I'm going on a couple of Costsaver tours through Europe in May/June 2002.
Whilst I am not a very good photographer I want my pictures to turn out the best they can.
I normally use Kodak Max but a friend said that Fuji (probably 400 speed) would be better.
Is there much difference between the films or is the difference really between the quality of the processing? Or perhaps the quality of the photographer????

I am trying to figure out the difference between the two films myself. I just recently took a dozen pictures around my house and outside using Kodax max 400. I jotted down the time and lighting conditions for each picture. After getting them developed, I then loaded Fuji 400 into my camera and spent the next several days duplicating these pictures as closely as I could. I hope to get them developed next week and then lay out the pictures side by side for comparison. I'll let you know how they come out!

I went on the European Marvel last year and took 20 rolls of Fuji 400 with me. I have been using Fuji film for a couple of years now. All of my pictures came out perfect, even the ones I took at night. I think the colors look more richer than Kodak, but since I have not used Kodak in a while, maybe they have improved on the quality. If you would like to see any of my pics just let me know!! I am very happy with Fuji!

ness,

If you've got time, it would be a good idea to pick up several different 400 speed films and try them out. The ideal test is to shoot the same subjects under the same lighting with each roll of film. That means shooting up a bunch of film in a hurry, of course. If you've got two of the same camera, it's lots easier as you could shoot a shot on two different films within seconds of each other. (If you don't, do you have a friend with exactly the same camera that you could borrow?) Comparing shots in bright sunlight with shots made in overcast conditions might be enlightening. We did the Best of Italy & