Ultramax or Superia X-Tra?

Messages
7,474
Name
Nige
Edit My Images
No
I’m off on a trip to New York soon and was planning on getting a box of 135 Portra 400, but it’s more expensive than diamonds at the moment it would seem.

While I might still take it on the chin and pay the £40 plus it costs for a box (New York isn’t a place I’m likely to be visiting often), being a Yorkshireman, I’m wondering if I might save a few quid and get something cheaper.

So, my question is, which of the two main consumer grade 400 asa films - Kodak Ultramax & Fuji Superia - would you recommend if you couldn’t have Portra.

I’ve got rolls of Portra 400, Fuji Pro 400H, and Ektar in 120 format, so I’m ok on that front.

Thanks.
 
Since you’re going to New York, pop down to B&H and have your fill there. Bring back a few boxes of 8x10/5x4 Portra and Provia for me too!

To answer your Q I’d go for Superia but that’s because I’m more familiar with it.
 
I don't remember ever using Ultramax, so no direct comparisons. However, Vista 400 used to be my goto day to day film, and now Superia 400X is. I find it perfectly adequate, and can produce terrific results. But if I were going somewhere special I'd always take Portra, with maybe a couple of rolls of Ektar 100 in case I want something a bit more saturated.

I was surprised at my most recent order to find I was paying £6.50 a roll for both Tri-X and FP4+. I think we're going to have to get used to paying silly prices for film. I did in the end back off from paying £28 for a 3-pack of Superia Premium!
 
Since you’re going to New York, pop down to B&H and have your fill there. Bring back a few boxes of 8x10/5x4 Portra and Provia for me too!

Good call; Portra 400 is $39 a 5-pack, and a 3-pack of Superia 400 under $10. Don' know if there's sales tax on top of that, though.
 
Well I vote for Superia 400 on logic o_O as I have never tried it, but have used well over 100 rolls of Superia 200 (VG film) and by logic would say Fuji would make the 400 iso version at least equal or better compared to the 200 ISO one.
 
Since you’re going to New York, pop down to B&H and have your fill there. Bring back a few boxes of 8x10/5x4 Portra and Provia for me too!

I did think about just buying it from B&H (or somewhere similar), but looking at their website, once you account for sales tax, there's very little difference in price sadly (for Portra 400 at least). It comes in at a little over $50 for a 5 pack in 135 format.
 
I'm not that keen on 35mm Superia 400 as it seems to have a magenta cast at times when I scan it. I've not tried Ultramax, but I like Kodak Gold 200 and find it home-scans nicely, so will probably give Kodak's 400 a go when I finally run out of Superia. Check the various prices at 7 Day Shop, as they seem quite good on multipacks, when they have them in stock.
 
Last edited:
Personally I like Superia and it's pretty much my go-to color 135 film. I've not had the colour cast issues that @Mr Badger mentioned.
 
I’m off on a trip to New York soon and was planning on getting a box of 135 Portra 400, but it’s more expensive than diamonds at the moment it would seem.

While I might still take it on the chin and pay the £40 plus it costs for a box (New York isn’t a place I’m likely to be visiting often), being a Yorkshireman, I’m wondering if I might save a few quid and get something cheaper.

So, my question is, which of the two main consumer grade 400 asa films - Kodak Ultramax & Fuji Superia - would you recommend if you couldn’t have Portra.

I’ve got rolls of Portra 400, Fuji Pro 400H, and Ektar in 120 format, so I’m ok on that front.

Thanks.

You can pay £40 for a pizza in Manhattan. My advice would be to not skimp on what will surely be precious photos, and by the Portra.
 
Personally I like Superia and it's pretty much my go-to color 135 film. I've not had the colour cast issues that @Mr Badger mentioned.

I've had a few Superia films which have a slightly odd colour cast on at least some of the negatives. Not sure if my exposure was to blame. OTOH colour management with negative film is such a total faff that I've pretty much given up home scanning it, except for old family negatives.
 
I had a similar issue when planning a trip to Rome. As there should be plenty of light I reckon ISO100 will be fine. Mainly I will be shooting B&W and I splashed out on 5 rolls of 35mm Acros. There'll be another body (maybe one of my 3 identical Oly 35RC's) loaded with colour and I debated whether to get Portra, Ektar, or Kodak Pro Image 100. In the end I decided to get 3 rolls of Portra 160 instead of 5 rolls of something else, and just be careful not to snap away too much.

When you measure the cost of film as a percentage of the holiday cost, it doesn't seem so important.
 
New York and Rome, you should have plenty of light, but also fairly deep shadows (particularly NY, between those buildings). It's a challenge, IIRC!
 
So, I've decided to go with the Portra 400 anyway. :) I reckon I might regret it if I skimped on the quality on a trip like this.

I'm still interested in opinions on the other two films for future reference though.


Once in a lifetime trip, the extra cost of your preferred film is worth every cent IMO. MIGHT be worth checking D&P costs at/through B&H and there might be a sales tax refund scheme for personal exports (might have to claim it back on your return and I am NOT an expert!!!)
 
It's interesting and a bit odd that no-one here seems to have tried Ultramax!
 
Well same as Kevin from Poundland...it was OK film nothing special but Fuji Superia 200 was superior although a stop slower.
 
Go to B&H - it's a fascinating place. The store is (consumer) paradise for photography.
 
Back
Top