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

[AFenvy]

Originally Posted by NickTrop

Wow... another thread where I wonder what RFF members are smokin'... Kodak blows Fuji away in everything in in 35mm color print up to and including 400 ISO. Above 400 ISO in color print, it's Fuji.

I definitely agree! Where are you guys getting good color out of the Superia? Mine is generally a crapshoot with most of the roll looking terrible and a select few having good color. It only looks good in a select few lighting situations.

[andredossantos]

I agree. Kodak for print, Fuji for slide.

[R.MacDonald]

When I shoot color, which is extremely rare these days, my go to film is Superia 400. I have always been very satisfied with the results. However, I always shoot it at 200. It bumps up the contrast quite nicely. Shot at box speed I found it to be a bit drab.

[hendriphile]

Kodak Gold 200

[IMG][/IMG]

[Sparrow]

... sorry chaps, but you don't know what you're talking about. Superia 400 is a good solid all-round colour film ...











... under most light, including tungsten, Gold 400 is like most Kodak way too warm and too saturated

[umcelinho]

ok, not a 400 film, BUT i really really like fujicolor 100 (at least it's sold by this name in Brazil). it has good saturation along with fine grain. it's 5 BRL a roll (roughly 2.50 USD) and probably the cheapest one can find new. superia 400 sells for 15 BRL or more. yep, film is quite expensive here (that's why I buy a lot when I travel!)


aula de fotografia by Marcelo Colmenero, on Flickr

[sara]

Fuji Superia all the way, have been using it for everything (well not everything but you know what I mean).

There's something funny about Kodak Gold. I don't know and I don't like it!

[segedi]

What is considered cheap? A quick check at the drug store and the cheapest was a 5 pack of Kodak Ultramax at $20 ($4/roll).

[kshapero]

I guess more quick then cheap. eh?

[chubasco]

If yer gonna shoot color, reach in and grab some. Expired Kodak Gold 100:





Konica T4 pix

KG100 is my fave 100 film.

For 400, try Kodak HD-400, CVS has 3-packs for sale at $6.99 occasionally.

[Lilserenity]

Unfortunately my experience with Fuji Superia has been too variable (200 however has been the best of the lot) but I have a feeling this is much more to do with where it's bought from and how it is stored (e.g. Jessops' idea of keeping film cool is to store it in a furnace, whilst behind the film processing machine operators grab the film out of the machine with sandpaper mittens and hammers....I don't like Jessops )

On the whole I have had the most success with Kodak Gold, consistent that is, either in 100 or 200, 400 is quite grainy but the colour again has been fine. In fact all of Kodak's Gold line is quite grainy although sometimes in quite a nice way.

Anyway, whilst Kodak Gold 200 is my cheap grab and go colour emulsion, with Ektar being barely £3.50 a roll in 35mm, I'd sooner use that and do.

Vicky

[soimless]

I would go with the Walgreen’s rebranded Fuji Superia 200 speed film. If you buy in a pack of four it's two dollars a roll and some times they have sales in the coupon books that make it a dollar 1 to a dollar 1.50 a roll. I really can't stand the cheap 400 speed color films, Kodak or Fuji.

[Chris101]

I like the Kodak film. But shoot color film so rarely, I shouldn't talk about it. Here's one from last weekend:

[chubasco]

Originally Posted by Chris101

I like the Kodak film. But shoot color film so rarely, I shouldn't talk about it. Here's one from last weekend:

Chris, is this the Emperor's New Film? Picture no see.

[Chris101]

It was there yesterday, I dunno wot happened. Here.

Actually, it was old. I had it sitting around for a year or so, and finally ran it out!

[ChrisPlatt]

Kodak Ultramax 400 and Gold 100 are currently my preferred inexpensive color negative films.

Chris

[charjohncarter]

I had to buy some Gold200 in Europe last year, big price. But it was great especially indoors:



and not too bad outdoors, either:

[David Murphy]

Gold all they way - it's a fantastic film and reasonably priced (although I usually buy it expired or surplus)

[MIkhail]

I would not choose any of it, frankly.
Life is too short to fiddle with inferior film. So many times I looked at my shots and wished I used a good film like Ektar... Never again.

[David Murphy]

Originally Posted by charjohncarter

I had to buy some Gold200 in Europe last year, big price. But it was great especially indoors:



and not too bad outdoors, either:

Nice shots. I agree - Gold is bashed a lot and underrated IMO. I like Gold-100 myself - sharp and rich colors

[Vincent.G]

I don't understand why one film can be better than the other. I think it is how much you understand the characteristics of the film and what you use it for. It boils down to personal preference. I am just happy to know Kodak Gold and Fuji Superia are different so I choose which film to use based on the outcome I want in my photos.

[Pete B]

Alot depends on who is doing your scanning. It's difficult to compare films that might be scanned by a machine set up to be good for one film but poor for another. For instance, these frames are Portra 160 but the results are quite different. The pro lab scan is overly saturated compared to the home scan. The colours of the home scan is more accurate to my memory.
Pete

Home:
Attachment 87338


Pro Lab
Attachment 87339

[Pete B]

Another example

Home
Attachment 87341


Pro Lab
Attachment 87342

[stupid leica]

i dont see how anybody could vote for the evil yellow box. Superia, in my experience, has been better in literally every way.

[SupachaiA]

โนจิ by Yu5000, on Flickr



ซาลาเปาทีม by Yu5000, on Flickr

Fuji S200 my vote