Kodak UltraMax 400 | Cheap, Reliable & Disappointing

I’ve maintained a complicated relationship with Kodak Ultramax 400 over the years. It was the first stock I ever shot (not including disposable rolls) and I loved it at first. But with time and more experience I’ve grown to think that it is probably the worst film that I have ever used - because of it’s overwhelming contrast, in the shadows and the highlights.
Take a look at the blog post to see the images at a higher resolution: www.daniloalle...
---
If you're not bored of me yet and want to see more of me and my life in between my uploads, check out my Instagram: / daniloallen
Thank you for watching, make sure to subscribe (if you enjoyed it) so you can see all my latest uploads. And hit that notification bell!
#35mmPhotography #KodakUltraMax #FilmPhotography
© Comet Brace 2020

[@chromatic-we9eo]

It's not the film. It's you.

[@DaniloAllen]

That tends to be how opinions work

[@theren8311]

@@DaniloAllen No seriously, it's you. Because I've seen some really good shots from ultramax, ranging from street, to night to fashion...your shots....IDK. Blame it on the camera then. Lol.

[@KurtClark]

I've shot many rolls of Ultramax, and I recall getting the same effect sometimes. Not all the time though. Maybe the film stock isn't consistent. I use both an EOS650 (1987) and an AE-1 (1980). My most-consistent use of Ultramax has been at indoor gatherings with a flash at f8 and 1/60 sec shutter. Pictures always come out right that way. Thanks for sharing!

[@theundefinedphotographer]

I'm not a fan of ultramax either, but your "best" shots make me want to give it another try. You also put into words what my problem with ultramax was: the fact that the highlights are usually really blown out and the shadow detail is gone. And yes, I agree, we shouldn't give up on things that we think we don't like now because our tastes could change down the road.

[@81springbrook96]

hi lol. I kinda like ultramax maybe because i haven't used xtra 400 in YEARS... but I've compared ultramax and c200 and the dynamic range seems similar to me.....

[@theundefinedphotographer]

@@81springbrook96 lol I've never tried c200 before, I've only had experience with xtra 400 and I like that one too. I still have 4 rolls of ultramax left, so who knows, I might come to like it

[@DaniloAllen]

Good to hear that I’m not the only one who seems to feel that way about Ultramax. I’ve used C200 before at the same film lab and generally enjoyed the results, but not Ultramax

[@rusttownmedia3951]

I've shot a lot of ultra max and I've noticed that if you under expose by a half stop on bright day you get a nice blue sky and the shadows aren't too dark either.

[@DaniloAllen]

Interesting! I’ll have to give it a try next time 😊

[@braixeninfection6312]

Personally I love ultramax. But to be fair I only shot one roll. Got 5 left I need to try out sometime. Might be the next roll I shoot in my camera. My shots on the one roll of ultramax were a mix of day and night shots. The night were a bit under exposed as I couldn’t find the reciprocity table for the film. I had to guess and used the table for portra 400 lol. Day shots looked perfect exposed for 400 iso. I was super happy with the results and had the most shots on a roll ever that I absolutely loved!

[@sarah9353]

this is exactly what i experienced! ultramax used to be my forever go-to film and i used to enjoy it a lot for the punchy contrast and the colors it produced. however throughout the years i guess my preference have changed. i tried re-scanning the negatives with a different scanner (my lab used Fuji SP3000, so i tried another lab using Noritsu) and got better results for my liking. haven't used Ultramax 400 for almost a year... nowadays for 400 ISO budget film i use Lomography 400 instead.

[@DaniloAllen]

For these rolls I got them scanned on a Noritsu and I’m suspicious that my dislike for the film is heightened by using the Noritsu. I’ve just finished shooting 2 rolls of Ultramax for an upcoming video and was planning on getting it scanned with my lab’s frontier scanner. Have you tried this out yourself with your Ultramax rolls?

