Kodak Gold Max 800 Print Film

Kodak Gold Max 800 Print Film 

DESCRIPTION

This versatile, 800-speed film picks up where 400-speed films leave off. When used indoors, the faster speed extends your flash distance. Outdoors, it stops fast action and allows a faster shutter speed. Ideal for fast action and low light. MAX Versatility Plus Film reduces blur in fast-action shots and captures subjects in low-light conditions. Ideal for fast action and low light.

USER REVIEWS

Showing 1-10 of 42  
[Feb 01, 2004]
basschris
Beginner

Strength:

Absolutely none, except for my one picture that turned out somewhat exceptional. And and I know it wasn't because of how I exposed the picture.

Weakness:

Everything, don't use it. I stopped buying Kodak film after this. Wish I would have used Fuji from the beginning.

Can we say...crap! Horrible grain, colors and everything else. I think I only was able to get one "clean" shot out of the two rolls that I used one time. Simply, I will not use any high ISO Kodak film again. Fuji is MUCH MUCH better.

Customer Service

N/A

Similar Products Used:

Fuji Press 1600, 160 NPS & NPC, Superia xtra 400, Super HQ 200 & 100, Kodak 160 VC, Kodak Zoom 800 (equally as bad).

OVERALL
RATING
1
VALUE
RATING
1
[Dec 28, 2003]
peter
Casual

Strength:

cheap price

Weakness:

other than price

I was curious about this film. It looked fast enough to take my baby pictures. I took two rolls of films at different day but when I got the pictures...they all looked blue!!!!!! And too grainy. So I came here to check what went wrong. Obviously, it was my fault nor the film developing machine. Worst experience with film ever. Can we advertise not to buy this film???

Similar Products Used:

any recommendation for iso 800?

OVERALL
RATING
1
VALUE
RATING
1
[Oct 09, 2003]
rtsphototech
Casual

Strength:

Makes a great gift for the photographer you despise!

Weakness:

Inferior all the way around. Pricing is higher than regular Kodak Max

I shot one roll of this film and it was awful! Bad grain, flat color....all around bad. I also run a photo lab and it seems a majority of rolls of this film I've developed have had the same problems. As much as I'd like to find something nice to say about this stuff, I just can't!

Similar Products Used:

Royal Gold 400 Portra VC Ilford XP-2

OVERALL
RATING
1
VALUE
RATING
1
[Sep 10, 2003]
Arjen
Professional

Strength:

Well, maybe useful for some project where you need photo's that look absolutely crappy.

Weakness:

Looks crappy: colours, grain, unsharp, flare, and lots of it all.

I thought I had made a huge mistake when making the photo's. It all looks underexposed, bad colours, weak blacks, terrible grain. After reading some reviews here I realise I made a mistake purchasing this film.

Similar Products Used:

Fuji press 800 Fuji Superia 1600 Kodak Gold 400

OVERALL
RATING
1
VALUE
RATING
1
[May 30, 2003]
Thomas Bailey
Expert

I find this film to be quite good, but not exceptional. For photographing vacations, trips, etc, this is a competant film. At ISO 800, it is sufficient for most conditions. If I want more speed, I will use 1600 or 3200-speed

OVERALL
RATING
3
VALUE
RATING
4
[Apr 30, 2003]
bloys
Expert

Strength:

None

Weakness:

Grainy and bad quality colors

This was a promtional package with 3 rolls color and 1 roll B&W. I am a free-lance photographer and use a Canon Elan IIE for my work. In a weak moment, I tried this film for some family shots over Easter. The results were grainy, blurred, lots of flare, almost impossible to correct in Photoshop 7, and caused me lots of problems with quality. Forunately, I tried this substandard product on family shots before using it for paying jobs. The B&W film was just as bad. Suggest junking any which you may be storing in the fridge. For a while I thought that my trusty Canon was ill. Then my wife reminded me what I had used.

