Have you used the new Kodak MAX films?

Jan 19th, 1999, 07:05 AM
  #1  
Jim
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Have you used the new Kodak MAX films?

Have you used the new Kodak MAX film on a trip where you took pictures under all types of lighting condition? If so, how did they turn out and which speed film did you use? Would like to find a film that works in cathedrals as well as scenic pictures. Have a good camera with zoom, adjustable speed and aperature settings. Thanks.....Jim
 
Jan 19th, 1999, 07:24 AM
  #2  
dan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Can you tell us what camera model you are using, and how long is the zoom?
 
Jan 19th, 1999, 09:55 AM
  #3  
dan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I want to change my recommendation on this one. It seems that you have more than just a point and shoot with no control. So, if you want a good all around film only, just take Fuji 400. If you want a good low-light film that still gives great color and not too much grain, go with Fuji Super G 800.

You might want to take along a little black and white film too. You can get some great B&W shots in Paris.

If you don't mind changing film in mid-roll when you need more light or expect to be outside for large periods of time, then take some 100 speed for daytime (something like Kodak Gold or Royal Gold).
 
Jan 19th, 1999, 11:00 AM
  #4  
Dick Hardy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I've used Max 800 and have been quite happy with it. Used it first in France in Ste. Chapelle and the color (light level is low there) was incredibly good. Used in Nikon F-3 with a Tamron zoom if you are technically oriented. I liked it better than Royal or Fuji. Dick
 
Jan 19th, 1999, 04:43 PM
  #5  
Kate
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Yes, I've used the film. I assume you mean the kind that doesn't specify a speed? Kodak proclaims it can handle all lighting situations? I *hated* it.

I was in the Lake District in England. I hiked Derwentwater and took photos all throughout the seven-mile walk. It was an unusually sunny, bright August day, so there was a lot of reflection off the lake. My pictures turned out horrible. Totally overexposed. The man at the camera store says he hates the film too. I'll never use the stuff again.
 
Jan 20th, 1999, 01:44 AM
  #6  
Helena
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I didn't like it either. Lately, I've been hearing that Fuji film is better than Kodak, especially for its longevity (the negatives last longer). Anyone have any advice here? My main interest has always been true color, but now I'm worried that all those negatives I've amassed will rot away too soon. I'm using, for you technical types, a Nikon N6006, a nice Tamron lens (big zoom) or a really good Nikon lens (with zoom and macro). Thanks! My photos are my treasures.
 
Jan 20th, 1999, 06:58 AM
  #7  
Jim
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
In response to the question as to the type of camer, etc. I am using: Minolta 7000 Maxxium, 35-70 and 70 -210 lens plus polarizing filter. We will be going to Switzerland and Bavaria after leaving Paris, so are especially interested in the scenic pictures as well. Looking for good natural colors and not too much grain in the prints. Thanks for the replies, Jim
 
Jan 20th, 1999, 04:30 PM
  #8  
Jim
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I contacted a Kodak rep. and asked which film they thought was the best to use in siturations requiring various lighting situations and they said the the Kodak Gold Max 400 was the best. It has good color-saturation,latitude and can be enlarged up to 8x10. They also said that most camera manufacturers recommend this film regardless of the camera's options. Thought I would pass this info on to others who may be interested. Anyone out there who thinks differently on the subject? Jim
 
Jan 20th, 1999, 04:32 PM
  #9  
Jim
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I contacted a Kodak rep. and asked which film they thought was the best to use in siturations requiring various lighting situations and they said the the Kodak Gold Max 400 was the best. It has good color-saturation,latitude and can be enlarged up to 8x10. They also said that most camera manufacturers recommend this film regardless of the camera's options. Thought I would pass this info on to others who may be interested. Anyone out there who thinks differently on the subject? Jim
 
Jan 20th, 1999, 11:32 PM
  #10  
Helena
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I was flipping through the January issue of National Geographic's Traveller magazine on the way to work this morning, and came across their annual photo contest winners. The overwhelming majority of the winners used Fuji film. I've always been a Kodak devotee, but this makes me wonder. In this day and age when most films are of a high quality, I guess film choice isn't as important, in the end, as photographic ability and perhaps the camera/lens. Any thoughts?
 
Jan 21st, 1999, 04:33 AM
  #11  
dan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I don't know if you will easily see a difference in film, since so many adjustments happen at the lab during printing. However, there are definitely differences in grain and color rendition. You will see more differences if you enlarge prints, especially past 8x10. With slides, there are substantial differences. For example, Fuji Velvia offers incredible reds and has great color saturation (brilliance) in general.