[@Danieltakacsvfx]

Bro it's just about the scanning/editing process. I've shot ultramax and It had a very nice latitude, even better when overexposed. Your highlights being gone is simply an editing issue. not trying to criticise, just help for the next time

[@akis.tsirogiannis]

Do you develop & scan the negs yourself? There is lots of things you can change when dev & scan. I am sure the highlights & shadows are there, if you use a professional scanner & professional software and know how to actually use it. Also, if you send them to ab lab, it might be that they just use a universal template/setting for films that might work well with other films like portra & stuff, but is not "ideal" for ultramax.

[@DaniloAllen]

I’ll have to ask my lab when they open up to the public again, you’ve made me curious as to what their exact process is now

[@b6983832]

Unlike black & white, with the exception of moderate pushing and pulling, there is not very much you can do with developing of color film. If you deviate too much from the standard, it will affect the color balance. The "modern" approach of screwing up on developing, and patching everything in Photoshop is no more film photography, but a workflow more digital than anything. I am not very excited of things like "film" or "Portra" look, when this is mainly achieved through the settings used in digital processing of scanned images by labs. People who have no experience of analog printing, seldom understand how much their lab scans are actually edited. That said, even an analog print is always an interpretation of the negative. What I am saying, is that the tendency now is to edit film scans too much, giving digitally characteristics the film does not actually have.

[@warwickwallace2699]

Just expose for the shadows dude . This film will handle the highlights

[@warwickwallace2699]

I've shot hundreds of rolls of ultramax with perfect exposures

[@DaniloAllen]

This entire roll was exposed to the shadows, I generally do it that way for colour negatives. Other than a few shots which I exposed at +1EV. I’m quite confused why others say they get different results

[@frankzappa3834]

@@DaniloAllen sounds like an issue in the scans more than the film themselves. Not even chrome has this little dynamic range.

[@DaniloAllen]

@Frank Zappa check out my more recent Ultramax video ☺️

[@theren8311]

I was thinking the same. I've seen many amazing shots with ultramax... Maybe consider it's a user issue, not a film issue.

[@davidb_]

ultramax was my first roll of film too. my problem actually comes from the colours on it. seems to have a subtle but not so subtle blue cast to everything which im not particularly huge on

[@DaniloAllen]

Interesting, how so - was there a way of correcting the scan on your computer?

[@davidb_]

@@DaniloAllen i dont scan on my own! im new to film photography so i get it sent off to a lab. mind you i could edit the photos after but i never do. i have a feeing that blue cast could be from the scanner the lab uses?

[@DGLuxton]

Try spot metering for the detail you want and find someone who can do pro quality .tif scans. You’ll be amazed at how good scans can be when someone nails it for you.

[@reneefariasphoto40]

I have been a full time photographer for 24 years, hence I started my career on film and continue to produce on both. I will say the reason digital is so great is because in many ways it's easier to edit in post. Where as with film not so much and must be captured near perfect in camera, and therefore reliant on the photographer to do the right job. You producing 20 rolls of film certainly makes you a novice in this area, but I love that young photographers are using this timeless medium. As a commercial photographer most cannot see a difference in my work because of how I use film vs digital. I have produced on well over 2500 rolls of film in my lifetime. So I will say that consumer grade film I generally only over expose by 1/3rd, Ultramax being ISO 400, I set my ISO at 320 and meter on spot meter only. With pro grade film I set my ISO to overexpose 1 full stop. With slide / positive film I set my meter at box speed only. In my experience these are the best settings. I sill say having a great meter is key. Depending on the camera, you may or may not want to use the in camera meter as your guide. I use a handheld Skonic 308 and meter on the shadows only. I will also say that gear/lenses is key with film. Not all lenses are created equal even if both are F1.8. Canon made a horrible 50mm F/1.8 but their 50 F/1.4 was a killer lens that was "the 50mm" to use with Canon film bodies. On the other hand, Nikon 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.8 were nearly equal at f/2 and above. So, know that your lenses could produce lens flare and uneven lighting on film but not digital or very little difference. I use Nikon and all of my film lenses work perfect on both, but that is not the same with Canon. I love Canon, but if I would shoot Canon, I would use the top of the line film Canon lenses. IMO. You can take a look at my work here: www.reneefarias.com My entire portfolio is a mixture of film and digital. All the best to you young man. :)

[@katerina9159]

What do you think about the sunny 16 rule?

