Kodak Ultramax vs Gold with the Canon AE-1

[@liquidgordon]

One of the BEST videos I've seen on film comparisons! Most other "comparison" videos have two different people shooting two different cameras at completely different subjects so it's nearly impossible to actually compare the shots. In this you can really see the difference between the two in the highlights and shadows----Ultramax is more magenta in the highs and cooler in the lows. But both look great!

[@Zetaphotography]

20 bucks you can do your own comparison.

[@Maxfahrer]

Thanks for explaining how you were metering! This was very helpful. However, the camera with the ultramax seems to have a lightleak.

[@cs512tr]

@@trolojolo6178 wtf ..

[@trolojolo6178]

The scammer advertisement is already deleted.

[@trolojolo6178]

@@cs512tr ..

[@jackscarecrow5908]

I feel gold would probably be best with portraits. I love the tone of Ultramax when it came to general scenery

[@alexjcorona2605]

Even though the Ultramax seems more accurate with white balance, there is a feel to the Gold I like, with that warmer aesthetic, which I think works really nicely for certain scenes in the overall colour tone of the image.

[@alex.salcedo.foodie]

If you're using a Kodak Gold 200 or Kodak Ultramax 400, should you halve the ISO/ASA for the vintage look? Thank you

[@bebox7]

The issue with comparisons like this is you introduce the scanner into the equation. Ether the Noritsu or Frontier (which I own) will try to bring up or down the exposure to what it thinks the overall image needs. Then the operator on top of that can add in their own adjustments. Both scanners can also differ from frame to frame even in the same light. The only real way to see the difference between the two films is to lay out the negs on a light table and use something like Lightroom mobile with an inverted screen side by side or something like an Imacon that doesn’t introduce Auto settings at the point of scanning.

[@Dylanwade_]

This was really interesting. The last couple years ive shot near exclusively ultramax because thats what is readily available to me where I live, and ive always wondered what a side by side would look like with Gold. Thanks for doing this.

[@MrSnowmobilefreak]

2:11 is that some light leak going on with the left hand photo?

[@nightfiredance23]

I am very happy with Ultramax.... i faced very big problems with huge grain on Gold.... i feel more confident using Ultramax 400.

[@Raychristofer]

Interesting, thanks for this. I shot a lot of gold but in your tests I prefer ultramax in every shot. The whites seen more crisp and accurate. I actually just uploaded a video on how to develop color film at room temperature and an shocked that the colors also came out better than usual.

[@MrJules39]

This was excellent. Just what I was after. Another channel has done a couple of vids on how poor ultramax is, and people in the comments said he must be overexposing. He was adamant he wasn't. Your photos clearly suggest he was. that tip about metering the shadows was the dog's bollocks, thank you. Very helpful

[@obscura6205]

Thanks Braedon, I’m glad to see these two films compared. Was needing a good side by side comparison because the two films are pretty similar except the slight tones they produce. Any chance we’d get a comparison with fujifilms?

[@TheFilmFellow]

I’ve recently fallen in love again with Ultramax 400. Back in the day it was called Kodak GC400. Definitely a film in the Gold family. This newer version is undoubtedly better than the older one. It’s very versatile and you cannot beat a three pack for $21.

[@davecarrera]

Its the Ultra for me. The Gold has a pinkish hue. Thank you for making this and I wish you well.

[@dominicromo6377]

Can you make video describing differences between exposing for highlights and shadows

[@bobmorr2892]

You should have shot another roll of film in each one switching cameras the ultramax camera looked like it had a leak or a flare or something in several of the shots. If that's not the case the gold was better in nearly every shot in my opinion. Great video, thanks.

[@Oemercurial]

One of the best videos I‘ve seen so far

[@FilmSupplyClub]

So glad to hear that. Thanks so much Omer.

[@TalyaAdams]

Two great budget film stocks. Thanks for doing this side by side video. It helps to get an idea of which you prefer before you go out and buy. Great work as always. 🙂

[@AlexOnStreets]

Great video! Both look great and quite similar but I kinda like the Ultramax more. Abit more character because of the cooler brighter tones.

[@oidualclaudi0]

Why there are more light leaks using the 400 ISO film?

[@skyfaneco5837]

my ae 1 does the same thing with the red blur from what im assuming is the mirror door. but not on every shot. why is that?

[@atroche1978]

The whites in the 400 were definitely whiter, more natural looking. Other than that, great shots! When metering in the shadows, like you did for the stairs, were you using the incident setting or reflective? And can you make a video on that? Pros and cons of one over the other and when to use them? Thanks.

[@FilmSupplyClub]

Great idea for a video! The difference in the shade vs the stairs is that in the shade, I made sure to get a reading in the shadows and then exposed for the shadows. That allowed for the darker areas to be exposed while I knew the highlights would hold up. For the stairs, I made sure the meter was getting the direct sun so the shadows would go dark and the bright, sunlit areas would be properly exposed. I hope that helps. - Braedon

[@dflf]

I hope you fixed the light leaks in the black AE-1

[@nelsonm.5044]

Gold is a little more saturated which I prefer for colorful landscape photo, harsch middle day light you get that yellow tint that I hate. Ultrmax is available only in 24 shots here in Canada, Kodak Gold 36 shots and both cost the same for development

[@TheIrishfitter]

This was so good !!! 🎞

[@mattiashaggstrom2049]

Great comparison video that shows the differences and similarities. One thing that would have been interesting would be a cropped image so that the difference in grain would be viable for comparison. Did you make light metering in box speed or did you over expose the films intentionally?

