For color negative films in production, if I had to choose just one film I could buy, it would be Portra 160. I know the 400 version is even more versatile - especially for digital post production. But as I print my pictures in my darkroom, the 160 version has a bit more character. I also like Ektar for landscape, but if there is any tungsten light in the picture (mixed light situations), it is a problem for this film, as it is only 25 ISO in tungsten light. I don't say Gold or Ulramax were bad films - not at all, but if I was to choose just one color film, Portra 160 is my choice.
I love all your videos, but I have to disagree on this one. I simply love Kodak Ultramax 400. It has a nice contrast and very vivid colours. It's my go-to film, specially because I don't like editing stuff on Light Room afterwards. But very nice analysis, nevertheless
I think developing black and white film at a lab is more expensive because there are many more variables compared to C41, which is a standardized process. In any case, great job, Mr. Kent!
Are you sure Lomography Color Negative 400 is not Ultramax 400 or something pretty close? Deffinitely it is a rebranded Kodak film. And in my experience...
Kodak UltraMax is incredible! Vivid sharp images with very fine grain. Your images look underexposed and grainy for some reason, Ultramax never looks like that.
Taken on Olympus MJU I for a comparison between Ultramax and Portra. The shadows of Portra carry a lot more detail for sure. Ultramax doesn’t have great latitude so it’s not gonna do great when there’s a lot of contrast
A lot of the examples that you show for Colorplus and Ultramax look underexposed, hence why they don't look great. It can look much better than that. In reality there isn't much difference between Colorplus and Gold - they both have their origins in similar emulsions, but I think Colorplus uses a derivative of an older recipe. Did you use a camera with an unreliable meter for those? On the other hand the Gold ones look much more exposed, maybe almost over?
Both Ultramax and Gold shots were taken with the exact same MJU I. Of course they can look better if you over expose on an SLR but seeing how they perform on a point n shoot is pretty telling 👍
@@maxkent That's quite strange. In my experience they behave very similarly if they are exposed properly (and I don't mean deliberately over exposing, I mean hitting the correct exposure with a light meter). Maybe Gold is slightly more tolerant to underexposure? Like you said in the video about Colorplus being less forgiving. Not sure. I've found them to be almost interchangeable, with any differences possibly being down to scanning. The photos you've shown here for Gold are all much better lit scenes than the ones for Colorplus too
Your experience with Ultramax does not match mine at all. Your examples look to be all very under-exposed. Having shot both that and Gold many times I'd argue that Ultramax has more balanced colours and similar dynamic range compared to Gold. In a way it's more like the budget Portra.
Aerochrome.
My fav stocks, Colorplus, Aerocolor and Ektachrome
For color negative films in production, if I had to choose just one film I could buy, it would be Portra 160. I know the 400 version is even more versatile - especially for digital post production. But as I print my pictures in my darkroom, the 160 version has a bit more character. I also like Ektar for landscape, but if there is any tungsten light in the picture (mixed light situations), it is a problem for this film, as it is only 25 ISO in tungsten light. I don't say Gold or Ulramax were bad films - not at all, but if I was to choose just one color film, Portra 160 is my choice.
Tri-X and HP5 are my go to black and whites. One of my favorite budget stocks is Kentmere 100/400
Just started shooting film a couple of months ago, this video is extremely useful, thank you!
Awesome 🔥🔥
Just finished fixing a camera and was fretting over what film to buy as my first roll. Thanks for the video
That’s great!
I love all your videos, but I have to disagree on this one. I simply love Kodak Ultramax 400. It has a nice contrast and very vivid colours. It's my go-to film, specially because I don't like editing stuff on Light Room afterwards. But very nice analysis, nevertheless
That’s fair! I just don’t rate it which is unfortunate cos it’s so cheap 😵💫
I think developing black and white film at a lab is more expensive because there are many more variables compared to C41, which is a standardized process. In any case, great job, Mr. Kent!
Cheers dude 💪
I actually like Ultramax. I simply just shoot it at ISO 320.
Yeah over exposure is deffo needed
Lomo 400 = kodacolor vr 400 , the same emulsion of kodacolor 200 but for 400 .
really useful video - thank you
Are you sure Lomography Color Negative 400 is not Ultramax 400 or something pretty close? Deffinitely it is a rebranded Kodak film. And in my experience...
Kodak UltraMax is incredible! Vivid sharp images with very fine grain. Your images look underexposed and grainy for some reason, Ultramax never looks like that.
Taken on Olympus MJU I for a comparison between Ultramax and Portra. The shadows of Portra carry a lot more detail for sure. Ultramax doesn’t have great latitude so it’s not gonna do great when there’s a lot of contrast
A lot of the examples that you show for Colorplus and Ultramax look underexposed, hence why they don't look great. It can look much better than that. In reality there isn't much difference between Colorplus and Gold - they both have their origins in similar emulsions, but I think Colorplus uses a derivative of an older recipe.
Did you use a camera with an unreliable meter for those? On the other hand the Gold ones look much more exposed, maybe almost over?
Both Ultramax and Gold shots were taken with the exact same MJU I. Of course they can look better if you over expose on an SLR but seeing how they perform on a point n shoot is pretty telling 👍
@@maxkent That's quite strange. In my experience they behave very similarly if they are exposed properly (and I don't mean deliberately over exposing, I mean hitting the correct exposure with a light meter). Maybe Gold is slightly more tolerant to underexposure? Like you said in the video about Colorplus being less forgiving. Not sure. I've found them to be almost interchangeable, with any differences possibly being down to scanning.
The photos you've shown here for Gold are all much better lit scenes than the ones for Colorplus too
Your experience with Ultramax does not match mine at all. Your examples look to be all very under-exposed. Having shot both that and Gold many times I'd argue that Ultramax has more balanced colours and similar dynamic range compared to Gold. In a way it's more like the budget Portra.