Inexpensive, good colour.

little grainy

Last summer when I went to Yunnan province in China for a topic, a friend of mine gave me 10 rolls of Kodak Max. I didn't used it on my SLR, I used all of those 10 rolls on my Yashica T4 super P&S camera within one week. I was quite satisfied with it, indeed. Although under circumstances of backlighting it's quite grainy, it's really working well when well lit. It's suitable for outdoor photography. With the little Carl Zeiss lens on my T4 camera (might not be the reason), the colour is very good. It's a good choice when you are using point and shoot cameras.

Similar Products Used:

most of Kodak and Fuji print films. Some of Konica and Agfa.

Rich colors, fast, clean sharp images,

No more than any other consumer film

Color print film is always grainy when under-exposed. Kodak Max 400 is a great film for most point & shoot cameras. So, I get a little suspicious when people who say they are photographers bang on this film for it's "grain". A simple remedy is to overexpose by 1/5th of an f/stop, and the grain factor is not a problem. It also spins my brain when someone says Fuji is junk, or says Superia is blue and XTRA is green. All of Fujifilm's consumer line of color print film IS Superia, including the XTRA 400 and 800. Someone tried to blame the film for the images being soft. You all have to remember color print films are processed then printed onto paper by a lab processor who may not be attentive to his/her duties. Sometimes things can go awry, and not come out correctly. That's why I prefer to shoot slides for lens sharpness testing. So, when you see reviews about color print films that are all over the map, consider those points. Now, about the Max 400..... I never use it in my SLR's, but my wife uses it in her P&S Olympus Epic. She took it to Disneyland last week and shot some fabulous pics of my grandson. I saw NO grain, and the images were so sharp and clear you could see the fur hairs on Pluto's suit. (Poor guy inside must have been sweating from the hot sun). The film was processed at Sam's Club's One-hour service, which surprised me even more. My daughter uses it in her Nikon One Touch exclusively, and she takes brilliantly colored shots of the grandchildren in their soccer suits, and good action shots on the soccer field.

Similar Products Used:

Agfa, Kodak Gold, Kodachrome 25/64, Ektachrome, Tri-X 400, Plus X pan, Fujichrome Velvia, Fujifilm Superia Reala/ Superia XTRA 400/800. Kodak Portra 160VC, etc.....

Kodak Max is a really good film for beginners, yada yada yada. Only a year ago I would use this film every time, developed at the 1-hour Zellers. And I would get consistent, reliable results. One thing that you can't beat this film on (at least on the consumer market) is pure color accuracy...Fuji's Superia/XTRA line is more saturated, yes, but XTRA leans more towards blues, and Superia towards reds. On MAX, every color comes out the way you originally saw it. Earlier this year I ventured into the Fuji line, and now their premium/pro films (NPH, etc). Just one day when I ran out of film and I was at the mall I bought 3-pack Kodak Max. It's packaged all nice, and they improved the grain structure, which used to be comparable to Fuji Superia 1600! But they really screwed up the skin tones. They came out so YELLOW! ANd I developed them at three different places! I even bought one roll another time (for a whopping $7.something) and the same thing. I honestly think Kodak's "improvements" really suck. Grain's better, yes, but everything else suffers. The film's contrastier as well, and that's a BAD thing in my books. Yuck!

sharp, clear prints

I have used more than 8 rolls of kodak max 400, and i have found that it gives you very sharp images at 4x6. I did shoot with a fuji for a change and result was disappointing all my photos came back with unnatural blue and dark spots. I think kodak is much better than fuji

Clear beautiful photos. No grain.Worked in all conditions.

None

I cannot belive that there is such a wide differance of reviews on Kodak max 400. I found this film to be the best film I have used so far. If anyone should have a problem It should be me. I just bought my first camera three months ago and have used Kodak royal gold 200- Kodak max 400- Fuji X-tra 400 to see what film works best for me. Hands down the Kodak max 400 was the best. Gin clear photos color was beautiful better than royal gold and X-tra. All my photos were of my flower gardens. The best photos were in close ups with macro.

Customer Service

none

Similar Products Used:

Kodak royal gold 200 Fuji X-tra 400

Price, value Color, contrast & sharpness OK for casual shooters

Skin tones inconsistent at times Color, contrast & sharpness not up to snuff for serious shooters & hobbyists

I really do not understand the bad reviews given to this film. Admittedly, this stuff isn't my first choice (Royal Gold), but I've found it at least adequate in most shooting situations. In most cases, it's bad exposure (usually underexposure) that leads to bad pictures. In spite of the fact that this film was designed and marketed for P/S users, SLR users can get at least satisfactory results as well. Overexposing it by about one stop or so should do the trick and fix any grain problem. Personally, I haven't had a bad problem with color, contrast, or sharpness. I've found these to be at least satisfactory. I have to admit that I've had some skin tone problems at times, but even then it wa seldom unfixable. I've got 8x10 enlargements taken with this film with no discernable grain. All in all, at least a satisfactory film. Good choice for P/S users. SLR users just need to remember to overexposure a little. Sure, it's not Royal Gold or Portra, but a respectable film all the same. In my P/S days, my shots came out fine when I kept my shooting within the abilities of my camera. When I didn't, well, they stunk. Now that I'm an SLR user, I've seen that my prints are fine when they're properly exposed. When I blow the exposure, I blow the shot.

