Average consumer film.... except

color cast, grains.

One of the worst fims I've ever used. After using this film for so long, and using Superia 400 just once, I decided to change to Fuji for my casual shooting. There is always inconsistent greenish or redish color cast. (and that is NOT because of color temp.) EXTREMELY grainy when shooting the sky, especially when it's getting darker. Other than that, contrast, etc, is ok. Gold 200 is much better in that respect. It at least doesn't have the extreme color cast of 400.

Customer Service

none

Similar Products Used:

All Kodak consumer level print films, All Fuji consumer level print films

Price: Usually price= production cost + marketing +R&D However for kodak it is price= production cost + marketing +R&D Available everywhere.

Grain is good by ''80s standards. But it is 2002. Colors are too contrasty, redish

Kodak has been the leading film provider for over three generations. Some of the most significant breakthroughs in film technology is due to Kodak''s R&D. That is why reaching for Kodak films is almost automatic. Kodak however since early ''90s has redirected almost all of its research to digital photography. That is why althought other companies are introducing new technologies and products while Kodak is remains stagnant. Fuji introduced the fourth color layer for more natural color reproduction, and Sigma techonlogy for finer grain. Ilford a tiny british company specializing in B&W introduced chromogenic B&W way before Kodak did. Kodak is simply cashing on its long reputation. Though its products have not gone worse over the years, other companies are currently offering superior films. So next time you need film leave the yellow boxes on the self and get some of the green ones. You won''t see the difference unless you try other brands. The smaller size of grain in Fuji films can be easily seen at 5x7 prints. If you are not satisfied with the color redintion then this is possible because of the photolab. Try a Fuji lab whose printing machines are preset for Fuji films and you will be stunned.

Similar Products Used:

Fuji Superia

good in low light, low graniness

colors tend to wash out

Good film but a little expensive. The value is in the 4 pack. I use it for sports and action shots with a lot of movement. Picks up action with minimal graniness

Similar Products Used:

Kodak Royal Gold 400

None really

Color duller than superia

Not as sharp or bold as superia
Higher price for Kodak name
Grainier than superia

I don't think I have ever bought this film again after trying Superia 400. It's not that it's a bad film, it's more that so much out there is cheaper & superior.

Customer Service

n/a

Similar Products Used:

superia 400, Royal Gold 400

Great detail. Outdoor photography looked really good with accurate saturation.

Indoor use wasn't so hot compared to a roll of Fuji Superia 400 I shot at the same time.

This film was decent for shooting outdoors. Indoors the film did not look as good as the Fuji 400 that I shot. In the end though, it was fairly forgiving with my limited experience.

Customer Service

Haven't needed it yet.

Similar Products Used:

Fuji Superia 400. Agfa HDC 400

Sharp detail and ultravid color saturation with Kodak Processing. I am looking at a picture of a protest of over 100 people and I can read all of signs that the people are carrying. Extra speed allows for greater depth of field. I see beautiful reds and blues. Whites are blessed with being whites, blacks with being black - I see great color fidelity here.

If this film is developed at a discount film developer, quality suffers and too many people in these reviews blame the film rather than the developer. I think that this film has been underated by the other raters that have preceded me.

This and Fuji Superia make very fine choices for high color saturation, fine detail and bold looking pictures - essential ingredient for all those point and shoot zooms out there. The choice between Superia and Kodak Gold should be determined by whatever is cheaper to purchase.
Use a quality lab to get bold saturated colors that you can be proud of. This film makes very good portraits of people and landscape.

Customer Service

I wonder what the run around would be on the computerized call system - probably not a good use of time.

Have not used customer service.

Similar Products Used:

Kodak 100, 200, 400, 800
fuji 100, 200, 400, 800
superia, HQ & fuji reala

None

color too dull and not as clear as fuji

no the best quality for memorable photos

Customer Service

average

Similar Products Used:

fuji 100,200,400 and superiara
kodak gold 100,200,400
and also kodak royal gold 400

Usually readily available at good prices, the usual Kodak in your face colour (if you need or like that feature)

Grainy compared with Fuji Superia 400 or Royal Gold 400

I only use this when I run out of Fuji. It's far too grainy for the close up/enlargement work I do on lizards and insects.

Customer Service

No experience

Similar Products Used:

Fuji Superia 400, Royal Gold 400

You can find this almost anywhere.

Grainy,bad colour.

I can`t understand how anyone can use this film !
Too much grain compared to Fuji.
If you like grain you´d better buy a faster film like Fuji 800(fine grain) or Fuji 1600.
But all reviewers on this page has different levels in their "travel of photography". and I respect that.But for me as a part time pro.this film sucks!

Customer Service

?

Similar Products Used:

Fuji 400,800.
I have been a copyist in a lab for 4 years.
(Analog Fuji lab)

Inexpensive

- Too grainy
- Bad color representation and contrast

I'm going to try other ISO 400 films and compare, but will try to avoid this film

Similar Products Used:

None