Comparing Fuji 400 (Made in USA) to Kodak Ultramax: Are they really the same?

Подписаться 1,1 тыс.

Просмотров 15 тыс.

50% 1

Comparing Fuji 400 (Made in USA) to Kodak Ultramax: Are they really the same?
Technical Details:
Camera 1 (Fuji 400)
- Nikon F3T
- Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 IS AIS // 50mm f/1.2 AI // 80-200mm f/4.5 AI
- Metered at 200ISO (developed at 400ISO)
- Tiffen Polarizer on some images
Camera 2 (Kodak Ultramax 400)
- Nikon F3
- Nikkor 35mm f/2 AIS // 50mm f/2 AI // 80-200mm f/4.5 AI
- Metered at 200ISO (developed at 400ISO)
- Tiffen Polarizer on some images
Scanning
- Canon R5C with Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro
- Cinestill CS-Lite Light source
- Essential Film Holder
Editing
- Negative Lab Pro 3.0.2
- Color Model: Frontier
- Pre-Saturation: 3-Default
- Settings: NLP Standard
- Tone Profile: LAB - Standard
- White-Balance: Auto-Neutral // Auto-Average // Auto-Mix
#filmphotography #photography #analogphotography #fujifilm #kodak #fuji400 #ultramax400 #vancouverisland
-
Website - www.robinferand.com
En Argentique (Film Photography Only) - robinferand.my...
Medium - / robinferand
Instagram - / robinferand
Twitter - / robinferand

Опубликовано:

15 сен 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 70

@TheFilmFellow 4 дня назад

Out of all three films involved in this saga, Fuji 400, Ultramax 400 and Superia 400 I really like the “new” Fuji 400 the best because in my humble opinion it has the best skin tones. I’m still amused that folks say this is rebranded Ultramax which it clearly isn’t. I noticed it immediately with my first roll of Fuji 400 and to me that was a very pleasant experience. I’ve been shooting it ever since. I quite like its color palette and it does really well as a street photography film. Thank you so much for sharing this video.

@artistjoh 5 месяцев назад

I do not know why people assume that if this Fuji film is manufactured in a Kodak plant it has to be just a rebranded Kodak film. Fuji is big enough, and has a wealth ofdata from their own factories to be able to give the recipe to Kodak, and dictate ingredients etc to make a film that is uniquely theirs. Lomography, which is both smaller than Fuji, and does not have the film manufacturing background, contracts factories to manufacture films that are unique to Lomography, by specifying the recipe to the factory. I also expect this Fuji film to be really a Fuji film, unique to them. Of course there will be some similarities because all films are making three color layers in similar ways, but this Fuji film is also different enough that we can categorically say, it is not rebranded UltraMax.

@xt3r92 11 месяцев назад

This was amazing to watch thank you for comparing these two film stocks!

@rogiervanoostrom6467 4 месяца назад

Many thanks for the comparison, very helpful. You made some beautiful images along the way, great to see that environment in Canada. Makes me want to go there!

@bigboichoi0073 5 месяцев назад

I just got done home deving Fuji 400 (USA). let me tell you, after holding the two I couldn’t physically tell the difference between them. Same texture, same extreme thinness and they even sound the same when I flicked both. I also found my using almost identical white balance for both

@robinferand 5 месяцев назад

I’m not surprised. After the test with 400, I found out that the polarizer probably messed up my test. I shot another video with the 200iso stock and scanning them on the same frame, they looked identical.

@brotherandroid 8 месяцев назад

I definitely have been working under the assumption that these were the same stock. I wonder if they might be different batches of the same film? Surprising results, in any case. Thanks for the comparison. Really nice images!

@fthprodphoto-video5357 11 месяцев назад

I like the Fuji better, it’s less accurate in terms of colors and has less dynamic range but I like the film tones better

@artistjoh 5 месяцев назад

Whereas I prefered the UltraMax. The Fuji film had the typical Fuji kind of palette that I have never liked, although it ios a bit better than the garish blues and greens Fuji gave back in the 1980's.

@bigboichoi0073 5 месяцев назад

The biggest and most obvious difference I saw from my results home dev and scanning is the cost I can get a 3 36 exp pack of Fuji 400 for $24.99 and and the same thing for ultra max is $29.99 both from B & H. All though I can only usually get ultra max in person from drug stores which is nice if I need film and don’t want to wait for shipping

@Mamotreco Год назад

Very beautiful shots, first and foremost, Secondly thank you for the comparison and your insights

@RWAquariumPages 2 месяца назад

Great video and lovely photos. Your voice is very soothing. I love shooting film

@robinferand Месяц назад

That's very kind of you, thank you!

@MinoltaCamera 6 месяцев назад

You're using a circular polarizer. The different between rolls could be that you turn a bit more one polarizer than other... next time do it without filters, specialy filters that change when you turn it

@Wilkins325 Месяц назад

Thanks for this helpful video. I think I prefer the warmer tones of the Fuji 400, but the Kodak is not bad!

