Kodak UltraMax 400 | The Worst of Kodak's Budget Film Stocks (but it’s still okay)

[@goldenhourkodak]

Nope. I love this film. Gold 200 + Ultramax 400 is life.

[@DaniloAllen]

I did enjoy the underexposed Ultramax a little bit. It's not a terrible option by any means - just not my favourite when it comes to the budget Kodak options. Gold 200 is life though! I'll probably have to revisit Ultramax again in another year and see if I like it more!

[@Peppermint1]

What kind of post processing went into this ? The ultramax will never have such strong colors and contrast. Also the pictures seem quite blurred.

[@COZITIME]

I'd be lying if I said the vid wasn't nice and relaxing. Really like this style.

[@DaniloAllen]

😊 thanks

[@jakesteurrys4225]

This film has never given me any problems.

[@DaniloAllen]

wow! how often do you shoot with it?

[@carlosfernandoruizlaos8254]

Great . This video and it's comments has given me enough info to know how to work with this film. Thanks

[@DaniloAllen]

Glad it was helpful!

[@SettyM]

For everyday street photography, I’ve gotten great results.

[@michaelc4917]

I am like you, starting my film photography with 4 rolls of Kodak ultramax. I just got my first 2 rolls scans back, opened the files and I was ready to throw away all my film cameras and the two ultramax into the garbage. The resolution (2000x3000) of scans look worst than my Nikon d40 and the grains look like my D2X in iso 800. Just about to give up on film and then I found your channel. I look at the meta on my scans and they were scanned on a Noritsu. Thanks for giving me hope. From now on I would see which scanner they use to scan the negative.

[@DaniloAllen]

Shoot again and maybe play around with your metering, maybe expose 1 stop brighter to minimise grain. Let me know how you go 😊

[@michaelc4917]

@@DaniloAllen I brought two other rolls of ultramax to another place for developing and scanning and the results are better. However, I feel like the resolution 3000x2000 is still a bit too low for 35mm film. What resolution do you get from your scans? Are 3000x2000 pretty much standard everywhere?

[@joeltunnah]

@@michaelc4917 I scan my own 35mm at 3600dpi, which works out to about 5000 x 3300.

[@DaniloAllen]

@@michaelc4917 Just realised I never replied! My lab provides me with scans at 2433 × 3637, and thought it'd be nice to have more detail, I'm more than happy with that kind of resolution

[@PentusFtw]

lol I love the noristu scanner. I feel like I get better scans that way. The one time I had my lab scan with frontier, I hated them.

[@DaniloAllen]

What do you like to shoot mostly? It’s interesting how diverse an experience there is with film photography hey?

[@phillnavin1212]

I really like it, especially for it’s price. Looks like you might of overexposed shots there. Also, interested why you used so fast shutter speeds on some of these.

[@DaniloAllen]

Just to get nice and sharp motion - and I like a shallow depth of field. Which shots feel overexposed to you? My lab does go for a brighter look with their scans.

[@joeltunnah]

It has nothing to do with exposure. It’s a scanning and processing problem.

[@NGameReviews]

On your other videos of UltraMax I was surprised you were getting very bad results. I've had FilmNeverDies here in Melbourne develop and scan my rolls and I haven't experienced the massive contrast issue you had, and so I was quite happy with this film. Still, it does have a distinct look, and there can be a strong amount of contrast between highlights and shadows depending on the situation. So I do understand why you wouldn't enjoy it, and it seemed you were unlucky because as you said it was processed a bit differently by your lab the other times, possibly multiplying that bad characteristic. Good to see that it looks fine for the most part here though.

[@Pocket_Stuff]

Nice video! You could try scanning the negatives yourself with a macro lens and digital camera then inverting it in lightroom. It gives you the most control over the contrast, maybe you'll like it better.

[@DaniloAllen]

I’d really like to give that a try, but I don’t own a macro lens or any of the kit that I’d need to make that work. Do you do that for your images?

[@Pocket_Stuff]

@@DaniloAllen That's what I'm going to start doing

[@cameronwilson8561]

Can’t say I am a huge fan of this film either. I’ve taken portraits where the subjects skin tones resemble Barnaby Joyce after a session on the turps. Tree trunks and asphalt also has a reddish magenta cast which I am not a huge fan of either.

[@DaniloAllen]

😂😂 this is one of the best comments I’ve probably ever had on my channel. What a description of skin tones - it’s very vivid 😂

[@mxbunnycatter]

I really love the landscapes pictures, tho... I really want to load up my camera with ultramax now, (which at the time of writing has an expired roll of lomo x-pro 200 on board)

[@DaniloAllen]

How expired is the x-pro? That should be fun

[@mxbunnycatter]

@@DaniloAllen gosh... Uhhh... 2014, I think, I bought it; and then it doesn't the better half of 2016 to 2020 in various climates, because I had to move and stuff, and it's an expired emulsion to begin with, as far as some sources say (derived from the agfa aerial slide film, iirc)

[@DaniloAllen]

Nailing exposure should be tricky then, I’d be curious to see how it turns out

[@renatamachadomedeiros2557]

Beautiful ! I like the mood! Buena onda!

[@DaniloAllen]

Thank you!!

[@rarvizu2]

Awesome to see a fellow film photographer but why are you so close to the camera 😂

[@DaniloAllen]

Does it feel too close to you? I guess I film my talking heads like that - because when if first joined KZbin way back when that was the style

[@IdleSummer]

@@DaniloAllen Just a wee bit

[@rarvizu2]

@@DaniloAllen lol don’t listen to me, obviously it’s working for you!! Keep up the great content!

[@DaniloAllen]

I can see it now, my most recent video was shot with me further back and it feels much better 😂 let me know what you think

[@deadpool6072]

Kodak Ultramax is just Kodak Gold 400.