Film Reviews

Further :
I am curious if this Kodachrome 200 is delivered with a developping envelope for Europe...........

Please tell me .

pj@steinmeijer.net

This film has great color reproduction and performance. I would give this film 5 stars except for the fact that Fujifilm Superia X-TRA 400 provides similar performance for a cheaper price.

I am not a professional photographer. I just happen to be a grandson of one. I use a fully manual Canon TX SLR for my work. So far I've shot 5 rolls of this stuff. Every time there has been something wrong with the camera/me/lighting. Every time I got a usable, and sometimes, great print. This film has a huge exposure latitute (you can really screw up and still get an image) When I show these prints to others, they look at me funny and say, "This is ISO 400?" It has REALLY fine grain. And because it's ISO 400, you can use it for almost anything (I got usable prints after shooting a soccer game: My camera was set at ISO 100 and there were light leaks in the camera door). It's a great film, although I'm told the Royal Gold it replaces is still better. Pick up a pack of this and see what you get. You'll be amazed.

I have not been a huge fan of 400-speed film in the past. It could be that I'm not a professional photographer and therefore have not been using it properly (I have been using it primarily in shade and somewhat low-light situations, both in my point-and-shoot and SLR), but no matter how I've tried to use it, I've always found it to be grainier than I would have liked it to be, regardless of the brand I selected. I decided to try this film on a whim, as I knew I would be taking some pictures in a situation where the Kodak 200 Gold just wasn't going to cut it (fairly subdued light action shots, no flash allowed), and lo and behold, this film did the trick. Granted, I was using a fast 50mm lens with the f-stop generally set between 1.4 and 2.0, so I had speed on my side, but what really impressed me was that this film showed virtually no grain. I really had to look for it in some poorly exposed images. Also, the colors were very true to the setting.

The most recent role of this film I shot in the Rushmore Cave in South Dakota. As you might imagine, it was pretty dark in there, with ambient light coming from strategically placed lightbulbs here and there. I loaded this film by accident, instead intending to load a roll of 800 I had (I will review the Fuji 800 (NPZ, I believe) I used at another time - the best 800 I've ever used). However, after I discovered I loaded the wrong film I decided to give it a try, especially considering that the mid-roll rewind on my camera had failed me a few hours prior. So I went into the cave with this film loaded and the same Canon 50mm 1.4 lens I mentioned before hoping to be lucky and get something out of the pictures. It ended up being a most auspicious mistake, and those pictures are amongst my favorite of the whole trip. I took a few pictures using a flash, but I wanted to try to make the most of the ambient light. I was amazed to get back these crisp, clear photos with colors so warm and vibrant, and again, very true to life. To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure if the photo lab pushed the film or not. I did not ask them to. So if you try this film in a very dim/dark situation, you may want to experiment and ask your lab to push a role or two, and process a role or two as they normally would. Somewhere you will find a result which is most pleasing.

I have yet to try this film with a point-and-shoot, but I expect it would produce excellent results, as well. Finally, for those of you who like to shoot 200-speed film, Kodak's new High Definition 200 is excellent, as well. I am now using it as my general purpose film, and even favor it over Kodak's 100 Gold. When Amazon starts carrying it, I will be reviewing it, too.

According to Kodak, the new High Definition is actually Royal Gold repackaged. I own 2 Nikon N80s, and did a side-by-side comparison of the HD against Konica. HD has the beautiful greens that Fuji is well-known for, but also softer, warmer skin tones. It's the best film around. However, it's cheaper just about anywhere else from KMart to B&H.

FYI, the Konica greens were very blue in tone.

I grabbed a roll of 800 speed film by mistake once and have avoided it like the plague ever since that day. For regular photography 800 speed is a waste and causes the photographer to give up a lot of detail and color in their pictures. I used a roll for a trip to Las Vegas and regret it to this day because of the colorless grainy pictures I got with that roll. On the same trip under the same lighting with the sme camera, my pictures using both 200 and 400 speed film are much clearer and have a lto more saturation of color and detail. Under specific circumstances this film could be useful, but skill with a camera and aperture/shutter speed settings will do the same on a good camera with lower speed film and make better pictures.

... I would dare to say the photo-finishing lab has a lot to do with the results you see. I was horrified by one lab I tried recently. Incompetence in the lab can totally ruin your prized shots. As always, it's best to shoot a test roll or two and make sure you don't photograph anything you can't reshoot later. Test a new lab the same way, with photos that can be redone.
Keep this film cool. Refrigerate unopened rolls and let them aclimate before using. Try to load your camera in as much darkness as you can achieve. Process this film as soon as you can, after shooting. Leaving the film sitting around or in heat will cause the dyes to deteriorate. If you need to travel by air, ask for a hand-inspection at the airport. Don't pack this film in checked luggage. It is more sensitive to X-Ray equipment than an average film.
This film actually has a better grain index (48) than Kodak's professional negative film (Portra - index 50) at a 4.4 magnification, ISO 800. (I haven't seen any other index value data from Kodak for this film, so I can't comment about larger print sizes.)
If you need a fast color film for poor lighting conditions or for action photos, this is a good film. It is not as good in controlled lighting situations as the Portra or Supra or even Royal Gold films at lower ISO ratings. If you need the speed and don't intend to enlarge beyond 5x, this film is perfect. If you need to enlarge beyond that, the grain becomes more and more apparent. In photography, as in every other endeavor, choose the right tool for the job. Film is a very important tool for serious photography. Don't depend on just one type of film.

I have used this film for years--with both my older point and shoot Cannon 135 Zoom and my current Nikon N65. The fact that it is a higher speed film makes it very versatile for all types of situations I shoot in--indoors, outdoors, low light, beach photography, fast-action sporting events, etc. I have not had a problem with graininess but I have not blown pictures up past 11x14 size. I have shot approximately 200+ rolls with this film and my lab has never had to color-correct my film. I wonder if some people who use this film and have had problems with graininess have more of a problem with their camera or photo processing lab than it is with the film. This film can be used in all types of situations and I will keep using it with confidence!

Skip this one and get either: Kodak Royal Gold 400 or Fuji Superia 400. If you settle for this film you are going to possibly compromise your photo shot.

This film is okay. The color isn't nearly as realistic as some other films. I would recommend Fugi Superia Extra 400. It has much better color reproduction and is cheaper.

This is the film I buy whenever I'm out. My exposures always return crystal-clear! The blue-green color of my stuffed walrus is particularly well-served by Kodak's masterful Gold Max 400 film. I'm also fond of Kodak's 110 film, but due to the nature of that format, my pictures were much dimmer. After the switch to 400, whoa! Watch out! What a vivid walrus!

We used the film with a cheap camera on our last trip and I truely didn't have my expections too high but all pictures came out nicely. Pictures we took in the evening did not come out as clear (greyish), possibly due to the quality of the camera. All in all - Strongly recommend.

Kodak makes great film, and Gold Max is one of their best amature films. This film provides maximum versitility for outdoor sports, and for the decently lighted indoor shots. Grain structure is good, holding well up to an 8"x10" print. Best part about this film is the price...I think Kodak and Amazon.com have a real winner here.