@robinferand Месяц назад

This could be due to the polarizer I used on both cameras. If the polarization angle slightly differs, it can influence the colours on the final image.

@michaelhall859 Год назад

Definatley different film stocks, this vid shows that clearly .. Cheers

@eatenbyopium 11 месяцев назад

its clearly the same stock. He's using different lenses which produce different tones and he also using polarizers which produce different tones as well. Look at the way the trees are rendered at 3:44. exactly the same.

@bigboichoi0073 5 месяцев назад

@@eatenbyopiumI just got done home deving Fuji 400 (USA). let me tell you, after holding the two I couldn’t physically tell the difference between them. Same texture, same extreme thinness and they even sound the same when I flicked both. As you guessed after home scanning them my self. it looked almost IDENTICAL to a roll of ultra max, that I shot on THE SAME CAMERA with the same settings with flash for both. Bro literally so similar I did practically the same white balance adjustments as ultra max.

@lordofgonzo 3 месяца назад

I don't know...I'm looking at the data sheets, and there's enough of a difference to me that the Fuji, while being made by Kodak, is not UltraMax. It's not a massive difference, but there also wasn't a huge difference between Superia 400 and UltraMax. I figure Fujifilm is having Kodak make it to their spec for international sale, especially since they're putting film back on shelves in Japan, but not really everywhere.

@robinferand 3 месяца назад

I don't think we'll ever know. The idea behind thoses videos was to show the difference in every day scenarios and which one photographers like better. It also good to remember than these film stocks aren't professionnal but consumer stocks. Even between different rolls of that same new Fuji 400, I've experienced different results.

@Maartenols 5 дней назад

Correct.

@Robertkeck-yi8ze Год назад

These film stocks are so similar anymore it's hard for me to tell the difference between.

@robinferand Год назад

They are similar indeed but the rendition of the blues are quite different. Ultramax was also cooler.

@zachanderson303 9 месяцев назад

They’re literally the same film stock, i darkroom print and have printed them side by side and they print the same. Also if you check the spectral sensitivity charts for both films, they’re the same. The differences we’re seeing is the two different lenses and the scanner/conversion software doing it’s own editing.

@edsinclair4047 9 месяцев назад

I would assume/hope the creator was careful to use the same scanner settings for each film, other than setting exposure/gain. I think the same lenses were used?

@robinferand 9 месяцев назад

Thanks for your answer! I made a new test in my latest video and found similar results. The filters gave me wrong results most likely.

@abe_slowstagram 6 месяцев назад

Way too many variables between the lenses, filters, camera bodies shutter speed accuracy, and post work to be a valid comparison.

@wanderpup Год назад

I sincerely thought the new fuji 400 was rebranded ultramax but with how fuji handles the copper tones but now i'm not sure. Removing the polarizer filter would remove one X factor. Regardless you got some beautiful shots with both. I have a freezer full of fuji 400 that was misleadingly labeled on walmart's website (film is still film so I wasn't going to return it) and a bunch of ultramax. Do you develop your own c-41 or have a shop do it? If you do your own what chemicals do you use? Thank you

@robinferand Год назад

Agreed, I’ll try next time without a polarizer. So those in your freezer what are they? Fuji 400 (2023) or the older stock Xtra? I don’t develop colour are home just yet but only black and white. However, I’ll soon do colour at home and already know I’ll be using the FlicFilm c41 kit. I heard really good thing about it. It’s made by a company from Alberta.

@evertking1 8 месяцев назад

@@robinferandok cool... Did you scan. These at home and how?

@Bredbeddle 5 месяцев назад

I believe Ultramax is not exactly Gold 400. When you compare images of Kodak Gold 200 and 400 (Not Ultramax) to Fuji's new 200 and 400, they match very well.

@Realoemo 4 месяца назад

@@Bredbeddlethere is no gold 400.

@thevoiceman6192 8 месяцев назад

Great comparison. It seems the kodak colors are rich and saturated in sunny situations over the new Fuji but Fuji colors seem darker and richer in overcast and shadows where there is less light. Ektar and fuji superia xtra is my favorite film. Very saturated.

@user-cd8ri1mc6s 10 месяцев назад

I find the Fujicolor 400 renders closer to pre-Superia Xtra 400. And I love FujiFilm. Fujicolor 400 is my present go to C-41 color negative film for daily street photography and landscapes. I love it, and it delivers consistently great results.

@robinferand 10 месяцев назад

Good to know. I’ve never tried it xtra 400 myself.

@Bredbeddle 5 месяцев назад

Thanks for the calming and informative vid 🙂☕ Just my two cents, I believe the new Fuji films are actually Kodak Gold 200 and 400, and that Ultramax is not Kodak Gold 400.

@yzho105 8 месяцев назад

its a shame that this FUJI 400 does not have the classic green look. i mean its why some of us go back to film in the 1st place isnt it? its just my own opinion.

@jamesjuranke 11 месяцев назад

Regardless if it's the same or not or where it is made, it's another film on the market and more film the better. Thank you for putting this together and sharing, some beautiful photos!