Similar Products Used:

Kodax Max 400 and HD 400, TRI-X (B&W), Ilford 5 (B&W)

OVERALL
RATING
1
VALUE
RATING
1
[Feb 02, 2003]
chenjoseph
Intermediate

Strength:

Inexpensive and widely available.

Weakness:

Needs to be overexposed.

This film is really not so bad, but it does require a fair amount of tweaking to get it to look right. Firstly, it is not at its best at ISO 800. Increasing exposure to ISO 640 or 500 dramatically improves the grain and detail situation, although this defeats the purpose of an 800 speed film. It is not terribly sharp, and it can yield some peculiar colors. Nevertheless, it is a reasonable higher speed film that is widely available and fairly inexpensive at CostCo.

OVERALL
RATING
3
VALUE
RATING
4
[Sep 03, 2002]
LongLiveFilm
Intermediate

Strength:

None.

Weakness:

This is the worst film ever made. Like I have said, you could feed silver bromide to a cow and expose better pictures on its subsequent droppings.o

Somebody at Kodak has suffered more brain damage than Ozzy Osbourne. Why? Every commercial I have seen on TV for Kodak, and the boxes of every other film they make, are calling this crap the best film they make. If you go someplace and pick up a roll of 100 or 200 film (good stuff), it'll say on the back "Next time, try Kodak Max 800" and shows a blatant piece of disinformation where 100 film is shown as lousy and 800 is shown as clear and sharp. Kodak needs to stop this deception immediately so that our families can pass decent photographic heirlooms to their children. I could take clearer, sharper pictures by sticking a pellet of horse droppings soaked in film emulsion into my camera. 800 MAX IS CRAP!! STAY AWAY!!!.

Customer Service

Kodak needs to quit lying to the masses about this sh*t with sprocket holes.

Similar Products Used:

I don't trust Max 800. I have only used it because my parents gave me some with my new Nikon FM10 for Christmas.v

OVERALL
RATING
1
VALUE
RATING
4
[Jun 08, 2002]
kilowhiskey99
Intermediate

Strength:

This website won't let me rate this as a zero, so I have to give it 1 star.

Weakness:

It ruined my photo trip, would have had some nice ones if not for this film. Awful grain, bland colors.

Can I rate this film a zero? There must be a reason why I had a couple of rolls of this rotting away in my freezer. Apparently I had used some before and decided I didn't like it and tossed it there. I reminded myself how bad it was when I used it last weekend and wasted a whole shooting trip. This film isn't even worth shooting if it was free. It will be a total waste of developing cost and a waste of your photo shoot. This film is awful, I can't believe they would market this stuff. Apparently it was designed for the average know-nothing consumer who doesn't care how the pictures turn out, or maybe Kodak was banking on people thinking they just took bad pictures. The grain is so awful and the colors are terrible.

OVERALL
RATING
1
VALUE
RATING
1
[May 31, 2002]
min123
Intermediate

Strength:

cheap, but so is the quality. Stick with fuji 800 extra if on budget

Weakness:

grain color waste of developing costs waste of camera battery

This is for the 800 gold max. It came in a four pack with three 100 golds. Very disappointed. Grain is huge. What the heck are those idots at kodak thinking! Why do they still have the 400 and 800 max so crappy. I love Kodak's other films, but give me a break. I use gold 100s for its saturated colors, and i keep teh 100 golds and give the 800max to my my parent who dont care how pictures turn out, so long as they turn out. (But i feel bad giving them such terrible film, [bad son])

Customer Service

na

Similar Products Used:

nps tmax reala gold 100, 200, 400 fuji 400,800 .... etc

OVERALL
RATING
1
VALUE
RATING
1
Showing 1-10 of 42  

(C) Copyright 1996-2018. All Rights Reserved.

photographyreview.com and the ConsumerReview Network are business units of Invenda Corporation

Other Web Sites in the ConsumerReview Network:

mtbr.com | roadbikereview.com | carreview.com | photographyreview.com | audioreview.com