Portra, I'm sold.

[Red Robin]

Reach in the fridge and pull one out. .. ... film is like a box of chocolates . .. ... with out of date films I buy cheep, use often and enjoy the adventure!

[AFenvy]

I just shot a 4 pack of Fuji 200 speed film. Could have been Superia. I have shot the 400 X-Tra, it is grainy and flat but generally good. The 200 I shot at 100, with 1 stop of overexposure, 2 rolls turned out fantastic, and two were pretty bad. I figure since I bought the film at Walmart it was a crapshoot, so 50% is a good return.

[zupstermix]

I use Kodak Gold 400 just because it is cheap here.


Catching 4 O'Clock by zupstermix, on Flickr

[ajuk]

Superia 400 is the same emulation as Press 400, a pro film, it's bound to be good. While Kodak Pro film has always been good, I've always seen Fuji consumer film as being much better than Kodak's equivalents.

Whatever happened to Fuji True Definition 400? I do belive there is also Fuji Superia Premium 400 sold in Japan, not sure if that's it, is that much better than the standard 400?

[ajuk]

If Ultramax 400 is rebranded Portra 400, I'd be very interested, can someone put do a picture showing the leaders of both side by side?

[maxwell1295]

I'm kind of liking the results I'm getting with the Fuji Superia XTRA 400


The 'Hawk by alanabramsphotography, on Flickr


Jackie by alanabramsphotography, on Flickr

[maxwell1295]

Of course, this expired Kodak 400 isn't too bad either...


Inku by alanabramsphotography, on Flickr


Flatiron Building by alanabramsphotography, on Flickr

[whitecat]

Kodak gold at $2.00 a roll of 36 on Evil Bay.