Thanks for the walkthrough! Lately I’ve been shooting more and more with Ultramax and Superia because honestly, I think I’d rather be able to shoot more photos at ok quality than to shoot with Portra and potentially miss out on some dope shots because I could only afford half the number of exposures I’d otherwise be able to with Ultramax and Superia.
Totally understand and agree with that mentality. One of my main things is that I would rather you kept on shooting in whatever way you can rather than struggle with crazy film prices. I would just suggest over exposing slightly just to give yourself a bit more from those shadows. But really, keep doing what you love doing 💪
I'm quite surprised at your Ultramax scans tbh. There's a severe pink/red colour cast on almost all of them, and scanner exposure looks off as well. I've shot ultramax on point&shoots that don't come close to the Mju, and missed exposure way more than I'd like to admit on my SLR, and still haven't get results as bad as these. While there's no arguing that Portra is a superior stock with greater latitude, I think you'd be surprised if you get your Ultramax negatives scanned by a better lab. It's still much more forgiving than slide film, Orwo colour film or old digital.
In the US, you can get Portra 400 for a couple dollars more per roll. Almost no point in shooting UltraMax here. It’s a shame the cheaper Kodak films are nearly the same price as Portra.
idk if film prices have changed drastically in the past year or not, but for me ultramax is about $13 a roll and I still cannot find Portra for under $20. But even better than that, Fujifilm 200 is $22 for a 3 pack on amazon, so less than 8 bucks a roll. about $28 for 400 though
Really well done video, but where did you manage to get the ultramax for $10??? I bought mine in a local store and it was 18€ for me... for 10€ I bought Ilford fp4 125, but that's b&w film
Very interesting comparison. Thanks for this. I often shoot Ultramax here in Tokyo because it’s literally half the price of a roll of Portra. I’d sure choose Portra if it weren’t so spendy!
hmm.. considering most the time these things are digitally scanned rather than real old school home jobs, a lot of the colour and saturation can be edited in post before printing. If anything a lot of the differences as shown with these rolls of film could be reversed base on what scanner was used what it did to the scans, or the person scanning them. It's like LUTs for video. Grain is a different matter though altogether.
Very nice presentation! You show all the flaws of Ultramax. I don't see good latitude - maybe because is not even 200 ISO, it loose all details in shadows, the saturation is sometimes much too accentuated, but the colors are dull, dark, has a lot of grain and even if it is somehow close to Gold 200 it is below its performance, both films being in the lowest area of film emulsions. The price is already prohibitive for what it offers compared to the rest 🙂
Well, I'm half way through, and saw little point in continuing. Your description of Ultramax doesn't really match what I've read elsewhere. In fact, the video comes across like you've decided what you're going to say beforehand, and then sought out suitable photos to attempt to prove your point. As such, it's not really an honest comparison.
I shot one roll of ultramax in a Nikon F80, and I didn’t like the results. When I get a new computer I will scan the negatives myself and see if I can get anything different, but ultramax did not leave a good impression with me. My results look similar to his.
However much you disagree, you can't accuse UltraHonestMax of not telling it like it is - or rather, like he finds it. No pretensions, no ego, just eagerness to share his own personal experiences in a way that's entertaining (the self-effacing humour) and informative.
Thanks for the walkthrough! Lately I’ve been shooting more and more with Ultramax and Superia because honestly, I think I’d rather be able to shoot more photos at ok quality than to shoot with Portra and potentially miss out on some dope shots because I could only afford half the number of exposures I’d otherwise be able to with Ultramax and Superia.
Totally understand and agree with that mentality. One of my main things is that I would rather you kept on shooting in whatever way you can rather than struggle with crazy film prices.