Jim, since you have a camera that allows you to make adjustments (and perhaps change the film out midroll?), I would use mostly 100-200 film outside during the day (and at night if you use a tripod) and switch over to Fuji 400 in lower light conditions. You may not wish to buy any additional equipment for your trip, but if you have ever used a graduated neutral density filter, this will be particularly helpful for the Alps; when the sun is just coming over the mountains, you may get peaks that are overexposed if you try to get details in the shadows. At least a small tripod would be great too for night in Paris and for landscapes in the Alps when you want a sharp foreground and background. Also, if you can borrow a lens of the 24-28mm range from someone, that would be great for both Paris and Switzerland. If you do take a tripod for the Alps, you may wish to try some Kodak Royal Gold 25 as well. This is probably the best film for landscapes and has virtually no grain. It has been discontinued, to the lament of nature photographers, but some camera shops still have some in stock.

Check out this site: photo.net. When you get there, click again on photo.net. You will find very opinionated film reviews by many experienced photographers, and there may be something there on Switzerland as well (go to Q&A, then locations, then scroll down).

Where are you going in Switzerland by the way? I was there (and in Paris) last year.

Please E-Mail me if you have additional questions.
 
Jan 21st, 1999, 07:04 AM
  #12  
Lee
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Until recently, I've used an Olympus 35-70 zoom automatic camera. My brother-in-law had an Olympus OM-G that didn't work right and sold it to me for $50.00. I've had it reconditioned at a factory service center for $90.00 and have been picking up items for it: 28mm lens, 50mm lens (both Olympus) and a Vivitar 70-210 zoom lens, a flash, folding tripod, polarizing filters and a bag (fits everything, not too big).

I've been practicing with it, but I suffer from depth of field and exposure problems. We go to Bavaria in May and I'd like to nail it down by then. With all of this discussion, I was going to use Fuji 400, but now I have doubts because I would think most of my shots will be outdoors and maybe 200 or even 100 would be better.

Obviously, I'd appreciate any feedback. Thanks.
 
Jan 21st, 1999, 07:32 AM
  #13  
greg
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
There have been considerable discussion on this film in some photography forums. One of the best URL escapes me right now. You can find some postings on this subject by going to http://www.dejanews.com and enter KODAK MAX in the search window at top left and push FIND.
 
Jan 21st, 1999, 09:51 AM
  #14  
dan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Lee,

There is a great book by Bryan Peterson called "Understanding Exposure." Just about any good camera shop or bookstore should have it. It costs about $20, and I highly recommend it. It covers all kinds of lighting, shutter speed, aperture, and different environmental conditions. It is also very easy to understand. One of the best basic photography books period, in my opinion.

You might also want to pick up one of the small yellow Kodak guides, such as the one on Travel Photography. These are great for carrying with you, so if you want to know what setting to use for a cityscape at night, for example, just take it out and find the answer.

For somewhere like the Alps, I would highly recommend getting "John Shaw's Landscape Photography." This guy is a phenomenal nature photographer, and the book is also very good on basic photography techniques.
 
Jan 21st, 1999, 11:40 AM
  #15  
Lee
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Dan: Thank you for the information. I will check out both of the books you've mentioned. I certainly need them.

Thanks, again.
 
May 3rd, 1999, 11:39 AM
  #16  
pam
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Kodak has a much warmer color rendition than Fuji does. I always shoot 100-speed film (my camera is an as-close-to-manual SLR as I could find). I have some great slides taken inside cathedrals where I hand-held the camera on very slow exposures, propped against a pew or a column. Exhale, then release the shutter. I like Fuji for landscapes but for my upcoming trip to Italy will be using Kodak--I think the warmer rendition will be more suitable. I'm also thinking about trying a sepia filter. Any thoughts?
 
May 4th, 1999, 02:33 PM
  #17  
dan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
The sepia filter could be interesting. However, for some even more interesting shots take some black and white film. Try TMAX or Tri-X 100 or 400. TMAX also makes a good b&w film at 3200 speed. You are supposed to be able to expose it anywhere from 800 to 2500 if your camera lets you make that choice. If you want dramatic skies with the black and white film, get a red 25 filter. Your other film choices make sense to me.
 
May 5th, 1999, 04:49 AM
  #18  
A Vernon
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
In the Kodak vs Fuji battle, a pro told me that Kodak has the reputation for "warm" colors and Fuji has the reputation for "cool" colors. (Easy to remember if you think of the colors on their boxes!)

I shoot Kodak 200 in my APS, but might test some MAX in my manual SLR -- especially since I'm not much a low-light shooter. In my opinion, composition and processing are equally as important the film. Thanks for the great postings!

 
May 5th, 1999, 08:02 AM
  #19  
pam
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Dan--is TMAX the new Kodak b&w that goes thru C41 (color)processing? Whatever that film is, have you tried it?
 
May 7th, 1999, 08:43 AM
  #20  
dan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
No, the film you are thinking about is TMAX-400CN. I have used this one, but not the 3200 film. The 400 is highly regarded by serious amateur photographers. Probably a good choice for an all around black and white film.
 

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy -

FODOR'S VIDEO

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:41 AM.