Kodak UltraMax

UltraMax-1

This is Kodak UltraMax 400, shot at ISO 800.

I have never shot this film before–It was sent to me by my friend Greg (Thanks Greg!)

UltraMax-2

I must say I am LOVING on this film!!

Beautiful vivid colors, and faithful skin tones, with none of the potential issues of self-developed Portra.

UltraMax-3

(B&H, here I come!)

Lots here from yesterday…I hope you enjoy.

(They are straight off the Pakon–added a tiny bit of vignette in one or two, but otherwise no adjustments!)

-Mark.

UltraMax-4

UltraMax-5

UltraMax-6

UltraMax-7

UltraMax-9

UltraMax-8

UltraMax-10

UltraMax-11

7 thoughts on “Kodak UltraMax

  1. mewanchuk says:

    Yes–I was very pleasantly surprised by this film (especially indoors, and pushed to 800). Nice grain structure as well!

    …Can’t believe Kodak went bankrupt. What a shame.

    -M.

  2. Karim Ghantous says:

    I do like these very much. And I do love that film. Yes, I really think that the cheaper emulsions are nicer than the more expensive ones, at least as far as still photography goes.

    The texture and tonality are wonderful, both in well exposed areas and in shadow areas. See apple photo #1: ‘Baby’ J’s face is well exposed and the Producer’s face is in shadow, yet they both look great. And this is a cheap film underexposed by a stop!

    I never really liked the image quality of your cinema film experiments. I think you used 200T, right? Yeah, that didn’t work at all. And UltraMax is easier to develop and cheaper than VISION3 stocks. I’m yet to see really good results from the latter. Which is odd because all movies shot on VISION3 stocks look beautiful. I’m probably repeating myself here, but Harry Potter 4 and Jack Reacher come to mind as typical ‘film’ movies. The richness of the image in those movies is just astounding. I think it’s partly because there are internegatives involved. Either way, digital movie cameras cannot compete on that criteria.

    I have a suggestion, if you feel like exploring a bit further (in fact I’m tempted to do this myself, but your photos are my current reference frame). I’d love to see some frames from Fuji 200 and UltraMax duplicated on either positive or negative duplicating film. I wonder if I will see what I expect: a bit more graininess but more richness. There are dupe emulsions made specifically for still films but you could also use Kodak VISION interpostive or internegative film – C41 compatible but no Remjet.

    As a footnote, I don’t like what JPEG compression does to the grain structure. But I am impressed with the Pakon, even though its pixel output is less than an iPhone. 😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s