Realistic color and good exposure latitude with excellent grain for an ISO 400 consumer film.

Not as cost effective as comparable Fuji film.

I can't let this film go down like this. I have reviewed this film before but I didn't have much to say about it as I had not used it for a long time. Well recently, inspired by the bad reviews here, I picked up a 4 pack so I could see if the film had truely lost some quality since I last used it when it was "new" and I was a beginner. Well folks I hate to confuse you, what with so many bad reviews of this film, but I just got the 8x10's I had made from a couple of pictures from one of the rolls of film in the 4pk back and I can say that I am very pleased with the results. The enlargments do not appear to to have lost much color or contrast which is a common characteristic for a 35mm ISO 400 film when enlarged beyond 5x7. Speaking of color... it's dead on, better and more realistic than the Fuji IMHO, if it was off I would be looking at the negs and asking for reprints before saying that this is a problem with the film. The grain, which is visible even in enlargments made from ISO 50 film, is acceptable and definitely equal to it's Fuji Superia X-tra competition. This is a result of proper exposure though and I can't gaurentee that you will get the same results, as I use an SLR and I think most people use this film in their usefull but limited P&S cameras. I didn't happen to push the film this time around though it should still have the same latitude as it did when it was "new". This film is a little more money than the Fuji everybody is comparing it too. And I don't blame anybody for saving a dollar or two when they are picking up the most basic of consumer films I've done the same thing. But I don't agree that just because some people have a preferance for a certain brand (similar to Nikon vs. Canon) that this film deserves the wrap it's getting here. I mostly shoot pro film these days and I can't really say that this film will give you the results of Kodak Portra NC/VC, Kodak Supra or even Kodak Royal Gold, BTW Kodak doesn't make any claim that it does compare to those films either, but it is really good for a film that costs around $2.25 a roll when purchased in a 4pk at a discount store. I have to say again though this film does stand up to Fuji's ISO 400 consumer film. So much so, that like Fuji's own ISO 400 Superia X-tra, it is also a better choice than the Fuji Super HQ 200. I can't say that the average consumer should pay the extra

Customer Service

I never know what to put here.

Similar Products Used:

Kodak Portra 400 NC Kodak Supra 400 Kodak Royal Gold 400 Fuji NPH 400 Fuji Superia X-tra 400

Cheap Available

Available everywhere--that means everyone can suffer with it. Cannot render the color purple correctly, just like its cousin Supra 400. I think the new Max may be a slightly watered down version of Supra, so I am not surprised.

I've read that this film is improved, so I picked up a 4 pack at my local store. Frankly, it is worse than it used to be. It doesn't seem as grainy, but colors are off and the film does not handle contrasty light situations at all--not all my film was developed at the same time or at the same place, either. I read in Popular Photography, some of the editors touting this film. How much you pay 'em, Kodak?

Customer Service

Are you listening Big Yellow?

Similar Products Used:

I've used ALL competing consumer film, from Agfa, Fuji, Konica, Mitsubishi and they are all better--even the cheapest versions of those manufacturers (for example Konica VX400, Mitsubishi MX-II). If

skin tones

G R A I N. Dull, lifeless not sharp/clear as fuji 400

I tried one roll to see if the hype was true. It wasn't. Glad I used only one roll.

Customer Service

N/A

Similar Products Used:

KOdak gold 200 & Royal gold 1000 Fuji HQ 100, 200. Superia 400 & 800

zil

Unsharp, grainy, muddy, colour inaccuracies(skies too blue, skin tones all over the shop). Terrible.

Absolutely HORRIBLE. Worse colour film ever used. I would not use it even for free.

Customer Service

none

Similar Products Used:

fuji and B&w

Are there any ???

I bought several rolls of Max 400 and Gold 200 for my trip to Shanghai. Pictures taken from the Max 400 turn out to be excessive grainy and totally unattractive in 4R size, even for pictures taken under the sun. The Gold 200 is OK. I originally wished to buy the Gold 400 instead of the Max, but was told that the Gold 400 has been out of production. I am totally disappointed with this poor product from Kodak. The Fuji Supera 400 is a much better product. It gives acceptable result even in 15R size !! Needless to say, I am angry with the Max as it ruins my beautiful memory in Shanghai. I will not buy any more from Kodak !!

