Kodak Gold ISO 400

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.

Average consumer film.... except

color cast, grains.

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

none

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.

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

Fuji Superia

Developed one roll of film in lab using Kodak Image Check. The pictures turned out out of this world with sharp color, excellent contrast and no sign of grains. Picture quality comparable to Fuji reala. Skin tone was superb. The flowers came out with razor sharpness and real color.

Faster

None

Fuji reala
Kodak gold 100, 200
Fuji superia

This is at least a good film in spite of other reviews, IMO. Every bit as good as other films at at this end of the price spectrum. I reccommmend this to almost any ameteur. Great for travel or when you don't know where, when, or under what conditions you'll take your next shot- i.e. very versitile. O sure, you'd choose something of a higher quality if you have an editor bankrolling your film for you. However, this is a very good choice for the budget minded.
Don't compare it to pro grade films & you won't be disappionted.

Inexpensive
Consistant print quality
Good color & contrast
Good "jack of all trades" choice
Very versitile

???

Fuji
Polaroid

N/A

A great inexpensive color film. I have used this for years & have always found at least satisfactory. I come back to it time & again. Granted, this is by no means the choice of pros. However, this is a great economical choice for those of us who don't have an editor to bankroll our film & equipment.

I'd reccommend this to anybody.

Very good contrast
Images sharp
Captures color quite well
Inexpensive

Fuji, Poloroid

Never needed