-Best purpose film
-Good,vivid colors
-Acceptable grain
-Gives good scanning results

None Yet

I used this film for 5 years while i still had a Nikon point and shot camera.Now i had a film Slr. I always use this film with my P&S because it was the most suitable for almost all situations.Give good vivid colors,indoor and outdoor.Best purpose film ever comparing to agfa Vista 400.I did'nt try Fuji 400 Asa yet

Similar Products Used:

Agfa Vista 400 and a lot other films 100,200,800 speed

-versatility -price -balanced colour -availability

-grain -sharpness -low contrast

I used to use this film because of its versatiliy, availability and price. On all those counts, it's a very good film. However, when enlarged beyond anything but 5 x 7, the grain intrudes. It's OK for a 400-speed film, but still coarse. Colour is fairly balanced, although there's a slightly green hue. The contrast can sometimes be bland, which, combined with the grain, can generate somewhat flat results. All told, this film is good for most conditions and is more readily available (and inexpensive) than almost anything else. But for outdoor shots where sharpness and fine grain are desired, 100-speed films are better. (My current choice is Fujicolor Reala 100)

Customer Service

Never needed

Similar Products Used:

Fujicolor Superia 100, 200, 400 Fujicolor Reala 100 Fujichrome Sensia 100 Kodak 100, 200, 400 H-D

Price Availability Good film for beginers colors are alright

Grain a little too noticeable

This film was the first one I used for multiple reasons: I needed a good film for almost any situation to begin learning photography. Moreover, the price was really nice and it came with a roll of Kodak HD 400. Now I use it for pictures I take during family meetings or with friends.

Similar Products Used:

Kodak ROYAL GOLD 100,200,400 Kodak HD 400 Fuji REALA 100

You can get it everywhere.

It doesn't make me want to run out and make it my film of choice

Point and shoot, this film is OK. SLR, this film doesn't cut it for the important shots. That's where you use the pro film, pay the price and get the great shots! Color in this film isn't as bright and vivid as I'd like to see. Grain is acceptable and I have blown up enlargements off the negs to 8x12 and some have come out well, others less so. In short, it's OK film, but it doesn't wow me.

Similar Products Used:

Portra 400VC, Portra 400UC, Kodak Hi-Def

Adequate color, fine grain, better than MAX 800

That stupid blue tint, more expensive than Fuji Superia Xtra 400 (a much better film)

This film is well, OK. The color is lifelike, the grain is fine, however, that stupid blue tint still shows up, though not as much as in Kodak MAX 800. However, this film is readily available. Still, you could do better (Kodak HD 400 or Fuji Superia Xtra 400) or worse (Kodak MAX 800-yecch!).

Customer Service

Never needed it

Similar Products Used:

Kodak MAX ISO 800, Kodak HD 400, Fuji Superia Xtra 400

Best film for floral close-ups. Moderatge grain lends texture to flower petals.

Not good for landscapes. Landscapes will be washed out and grainy.

I like this film for macro photography of flowers. This film's moderate grain appears to the viewer as texture of the flower if done right. Slower films tend to oversaturate flowers to the point of being unusable splotches of color. DON'T USE FOR LANDSCAPES.

Similar Products Used:

Kodak 100 Kodak 200

Widely Available Good Color Rendition Good Shadow Detail Inexpensive

None

I bought this film to see if it is as poor as many here claim; it is not. I have worked extensively with slide films so I am very careful with my exposures and settings; perhaps the exposure latitude is too narrow for some photographers and/or their equipment (i.e. p&s cameras without manual exposure control). Another probem could be how the negatives are printed, and this is the biggest variable with any color print film. To a degree, printing is subjective. I've gotten some great prints from Wal-Mart and some terrible prints from a custom lab. So, to avoid discrepancies, I print my own enlargements. Thus far, through about ten rolls, I have no complaints. Colors are vivid without being over-saturated, skin tones are accurate, grain is not noticeable (on 6X9 inch prints). For an example of the quality of this film cut and paste the following link to your address bar: http://www3.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=837488 Of all the ISO 400 color negative films I've sampled I like Kodak MAX 400 best.

Customer Service

Haven't needed customer service per se, but Kodak's website is quite informative.

Similar Products Used:

Most Kodak pro films (Portra, Supra, etc) Agfa Vista 400 (purple rendered as navy blue) Fuji (haven't found one film from Fuji to my liking)

Readily availably

Bad color and lack of sharpness.

I bought this film at Walmart in Anchorage, Alaska because it was the only place open after I flew in. After looking at the very limited selection of film I decided on the Kodak Max 400. After the first day of shooting I took my film to Walmart for developing (again, the only place open that time of night) and was dissapointed at the results. Half the pictures had bad color and were lacking sharpness. I thought it must be in the processing and I would get reprints done once I got home. After the next day of shooting I took the film to Kmart. Again, half the pictures were not sharp and lacked realistic color. I tried another roll once I got home and had it developed at a camera shop. Same results. I have NOT used the film since and will not ever again.

Similar Products Used:

Kodak Royal Gold, Fugi, Kodak 160VC and 160NC.

Great color!

A little grain.

I also tried this film to see if it was as bad as others here have said. I must say that I'm very pleased with the results.I have a rebel 2000 with the 50mm 1.8 and the canon 420ex speedlight.I got this setup for christmas so I would have something better than a point and shoot to capture my six month old growing up. I was affraid to try Max 400 after reading all the trash reviews about it. But I saw that some reviewers had good things to say about max. I think max 400 has more vivid color than fuji 400,but it's not as sharp. I wonder if people are getting poor quality shots because of slow lenses or built in flash? Both will make pics come out dark and grainy. Anyway,I shot some picks at normal exposure, and some overexposed by a halve stop. In the over exposed the skin tones were alittle yellowish.I showed this set of prints to my wife,and we both like the correct exposure skin tones better. I like this film,and plan to shoot more of it.We'll see what happens.

Customer Service

none

Similar Products Used:

Fuji extra 400,800 max 800 poloroid 200,400,800(Heard it was really agfa colorvista).

This Film likes greens and blues.

This Film likes greens and blues not whites and reds.

After reading the reviews I just had to try it to see if it was really that bad. It`s not. Overall sharpness/clarity was fine and most colours where life like. However whites had blue tinges to them and reds where quite a bit duller than what we are use to seing with FUGI . Contrary to other`s comments skin tones where good on indoor shots with a flash. Outdoor shots on dull days where right up there given this film`s preference for blues. Any increase in Grain was only noticed on shots without flash. (But not really that different from FUJI) Would buy it again if I was stuck but prefer Fuji Superia Xtra. As this film is more expensive thatn Fugi Xtra (in our area) I gave it a 3 for value. I gave it a 4 in the overall rating because the quality/realism of the blues and greens. (way up there.) For outdoor shots up at the lake this could be your film.

Customer Service

Not a issue.

Similar Products Used:

Blacks, Fugi Superia Xtra, Kodak Gold