What a bad product! Too much grainy comparing to the Fuji 400. It ruins most of my pictures taken at Shanghai. Will never buy any more from Kodak!! I give it 1 star, because it is the lowest grade available. I would give it a 'zero', if I could.

Similar Products Used:

Fuji

none except you deliberately want coarse grains

unacceptable grains when underexposed, forget enlargement, more expensive than the much better gold 100, no good even for P&S

The price in USD is for a two-roll package in Hong Kong. I''ve observed that these films are coming from Xiamen, China. I don''t know where''re the production lines for other countries. But wherever they''re, and from the reviews below, I''m acertained that they share the same POOR quality. Despite the (deceiving) ads on TV, this film isn''t good even for P&S. The underexposure tolerance is so poor that prints come out coarse and grainy and dull and unpleasant. I''m sure it''s not lab problem as I got consistently bad results from many and even pro labs. If you''re shooting, always overexpose by >1 stop with this film. BUT if 1-stop overexposure is need, then there''s no more reason to use this film over the ISO200 counterpart with much finer grains and consistent performance. The color is saturated and inaccurate, I really can''t imagine why Kodak is pushing out these unreliable products and driving customers away. Didn''t they test the product before marketing it? No wonder Fuji''s Reala and the superia series are becoming more popular than ever.

Customer Service

not needed

Similar Products Used:

all Kodak consumer and prosumer grade products, Fuji Reala

- versatility, durability. - ...advertising? nostalgia? (i used this film alot..I kinda regret it..lol)

- excess grain - average to below average performance in most situations - dull, lifeless colours - cool tinge to colours

Well, this film isn''t that great. It''s not the average-performing, over/under-exposure miracle worker that it''s Gold 200 counterpart is. Instead, while the Kodak Max 400 does provide the versatility that it''s brand name endorses, the actual quality is...kinda not great. I''ve taken alot of pictures with this film, figuring if it was Kodak, it''s gotta be good. It''s kinda sad, really, alot of people will have this state of mind with Kodak''s marketing. I have yet to try the Fuji X-TRA 400; I would like to think that it would excel over the Kodak Max 400, especially considering that the Fuji X-TRA 800 outperforms the Kodak Max 400 in every way imagineable!

Cheap

Washed out no matter what F stop or light, a little grainy.

Thank GOD I didn''t pay for this film. It came with the new N80 I purchased. The phrase "master of all, good at nothing" comes to mind with this film. The colors are very washed out. A little grainy for 400 film. I tried several ways to shoot... In light, low light, flash, sunset. They all came out the same... washed out and gray looking. If it wasn''t for the great camera the film was in, I think they would have been worse.

Similar Products Used:

Fuji Super HQ 400, Kodak Gold 400.

Kodak''''s advertising campaign

Grain, latitude, cost, reds, greens, blues, skin tones.

One of the biggest cons in history. In Australia Kodak Max is marketed under the slogan "All you ever need to know about film". Ironic then that if you knew anything about film that you would know Max is the worst film you can possibly buy. I have seen and tried countless exposure/printing configurations and every result is muddy, grimey and super grainy. If you must buy cheap 400ISO film, just buy Fuji Superior400 - it cost less than Max here and produces quite passable images.

Customer Service

N/A

Similar Products Used:

Nothing similar to Max, but real films like all the Fuji''''s and some Agfa.

Very cheap (where i got it anyway) Good for learning on because if you completly screw up a roll or ten it wont cost you that much. Greens seemed to come out nicely, seems to work much better in direct sun

Grainy Bad colours in shadows Not good for contrasty situations

Lots of people seem to say this film is complete rubbish, which for taking serious photos would be a pretty fair assement. However, if you are just starting to learn photography or are just mucking around then its ok. I got 4 rolls of this stuff for $6 australian (about $3 US) which is much cheaper than paying $9 for one roll of fuji. So if you are just trying to figure out how to get everything to work and how to compose photos this film is pretty good. I took some good photos of the garden on it. But it is pretty grainy. And skin tones in shadow seem to be really red and orange. It also seem to react quite badly to contrasty situations. But this film seems to work well if the whole photo is in direct sunlight and not too heavily shaded in any parts. I give this 4 stars for overall rating because as a dirt cheap film it does its job pretty well :)

Customer Service

For a cheap roll of film?!?!?

Similar Products Used:

Other ISO 400 films