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

[@justcallmesando]

Coming back to this one. Love the look you get from the Fuji. I'll definitely use a circular polarizer filter next time I shoot it.

[@xt3r92]

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

[@rogiervanoostrom6467]

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!

[@artistjoh]

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.

[@nicolastruong4561]

- The box says it's made in the US, but Fuji doesn't have known factories in the US. No other company would have the power to pump out that much 35 film other than Kodak. - The canister is the same gray canister with a grey lid that Kodak films come in, not the old Fuji Superia canister It might not be rebranded UltraMax, but the new Fuji film is likely to be manufactured by Kodak.

[@artistjoh]

@ I totally agree. I am simply challenging the notion that it is a rebranded existing Kodak line, aqnd pointing out that it is possible that while manufactured at a Kodak factorey, it can still be made to a Fuji recipe and thus not just a rebranding of a Kodak film.

[@johntazbaz1121]

I think the more likely scenario is that Fuji told Kodak what they wanted their film to look like and Kodak tweaked their “recipe” to get that look.

[@TheFilmFellow]

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.

[@brotherandroid]

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!

[@RWAquariumPages]

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

[@robinferand]

That's very kind of you, thank you!

[@Mamotreco]

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

[@lordofgonzo]

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]

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]

Correct.

[@wanderpup]

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]

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]

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

[@Bredbeddle]

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]

@@Bredbeddlethere is no gold 400.

[@michaelhall859]

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

[@eatenbyopium]

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]

@@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.

[@Robertkeck-yi8ze]

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

[@robinferand]

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

[@bigboichoi0073]

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]

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.

[@jadenfernando]

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

[@robinferand]

No luts. It was either film convert or Dehancer pro

[@ChristopheCousinOSS117]

Thanks but to achieve a better comparison it would have been useful to shoot also some portraits...

[@hectorrivera2785]

The fuji gave beautiful colors, now I need a Fuji roll 😍 💚

[@MinoltaCamera]

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]

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

[@robinferand]

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.

[@bigboichoi0073]

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

[@fthprodphoto-video5357]

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]

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.

[@GThirtyfive]

Glad I had a bunch of superia dispos still loaded much much greener

[@vonPeter_]

Fujifilm only purchasing the UltraMax (and Gold for Fuji 200) emulsion but everything else is different. The character is basically the same but both are slightly warmer than Kodak films which I really like.

[@Invincibleagent]

The instant that you used a different lens (and the polariser possibly being in different positions?), the comparison became invalid

[@richardsimms251]

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

[@robinferand]

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

[@GThirtyfive]

Even in dispo it’s noticeable like crazy now

[@KentTeffeteller]

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]

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

[@zachanderson303]

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]

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]

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]

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

[@Bredbeddle]

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.

[@thevoiceman6192]

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.

[@justcallmesando]

Beautiful video

[@ExstasyCo]

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]

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]

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

[@robinferand]

@@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]

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

[@yzho105]

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]

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]

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]

@@robinferand 100%

[@EktaHomie]

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]

@@EktaHomie correct

[@diegogarciamedina6363]

Fujifilm is accurate, sincere, Ultramax is saturated with beautyful colors, lies nicely.

[@nav27v]

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]

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]

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

[@robinferand]

I did yes@@nav27v

[@abe_slowstagram]

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.

[@m9shamalan]

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]

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]

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

[@Maartenols]

These two look very different, imo.

[@robinferand]

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 :) kzbin.info/www/bejne/hWWZm3x6iZWsgc0si=O9VXVsdQBACZXaDb

[@MatchRoad]

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

[@Femmypixel]

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

[@robinferand]

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

[@1redgate8]

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

[@evertking1]

Yeah, lomo 800 is my favorite 120 film

[@abe_slowstagram]

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.