[@reneefariasphoto40]

@@katerina9159 I have followed that rule for almost 25 years now. Both film and digital. If I could post images here I would. Just produced some lovely portraits on this film stock. Bear in mind that the sunny rule of 16 can and should be compensated based on the environment. IE: if sunny rule of 16 states shutter at 1/200 f/16 then it makes sense that shutter at 1/1250 at f/2.8 would work the same. So on and so forth, you get the point.

[@katerina9159]

Renee Farias Photo yes, thank you !

[@reneefariasphoto40]

@@katerina9159 www.reneefarias.com in case you're interested. :)

[@DaniloAllen]

This is a wholesome thread. Thanks for the information Renee!

[@oidualclaudi0]

I love videos about roll reviews - keep on making new content like this. Please try other rolls. You can try to take the same picture 3 times, normal exposure, underexposed and overexposed:

[@81springbrook96]

yea, i kinda like it. there's comedic tech reviewer style to it

[@DaniloAllen]

I’ll have to do that the next time I try out Ultramax for sure (but I can’t really afford to do so with more expensive rolls. Glad you enjoyed the video 😀

[@81springbrook96]

@@DaniloAllen I did that in one of my videos. Check it out when u have time 😊 but my roll was expired....

[@brettrogers8482]

Dear Danilo, I'm really not big on video blog, would rather read a book so firstly congratulations because I actually stayed to the end of this vid. May I offer some hopefully constructive observations? First-and it would have been of assistance if you'd covered these points in the video, I eventually gleaned them from replies you'd previously made here on YT-there are some unknowns in your equation. I am not about to try and tell you that you ought to like this film or have erred in some way. Personally I don't mind Ultramax at all and have shot a few dozen rolls over the years (five or six dozen at least to date). But what a boring world it would be if we all liked all of the same things. What I will emphasise, however is that as things stand-you do not like most of the jpegs you get when your lab processes your Ultramax, scans it and sends you the files. The Noritsu is a good piece of equipment, absolutely. But any scanner is only as good as the people using it. To my eye it looks a bit as though some of the highlights in your images have been clipped. Presumably you are aware (I only say "presumably" because I have no idea what you do and don't know, I stumbled on your website, no disrespect is intended) that if shadows or highlights recorded by the film are not written during the scan they are irretrievably lost (well, irretrievable short of re-scanning anyway). Personally I would have expected Ultramax, correctly exposed, to manage the skies and sand better than what you've shown. But perhaps it did? I do not use scanner hardware anywhere near as high end as a Noritsu-just a humble Epson V700-but I control the data acquisition process myself and generally a primary objective is to acquire all the image information the scanner has read (rarely the same as all the info on the film unless you are using high end equipment I should add). May I suggest you have the film developed only next time and get it scanned elsewhere? Ideally a friend who can spend a little time ensuring histogram clipping does not occur. I will usually inspect each colour channel individually for each frame when I do my own films. I must emphasise that you may well find you dislike the results from such a process just as much as you have to date. But at least you will know that it's not because the digital acquisition process could have been done better. For that matter, consider having a future film developed elsewhere. This is not to cast aspersions on the quality control of your current lab. It's probably fine. It's simply that the only way to find out if your results may vary from another lab, is to, well, use another lab, and see what you get. As usual, it's a case of turning "unknowns" into "knowns". I don't know how you meter, either-well, from your video commentary using the Canon's built in metering-but what your metering methodology is. I don't often use my 35mm EOS models and on those rare occasions I do it's likely to be an EOS RT or 630-but did have an EOS 3000 here for years and I'd not have said its accuracy is noticeably (if any) worse than higher end models. As always though it depends on what you point the lens at. Still, the 3000 has a partial metering lock button on the rear right. Not a true spot, but it does enable you to Eg find a good mid tone to take a reading from and lock that pending exposure (or a shadow region for that matter). I prefer using pre-1970 cameras for the most part. Often pre-1960. Built in metering often wasn't a feature! So tend to refer to a hand held meter and use a built in one very infrequently. I'd suggest considering the purchase of one. You do not have to spend a fortune. A Minolta Auto Meter IV or even III or IIIF in good nick is little more than AUD $100, provides super accurate incident readings and for another $75-100 or so an accessory finder will give you the option of 5° reflective "spot" (really, partial) readings too. It's all I use. You'll find an album of a few of my own Ultramax images here somewhere: www.flickr.com/photos/43224475@N08/albums/ Cheers, Brett

