Kodak SUPRA 400 Film

This review is of the 'domestic for export' version of the film. Beautiful colors. Well saturated. Pictures were very sharp and had very low grain for a 400 speed film. Even for some consumer 100s. I haven't tried blowing any up yet, but even in heavily underexposed areas there is almost no visible grain on a 4 x 6. Had no problems with reds, or any color for that matter. Fair skin was not quite exact, but accurate. Only a few shots had slightly reddish skin, that was easily corrected. But, if you're looking for dead on skin tones, you should be using a portrait film anyway. This film is more than good enough for all around pictures, including people. Way better with fair skin, than Fuji Superia 400 or 800. I'm curious if the people that had problems with color, used the foreign imported version, and/or had their's devoloped on a Fuji machine or fuji paper. I hear this film doesn't do so well with Fuji processing. Also, Kodak is making alot of changes with their film lately. Royal Gold 400 film was changed while keeping the same name. Then the film was unchanged while the name changed to High Definition 400, which also happens to be the same film as Royal Supra 400 which is sold on the foreign market. Maybe Supra 400 also went through some changes. That's all complete speculation on my part though. If you go through alot of film, you can get 720 exposures for about $65 shipped from B&H, which comes out to $2.13 per 24 exposures. Very cheap. Even cheaper if you go with the imported stuff, but I won't chance it when buying that much.

Very sharp. Very low grain. Accurate colors even with people. Price in bulk is less than average consumer film.

Not many. Too contrasty for mid-day sun, but you shouldn't expect great pictures under these conditoins anyway, and then you shouldn't be using a 400 speed film.

Used to use Royal Gold 400 for everyday. I've switched to this film for less than half the price. Portra 160 NC Fuji Superia 400/800 Kodak Gold 400

N/A

Pretty good film, but I don't think I'll use it in high contrast situations again. I took a few rolls to Rome about a month ago and most of my Colloseum shots - many taken about 1 hour before sunset- turned out way too contrasty(even shot at 400 ISO). Only after a half hour of PS manipulation did I manage to potray the scene as I saw it.

Contrast and color

Contrast and grain. I think NPH would be a better choice all around.

NPH, NPC, NPS, Supra 100, Superia Reala, Velvia, Sensia

Note: this review is based on 35mm daylight shooting and home film scanning. I''m normally a Fuji fan, but this is one Kodak film that will find its way into my regular shooting. Kodak Supra 400 has very good grain. I''m usually not happy with 8x10''s from 400 speed films, but I''ve been happy with every enlargement so far from this film. This despite the fact that my scanner tends to exaggerate grain AND I''m a big unsharp mask fan. There tends to be more grain in deep shadows, but this isn''t too much of a problem. I bet if techniques were used to minimize grain, you could easily get a small poster from Supra 400. It has nice, saturated colors suitable to most subjects. If you like films that "pop", you''ll like Supra. The color palette is much more pleasing to me than Kodak''s consumer MAX film (which I hate). This is an ideal "amusement park" film (Disneyland; Sea World), and Kodak would help their image and sales if they would drop MAX and push this instead. This film is very easy to scan. Minor color tweak and you''re ready to print. Can''t beat that. Finally, this is a pretty sharp film for 400 speed. It won''t beat the finer 100 speed films out there, but it''s impressive.

* Fine grain. 8x10''s are grainless at normal viewing distances. I think I would be happy with a small poster enlargement from this film! * Saturated colors that "pop". * Easy to scan; minimal color correction needed. * Sharp for a 400 film.

* Shadows have more grain than the rest of the image. * A little too much contrast/saturation for some subjects. * Kodak markets this as a pro film, so it''s pretty expensive in most local stores. Buy from a reputable mail order house like B&H that can get the USAW version cheap.

Fuji NPH; Royal Gold 400; Superia 400; MAX 400 (yuck).

Not needed.

Best 400 Speed Colour Film for the price. I use it exclusively for scanning and the lab prints for 1 hour are mixed mostly from the lack of operator care. Cheaper than Royal (although price is increasing) and I have a hard time telling the differnce between Supra 100 and Supra 400. The extra stop is worth the small trade off in grain. I like to shoot primes handheld and the extra stop at sunset helps a lot. Colours with the proper tweeking are slightly exaggerated but provide good "pop" and some of the seascapes I have taken are really breathtaking. Accidently shot half a roll at 800 and negatives looked fine. Watch out for high contrast light/shadow areas but you shouldn''t be expecting great pictures in this enviroment anyway

Price (for now) Speed vs Grain Scans well

Hard to find and expensive locally. (I mail order mine from B&H and get grey market). Recently somewhat in short supply. Print operator can screw it up pretty easily and 2 Fuji Frontier machines at Longs Drugs brinted them with too much Cyan.

Agfa HDC Fuji Print Kodak Max (yuck)

Kodak emailed me within 1 day regarding supply problem.

This is my first time taking pictures with this film. Overall, I''m very happy with the color rendition and contrast of this film. I shot pictures of UCLA on a sunny day using a circular polarizer, and the pictures have an almost 3D-like quality. However, my husband, who is caucasian, looks sort of pink in the photo. I think for portraits I''ll stick with Fuji NPH. But for general photography, I think this film is for me.

Contrasty, nice colors- just a notch more "hyper" than reality- which I like.

Probably a little too contrasty for photographing people. Skin tone looked a little too pink to me.

Fuji NPH, Kodak Max 400, Afga Optima II 400, Fuji Superia 400

N/A