Why is Kodak Ultramax so underrated?

Kodak Ultramax is often overlooked when it comes to 35mm film stocks in favour of Portra 400, but is it really all that bad and why aren't more people using it as their daily go to film? Ideal for point and shoot cameras while also being amazing for SLR's, why does everyone seem to be sleeping on Ultramax?
Somewhat of a ranty video focusing in on the benefits or Ultramax 400 in comparison to its main competition Portra 400. Not an in depth side by side comparison but my thoughts and why I think you should take note.
Support my channel: buymeacoffee.com/maxlamdin
If you have any questions please leave them in the comments and i will get back to you with an answer.
My Photography:
www.maxlamdin.com
/ the_maxines
Thanks for watching

[@marisawu3646]

Thank you! I also feel like Ultramax 400 is so underrated…people just sorta start with and then settle with Gold 200. Other film stocks are actually so worth it! Truly envious of your fujifilm stock😩😩

[@MaxLamdin]

the gold 200 is good but there's so much more to be had with the ultramax! i'm getting to a point where i don't know whether to hold onto the pro400h or sell it…

[@Timaraxian]

Just bought a 3-pack of ultramax to test in my new camera. I have found ultramax to be the most forgiving film in situations when I mess up my settings

[@MaxLamdin]

its got good range and lovely colours so its usually a safe bet to get something decent even if you do get settings wrong

[@jerfareza]

Yeah this is my go-to film stock. It's cheaper than most and it has quite the range for any situation. I think I use it for like 70% of the time.

[@MaxLamdin]

it's a perfect all-rounder film!

[@TheChicoRios]

YES! I started taking analog photos recently and I was recommended the Portra. It's nice, but I always felt it's kinda too vanilla as it is. More recently, I started using Ultramax and I'm really liking it. The colours are more vivid right out of the lab. I recently saw another KZbinr saying that Portra is more suitable if you really wanna go crazy into analog photography (if you plan to edit your photos, print them really big, etc). I use a SLR (not a poin-and-shoot), but I'm also not into editing or anything, so I switched to Ultramax recently and I'm quite happy with the results. Also, my wife got a Kodak Ektar and she only uses Ultramax on her camera - and the photos turn out really good, even with such a simple camera.

[@MaxLamdin]

it's always worth experimenting with film stocks as it's something else to get you a final result you're happy with. Portra is a lovely film but it serves a specific purpose, it isn't the best film outright and i think people forget that. I've never been happy with my results from Ektar but i'm glad to hear you liked the results!

[@oldico5597]

There is indeed another non-Kodak 400 ISO colour negative film on the market right now; ORWO Wolfen NC500. It's a new emulsion created by Filmotec and InovisCoat (and probably has something to do with Adox Color Mission CM 200) - plus there is apparently an "NC400 Limited Edition" film related being offered besides NC500. There are also, of course, a few new 200 ISO films like Colour Mission CM 200 and Ilford Phoenix 200 that might get some higher-ISO offshoots at some point.

[@MaxLamdin]

forgot about the ORWO, seems tricky to get a hold of in the U.K.? the 200 ISO stocks are a good start and hopefully lead to better things

[@adamthomasadamthomas]

Gonna give it a go!

[@MaxLamdin]

come back to let me know what you think!

[@iangeorge7913]

I started out on Ultramax based on a recomendaron from a guy at the camera shop and really like it! I haven't spent a lot of time with other stocks (besides black and white) but I also haven't felt the need to which I think says a lot.

[@MaxLamdin]

yes! it's such a solid all-rounder, stick with what works best for you

[@seanmcmaster4856]

Ultramax is great. I don't mind the grain either. The colors are great and I rarely find the need to edit them in Lightroom. Not to mention it's one of the cheapest color film stocks in the US.

[@MaxLamdin]

mid priced film here at about £12-13 but still well worth it compared to £20 for Portra 400

[@seanmcmaster4856]

@@MaxLamdin when purchased in multipacks at B&H NYC, Ultramax is $8.70, and Porta 400 is $15.

[@Thejunoroux]

@@MaxLamdinif you have a big Tesco with a Max Spielmann photo shop section in it, they’ve just reduced the price on ultramax down to £10 for the 24exp… didn’t get the 36exp price though

[@MaxLamdin]

thank you for the tip i'll have to keep an eye out, but even at normal price it's still better value than Portra

[@Coolgamer484]

bro is blowing up my spot [good video (I watched on 1.5x)]

[@MaxLamdin]

even i feel the need to watch a 1.5x sometimes…

[@mjbxxv]

Been shooting commercial for 9 years and shoot ultramax along side Portra 400. It’s only the KZbin “photographers” who hype up gold 200. Clients don’t sit there and look at the differences between film stocks. They just want good product and emotion. The Ultramax blue, red and gold tones in combination are just bliss. I hope people spend their limited time on this earth to go out and shoot and enjoy the art and process rather than basing their choices on hype. Thanks for spitting facts 👏🏽

[@MaxLamdin]

so true, thank you for your input I greatly appreciate it!