[@Notmy00000]

can I download the photos via dropbox or ??

[@jusren]

Lovely photos Braedon, out of curiosity what were you doing towards the end with your notes and labelling film?

[@Zetaphotography]

What are the straps

[@royaltykidstv]

So for Kodak Gold 200 your camera has to be at ISO 200 only?

[@mitfuhlenderzuhorer5521]

did you use the same settings for both films ? is that's the case, shouldn't the 400iso film be way brighter ?

[@bebox7]

No he used (for example) 125 f4 for one camera and 250 f4 for another which cancels out the one stop difference between the films.

[@staplercut]

It seems like ultramax has more resolution? Interesting

[@nerwanisnoone1937]

Hmm, interesting, I don't think there was a clear winner personally. It depended a lot on the shot. One thing I noticed was that you were getting a lot more flaring with the ultramax, any idea why that was? I'm new to film, but generally I'd have assumed that was down to the lens if you hadn't said it was the same lens in both cases.

[@SUDISON67]

Probably the seal on the camera is damaged and little light is coming through. It is kinda easy to fix

[@mydigitaldiary5144]

Super helpful and to the point thank youuuu

[@jarrodporter361]

This was an Amazing comparison of both kodak films. In some instances I liked the 200 better. I have seen a lot of recommendations to use 400 ultra max but the 200 is a great contender or maybe you were able to bring out the best in both worlds. Cool California shots too. Thank you!

[@eugenekutz7626]

What’s the name of the first track?

[@wietvrouw]

Did anyone else notice how there were a lot more flares on the ultramax sample pictures? Is this due to some differences in lens coating?

[@FilmSupplyClub]

the flares came from the camera, not the film. It needed a re-sealing.

[@Benjaminjohansson93]

I love Kodak gold, definetly prefer it over any film stock ive tried! Although i have not tried portra 400 yet (so expensive..), i think i would love that as well, feel like it is similar but 400.

[@davescholten5246]

is it me or does ultramax have more of a fuji profile?

[@staplercut]

Gompared to gold - yes, overall cooler and the greens has this minty tone.

[@introbikes451]

Canon AE-1 is Really a Great Film Camera, Images are very Sharp , Both Of The Films Are Very Very Good, Personally I Love To Shoot with Ultramax 400

[@curtypachec6055]

Gold 200 is “the look”

[@bfunirfeyh5822]

Thank you 🙏

[@brettwood737]

Given the price hike for portra these may become much more popular

[@TheBigNegative-PhotoChannel]

Not even that big a difference. The question would still be how much the laboratory influences the white balance. I have already seen videos where kodak gold was really really yellow.

[@FilmSupplyClub]

Very true. In those videos, I'd guess the film was underexposed and a lab makes a major difference. The film overall is really similar. I've found the Gold definitely has warmer tones than the Ultramax but both films are fairly cheap and good.

[@Galyouth]

I feel like gold is a little more crisp and down to earth but ultramax is slightly more exaggerated in its saturation and brightness. I'd choose the gold

[@Zetaphotography]

Few issues. Why post a video and never QA it. Muted shadows and bad light seals or something else going on with the camera. Why are the prices on the website 2x and 3x more expensive than anywhere else.

[@mariannecristytabanag7681]

Thanks for this!

[@rogerbranker7983]

Great video! The difference between the two films are slight but my question is... Why didn't you use the same ASA for both film, instead of one being 200 and the other being 400?

[@elfoares]

Hi Roger, Because, if I'm not wrong, Kodak Gold 400 and Kodak Ultramax 200 do not exist. Gold exists only on 200 ISO and Ultramax only on 400 ISO, so such a comparison as you presented is not possible. cheers and have a nice day!

[@bhop0073]

@@elfoares Correct.. sort of. Ultramax is what's available now for budget 400, but is pretty much just renamed Gold 400 (as of 2007). The same film stock has had many names over the years. That's why the photos in the video look so similar... so Gold 400 'kinda' does exist, in the form of Ultramax :D

[@jacqueslegouis9632]

Gold does not behave the same whether it is over or under exposed, over exposed it looks super natural almost like portra, but when you’re under exposed that’s when you’ll get that sepia/golden look It is a superb film but just for snapshots, the grain is too strong for big prints

[@bunmeng007]

From my eyes the gold is warmer and Ultramax is more saturated.

[@Jim-vn3gt]

Film colors better than digital.

[@chrisdowswell]

The colour and tone of the Gold..... WINNER WINNER, CHICKEN DINNER!

[@Maartenols]

One camera (the one with the Ultramax) has a huge light leak, the other cam has not. This makes it a useless and unfair comparison. False information. Fun to watch nevertheless. Thanks. Ps. Might put some Ducktape on the cam back, the cam with the light leak, to close it and leave the light out. This might help to make a fair and good comparison.

[@Galyouth]

As someone who is from the East Coast and country. Wherever you're at doesn't look real

[@ramn]

god Los Angeles is beautiful

[@Notmy00000]

👍👍👍👍