I would just suggest over exposing slightly just to give yourself a bit more from those shadows. But really, keep doing what you love doing 💪
I'm quite surprised at your Ultramax scans tbh. There's a severe pink/red colour cast on almost all of them, and scanner exposure looks off as well. I've shot ultramax on point&shoots that don't come close to the Mju, and missed exposure way more than I'd like to admit on my SLR, and still haven't get results as bad as these. While there's no arguing that Portra is a superior stock with greater latitude, I think you'd be surprised if you get your Ultramax negatives scanned by a better lab. It's still much more forgiving than slide film, Orwo colour film or old digital.
Yes, you're right. Ultramax is very poorly scanned
Very well done comparison!!! Thank you!
In the US, you can get Portra 400 for a couple dollars more per roll. Almost no point in shooting UltraMax here. It’s a shame the cheaper Kodak films are nearly the same price as Portra.
idk if film prices have changed drastically in the past year or not, but for me ultramax is about $13 a roll and I still cannot find Portra for under $20. But even better than that, Fujifilm 200 is $22 for a 3 pack on amazon, so less than 8 bucks a roll. about $28 for 400 though
in japan Portra is 27usd
@@PropertyEdits B&H sells Portra 400 in a 5 pack for $75, $15 per roll. Free shipping too!
great video yet again!
Cheers mate
I also did some reading, did you use flash for slower shutter speeds here, or did you keep that off?
Do you think pushing ultramax 400 by one stop would help with the contrast?
Although you pretend to not care, thanks, for this upload. It was helpful.
Thanks so much, very insightful video.
Really well done video, but where did you manage to get the ultramax for $10??? I bought mine in a local store and it was 18€ for me... for 10€ I bought Ilford fp4 125, but that's b&w film
Foto Verweij caries 3 rolls for 36. Just ordered some after I paid 18 voor my first roll and quite like it really. :)
Very interesting comparison. Thanks for this. I often shoot Ultramax here in Tokyo because it’s literally half the price of a roll of Portra. I’d sure choose Portra if it weren’t so spendy!
Is that Bielefeld?
Lol, that exit :v
Hi! Great video :) May I ask you which film would you suggest for a quite cloudy day?
I don't think it’s a good idea to shoot color negative film in a quite cloudy day. Maybe B&W or digital is better?
hmm.. considering most the time these things are digitally scanned rather than real old school home jobs, a lot of the colour and saturation can be edited in post before printing. If anything a lot of the differences as shown with these rolls of film could be reversed base on what scanner was used what it did to the scans, or the person scanning them. It's like LUTs for video. Grain is a different matter though altogether.
Wish I could get Ultramax, can only find Fuji 200
That’s a shame! It seems that analogue wonderland keep getting a bunch of Ultramax at the moment!
Fuji 200 is essentially Gold 200, if that helps
Yeaa
Do what you want to do
Agree😂
Very nice presentation! You show all the flaws of Ultramax. I don't see good latitude - maybe because is not even 200 ISO, it loose all details in shadows, the saturation is sometimes much too accentuated, but the colors are dull, dark, has a lot of grain and even if it is somehow close to Gold 200 it is below its performance, both films being in the lowest area of film emulsions. The price is already prohibitive for what it offers compared to the rest 🙂
Nice
Oh wow, Ultramax looks so much better tough.
In my country portra almost twice the ultramax price lol
Well, I'm half way through, and saw little point in continuing. Your description of Ultramax doesn't really match what I've read elsewhere. In fact, the video comes across like you've decided what you're going to say beforehand, and then sought out suitable photos to attempt to prove your point. As such, it's not really an honest comparison.
I shot one roll of ultramax in a Nikon F80, and I didn’t like the results. When I get a new computer I will scan the negatives myself and see if I can get anything different, but ultramax did not leave a good impression with me. My results look similar to his.
I have had similar experience with ultramax; large grain, yellowish hue
Yeah, I’m about to try Kodak Gold 200 to compare
However much you disagree, you can't accuse UltraHonestMax of not telling it like it is - or rather, like he finds it. No pretensions, no ego, just eagerness to share his own personal experiences in a way that's entertaining (the self-effacing humour) and informative.