[@DaniloAllen]

Thanks for watching and for you wonderful comment Brett! As someone who is essentially at the start of my journey with film (2 years now) everyday I seem to find that there are more and more unknowns in my equation. I recently had an eye opening chat with the owners of the lab I use for these videos and was told that they purposefully go for a brighter scan on their Noritsu scanner as they think it’s good for business and what there customers want - I disagree and think it’s just silly to blow out the highlights, but they told me they don’t do so with their Frontier scans. I recently dropped off another 2 rolls of Ultramax there and asked for Frontier scans and am curious to see the results. I still don't think it’ll become my favourite stock with better scanning - but I’m open to being surprised. Eventually when I buy my own scanner I will end up rescanning all the roles I’ve shot for YT videos and probably cringe about all the old opinions I’ve had - but until I can justify the expense, I’ll just have to keep on learning bit by bit and relying on my lab’s expertise. And I'll also eventually get round to buying a meter, but at the moment I'm quite happy with the state of my built in meters - even my Minolta SR-T 101 has a pretty good kicking meter. I took a look at the images you captured at the Wooden Boat Festival on Ultramax, lovely images!

[@AeromaticXD]

Have you managed to save any photos through editing?

[@DaniloAllen]

Sometimes I can - but because of the expenses I usually get jpegs from my lab rather than tiffs

[@AeromaticXD]

Danilo Allen that’s fair, I’ve found a few shots could be saved via editing, and I love Ultramax as a whole

[@BartholomewJenkins69420]

well would u look at that the same guy who made a video on the canon autoboy that i have also made a video on this camera :D

[@DaniloAllen]

Hello there! 😆

[@robertknight4672]

I accidentally deleted my comment about the darkroom. So annoying when two different sites ever similar name. This is the correct link thedarkroom.com

[@DaniloAllen]

thanks!

[@himynameisray3058]

It's a $5 roll of film- period.

[@DaniloAllen]

Where I live it’s actually about the same price as a role of Portra funnily enough

[@cs512tr]

@@DaniloAllen really? that's nuts lol

[@kirkegard2008]

film of 400 iso, is good for sunset o early in the morning, not at 12.00 am.

[@DaniloAllen]

You're not wrong...

[@ianhh23]

Try it on another camera

[@DaniloAllen]

pretty sure it isn't the camera given how I've used it across 3 cameras now and had the same opinion on the stock

[@devroombagchus7460]

I don't know what point you are making. I didn't see similar images with other films. So, the highlights get white. Try a GND filter or compare the image with a picture shot at the same time with e.g. Fuji/portra. Is it a matter of limited dynamic range? Not a very instructive video.

[@DaniloAllen]

I like to approach my reviews in a more real-world experience context, there are a lot of other channels that take more technical approaches (though I am slowly adding more technical information to my videos for the more experienced viewers) - I suggest looking at the Analog Resurgence channel. I've also since uploaded an update to my Ultramax experience if you'd like to take a look.