Customer Service

N/A

Similar Products Used:

Kodak Royal Gold Fuji Reala, Superia

none

very very pronounce grain when SLIGHTLY underexposed. flat colors...very dull and lifeless

i have read the reviews here and didnt even give the film a chance. until recently when i was asked to shoot an annual dinner and dance, my client wanted me to clear the remaining rolls of kodak 400 MAX that he had. i shot 4 rolls(usually i uses superia 400 fuji). i was shock when the photos came back. grain was so obvious!! A little under and the grains will jump out at you. besides grain, there is no punch in the colors at all. flat and lacks contrast.(sharpness was bad too but main cause is grain) initiately i thought my flash is getting old. i then tried shooting a test roll of fuji 400. the results were back to normal again.i did warned my clients and he regretted it...only when he saw the fuji test pics i did side by side with the kodak pic.to one who hardly compares different film side by side, the kodak is just ok, but when you compare....the kodak is nonsense...

Customer Service

never used

Similar Products Used:

supra400, nph400,superia400(dont use film other them these cos more fimilar with them)

The best choice for P&S owners Good performance (for the price) Good picture quality in day light conditions.

Lacks sharpness Bad grain in underexposed conditions Sometimes skin looks funky - but this may be due to unproper storage of film, or the printing machine messed up.

I must agree with the person below. Though I must be more clear on the issue. This films performance is much better in well-lit conditions. If the object is underexposed the grain'll come up. And I also must add that Kodak made this film for P&S users, not for SLR users, because 70% people who go for SLR would want to buy "professional film" instead, paying a higher price, once again assuming that SLR owners are "advanced" users.

Customer Service

Kodak, unlike any other film maker, provides excellently detailed documents about its films.

Similar Products Used:

A lot

#1 choice for P&S (considering the value) average to good image quality (depending on the shooting conditions) also, print will be a tad better, if processed in Kodak lab

grainy! defenetly not for people who shoot often awful skin tone reproduction

Well, I'm not going to make this film a scapegoat for all our photo troubles. This film is a great buy for...P&S users not SLR users! Person, who paid about 150 USD for his camera would find this film to be a good choice. But us, who paid 450-1500+ USD for their cameras must look for something else, because this film's performance is not suitable for our expensive cameras. I was using it for 1 year now. My bad! I didn't pay attention to HORRIBLE GRAIN, especially in underexposed areas, or shaded faces. It laks sharpness. Forget about "fast-moving objects". I've shot (still studying my camera ;-) football players with my lens at 120mm, with 1/350 sec shutter speed. The result was as if players faces (i shot from 3 rd row) were blobs, grainy, skin looked grayish-brown, and the contour of the player was as it was drawn with crayon! And It was shot using a remote on a tripod. Though at this shutter speed the tripod doesn't matter. P.S I am using Canon A2 SLR camera.

Customer Service

never used. Though Kodak maintains an excellently-informative website

Similar Products Used:

Almost all Konicas, and Agfa (except for pro-films) films.

Cheap (here in Canada I find Kodak and Fuji sell for about the same price), easily available (you can find it everywhere unlike Fuji, and don't even try to find Konica or Agfa), and it gives good results. I would say it is a good choice for P&S zoom cameras.

After reading the reviews here I was a little hesitant to try this film, but I decided to give it a try anyway. In the past I have always used 100 or 200 speed films with good results but I wanted to try a 400 speed film to use in my new Canon P&S zoom camera since the slow lense (at max telephoto) could really benefit with the faster speed film. I must say I was pleasantly surprised at the results. I didn't notice any problems with grain on my 4x6 prints (actually the results were comparable to 4x6 prints with 200 speed film on the same camera). I didn't do any enlargements, but I would think that results should be acceptable up to 8x10. As for colours, they were well saturated and skin tones looked great. I shot a mixture of shots: indoor with flash, outside in bright sun, and outside in low light/overcast - all with good results. I don't understand how people can say that this film is grainy. One reviewer said it was as bad as the old Kodak disk back in the 80's - I had a disk camera in the 80's back when I was a kid and those were grainy!! The only 35 mm shots I have that showed that bad a grain were some shots using Kodak Gold 200 film that were severely underexposed. Perhaps the poor results people have had are due to underexposure. I find that most Canon P&S cameras like the one I have actually overexpose slightly which may be why I got good results with this film. However, my father told me he has used MAX 400 on his Yashica SLR camera with good results as well.

Similar Products Used:

Kodak Gold 100,200 and various Fuji consumer films.