Hi, thank you Jess and Sam for the interesting video! Did you shoot both rolls at box speed? I usually overexpose portra 400 by one stop as i was getting very dark shadows. I was doing the same with ultramax when I first tried it, but I was getting a very strong yellow cast, especially in skin tones. I started appreciating ultramax when i started shooting it at box speed. I hope to see your next film photography video soon ;)
I think Ultramax is a bit too inconsistent at least the times i have shot it. I love some of the images i have taken with it, but they also look a lot more "artsy" which for some people can be a big plus. But for me choosing it as a personal favorite would be hard. Portra feels more safe and especially as a normal or portrait film shooting subjects were skin tones etc are more important i would never choose Ultramax. however i feel it has its place in family photography and travel just as you said. Its not a bad filmstock for me at least, just not a personal favorite for the things i normally shoot. I actually think Kodak gold isa bit more safe and even better for family type stuff:) keep up the good work, first time watcher here. regards Martin from sweden.
I guess that the reference right at the almost end.. to Fujicolor 200, is about the film up to about mid-2023? The changeover since then is to Fujifilm 200, which is said to be essentially a repackaging of Kodak Gold 200. Back in the day, mid 80's, my film choices for my Nikon L35AF were always the basic Fuji 200 and 400's over the Kodak films. Thank you for this video. I haven't tried either Portra or Ultramax on my Canon T70..., time to try both.
I shot a roll of Ultramax whilst in North Yorkshire last year during a heatwave - Minolta 3000i - and it came out very grainy on some shots. The colours were vivid and I liked it - but the grain was a bit overpowering on landscapes - especially the clouds/sky was grainy, but other than that some of the most beautiful photos I've ever taken. I currently have a roll of Portra in my minolta X-300 - shooting mainly landscapes and urban city scrapes - so it will be interesting to see how it goes. I have heard that people have good results when shooting ultramax at 200 and even 100. Having stuck with kodak gold/ColorPlus and Superia for years - I can say that I've never tried it but think I'm going to give it a go next time.
The UltraMax may not be as sharp, but it's got that magazine look. Cheaper too!
Hi, thank you Jess and Sam for the interesting video! Did you shoot both rolls at box speed? I usually overexpose portra 400 by one stop as i was getting very dark shadows. I was doing the same with ultramax when I first tried it, but I was getting a very strong yellow cast, especially in skin tones. I started appreciating ultramax when i started shooting it at box speed. I hope to see your next film photography video soon ;)
Whoever edited this needs to stop with the signal loss screen it is not funny 14 times in a row
I though the same thing
Ty for the heads-up. Not watching then
I think Ultramax is a bit too inconsistent at least the times i have shot it. I love some of the images i have taken with it, but they also look a lot more "artsy" which for some people can be a big plus. But for me choosing it as a personal favorite would be hard. Portra feels more safe and especially as a normal or portrait film shooting subjects were skin tones etc are more important i would never choose Ultramax. however i feel it has its place in family photography and travel just as you said. Its not a bad filmstock for me at least, just not a personal favorite for the things i normally shoot. I actually think Kodak gold isa bit more safe and even better for family type stuff:) keep up the good work, first time watcher here. regards Martin from sweden.
This was helpful for me, thanks. Now I'm on a roll of ultramax, then I want to try lomo metropolis and then I think I will stuck to portra 400
I guess that the reference right at the almost end.. to Fujicolor 200, is about the film up to about mid-2023? The changeover since then is to Fujifilm 200, which is said to be essentially a repackaging of Kodak Gold 200. Back in the day, mid 80's, my film choices for my Nikon L35AF were always the basic Fuji 200 and 400's over the Kodak films. Thank you for this video. I haven't tried either Portra or Ultramax on my Canon T70..., time to try both.
I shot a roll of Ultramax whilst in North Yorkshire last year during a heatwave - Minolta 3000i - and it came out very grainy on some shots. The colours were vivid and I liked it - but the grain was a bit overpowering on landscapes - especially the clouds/sky was grainy, but other than that some of the most beautiful photos I've ever taken.
I currently have a roll of Portra in my minolta X-300 - shooting mainly landscapes and urban city scrapes - so it will be interesting to see how it goes.
I have heard that people have good results when shooting ultramax at 200 and even 100. Having stuck with kodak gold/ColorPlus and Superia for years - I can say that I've never tried it but think I'm going to give it a go next time.
So basically shoot ultramax at box speed and meter for shadows
can you do ultramax vs kodak gold next
That was great, thank you. Time to order some Ultramax. I already have the Portra.
Thank you for the comparison and film related contents, but...
1. Are you trying to beep viewers away?!?
2. Bloopers are okay once....
Not annoying!
Yep definitely going with Portra 400, also you guys are so adorable ✨
Why thank you, we like to think we're pretty adorable!
This woman’s voice is so irritating
this comment is so irritating...
i agree. idk why but i find it irritating as well..