[@geimzz]

I’m currently shooting my first roll of Candido 400 (respooled vision 250D?)

[@MaxLamdin]

i believe it is 250D, i've never tried the Candido films not sure how i feel about the 250D in general😂 hope it turns out well

[@VariTimo]

You’re Portra 400 problems sound like they’re coming from scanning. The scanner is about half the look and with a Frontier scan you usually get pretty cool shadows and overall neutral slightly colors from Portra 400 straight out of the gate. Of course the corrections the scanner operator makes play a huge roll. But if you scan yourself with NLP I suggest trying the Frontier model with the Crystal LUT at 50%. I also prefer to correct colors using the RGB/CMY sliders in NLP or on my scanner, not just because it emulates the way a darkroom color head works but also because that’s what color negative film is designed to be corrected with. I do find Noritsu scans give me warmer more muddy shadows.

[@MaxLamdin]

very useful advice, I have had Portra scanned on Epsons, Noritsu and Frontier and found similar results even when adjusting using CMY sliders but the NLP presents could be a nice alternative

[@fries4450]

I shot a lot of Ultramax when starting out and never liked the results. While watching this I went back to look at those pictures and realized that it wasn't the film that didn't perform. Although I still think the greens are a bit too strong I'm now open to give it a second chance.

[@MaxLamdin]

glad my little video was able to do that for you, film stocks are a very personal choice and ultramax isn't for everyone but it's definitely worth a try as i think most people over look it

[@albertofernandez-sanguino3373]

How about Ilfocolor 400? Any opinions?

[@MaxLamdin]

Ilfocolor isn't something i've ever come across here in the UK, from what i've heard and read it sounds like it's repackaged film but i'm not sure where it originates from?

[@albertofernandez-sanguino3373]

@@MaxLamdin Apparently it's from Ilford Germany.....go figure!! Today went into my local photography shop and asked if they had any Harman Phoenix 200..... The guy was stunned 😯 Had never heard of it.... Phoned his supplier who said they could get some to him by Wed. So will be trying something new out, cost €13 /36 exp. As an aside he stocks a film called SantaColor100.... Which left me stunned 😯 Never heard of it. He told me it's produced in Canada and is similar to Ekta 100 but with very fine grain. Not cheap though at €19.90 for 36 exp. Will perhaps try out sometime this summer

[@MaxLamdin]

very interesting, I knew there was an Ilford based in Germany but didn't know they were producing Ilfocolor! I wonder if there's a issue with trade names as I think they are now two separate companies after Ilford(UK) was purchased by Harman back in 2009(?)

[@chriszueger]

Ultramax in 120, that would be amazing!

[@MaxLamdin]

tell me about it!

[@gavinjenkins899]

I picked this one as by far the winner for me when I looked at blind side by side tests with no consideration of price etc. So, not "better for budget, if you can't afford portra" just "better, period, even if you handed me portra for the same price". I don't understand the logic of it being "intended to be edited". You can also edit something that starts out looking better and make it look even more better-er...? Dynamic range, sure maybe, but in no sample images I've seen has it seemed important to be whether you can see a burger wrapper in the deep shadows of some alleyway or not.

[@MaxLamdin]

true but the portra was designed specifically for professional shoots where images would be edited so it's designed to be a flatter image to give a wider dynamic range for a more versatile edit

[@123moe]

Apparently just like how Fuji 200 is rebranded Kodak Gold, Fuji 400 is ultramax 😭

[@MaxLamdin]

i think there are some alterations between the Fuji and Kodak films, although both (supposedly) made my kodak, the fuji still has better greens imo

[@123moe]

@@MaxLamdin oooo okay hopefully you're right! the thought of being down to 2/3 colour consumer grade films is dreadful, so even a small difference is a good thing

[@MaxLamdin]

yeah I was quite relieved when I saw results from the Fuji as it didn't look like just rebadged gold/ultrmax

[@maxbashyrov5785]

portra 400 is actually two times (100%) more expensive.

[@MaxLamdin]

you're right, as you can see maths is not my strong suit😂