@robinferand 11 месяцев назад

Couldn't agree more! I think we should be happy that; instead of simply pulling out stocks off the market, they still sell somewhat affordable film so that people that want to try it film photography don't have to break the bank on Portra prices!

@jamesjuranke 11 месяцев назад

@@robinferand 100%

@EktaHomie 11 месяцев назад

It’s not more film on the market. It’s a replacement of Fuji Superia 400. More film would mean Fujifilm is still producing Superia, and that is not the case.

@abdulkadir1990 10 месяцев назад

@@EktaHomie correct

@richardsimms251 5 месяцев назад

Great video but the music makes it difficult to hear the video

@robinferand 5 месяцев назад

Noted for next time. Thank you for the feedback:)

@jadenfernando 4 месяца назад

Your colour grading of the digital footage is absolutely amazing😮. How can I replicate this? What are your settings/ luts?

@robinferand 4 месяца назад

No luts. It was either film convert or Dehancer pro

@nav27v Год назад

Most likely it is re-branded Kodak. It's not likely that Kodak/Fuji invested in the development of a new emulsion for the lower end market (and didn't make a big deal about it). There is only one colour negative film manufacturer in the USA, and that's Kodak. Differences people are seeing between the two likely come down to scanner software being told it's old Fuji 400 and therefore treating it differently.

@robinferand Год назад

The thing I used the same settings to convert in Negative Lab Pro. NLP “doesn’t know” if he is converting Fuji or Kodak. It’s only once you’re done with the initial conversion that you can apply presets depending on which film stock, which I didn’t. But like I said, I will need to shoot more of it to get a better idea. And at the end of the day, Kodak or Fuji don’t really matter as long as you enjoy the result (although I’m still divided with this Fuji 400) 😄

@nav27v Год назад

@@robinferandHow did you scan? I presume with DSLR/Mirrorless?

@robinferand Год назад

I did yes@@nav27v

@abe_slowstagram 6 месяцев назад

So many variables before the post processing. Different lenses, filters, camera bodies may have slight shutter speed accuracy differences. Try shooting the film stocks sequentially in the exact same camera/lens no filters at test charts under studio lighting.

@ExstasyCo 10 месяцев назад

When fuji 400 released i was skeptical about it, until I saw both of them are the same price. Which means i have options for using them for everyday uses

@robinferand 10 месяцев назад

I think buying a pack Fuji 400 x3 is actually cheaper than Ultramax. That being I haven’t seen a pack of Ultramax lately.

@ExstasyCo 10 месяцев назад

@@robinferand personally i always prefer 36 exp rather than 3 packs of 24 exp, cuz dev and scan is expensive in australia.

@robinferand 10 месяцев назад

@@ExstasyCo, I understand, 24exp always goes so fast for me. Here in Canada, I can find Fuji 200 and 400 in packs of 3 with 36exp. I'm not sure they make kodak x3 with 36exp.

@ExstasyCo 7 месяцев назад

@@robinferand there are different options, 24exp x 3 or 36exp

@justcallmesando 9 месяцев назад

Beautiful video

@Maartenols 5 дней назад

These two look very different, imo.

@robinferand 5 дней назад

You are right. My results differed because I used a polarizing filter and depending on the angle of polarization, it created different results. However, I also made a comparison between Fuji 200 and Gold 200 without a polarizer and this time got very similar results. You can check out the other video if you want :) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-O46jIDT0yKk.htmlsi=O9VXVsdQBACZXaDb

@m9shamalan 9 месяцев назад

sorry but different lenses invalidate this test. still photographers dont usually have to confront this but every still lens gives different colours and contrast and even different amounts of light for a given aperture. this is one of the reasons why cine lens sets are so expensive; they all have to match closely. ive seen these films shot side by side with identical cameras+lenses and they look identical, you really could not tell them apart.

@robinferand 9 месяцев назад

I made a new test in my latest video. Lenses weren't the problem, the filters were! My AIS Nikkor are really close in term of contrast and colours. However, I do get sometimes different exposures since it's F-stop and not T-stop indeed.

@evertking1 8 месяцев назад

I would love to see that? Have a link? Hell, I hope it's Kodak.

@MatchRoad 10 месяцев назад

bro, they are just the same films, dont compare the inverted images, compare the negatives and the data sheets

@Femmypixel 7 месяцев назад

Nice video but please dont eat your microphone, not every film video needs to be "LOFI" ultra bassy voiceovers.

@robinferand 7 месяцев назад

Ahaha thanks! That’s actually a bad take from my backup microphone because the main mic wasn’t plugged properly 🫠

@1redgate8 10 месяцев назад

Either way, ultramax = terrible imo. Portra all the way, even lomography.

@evertking1 8 месяцев назад

Yeah, lomo 800 is my favorite 120 film

@abe_slowstagram 6 месяцев назад

This is not a valid comparison. Try shooting the film stocks sequentially in the exact same camera and lens with no filters at test charts in a studio.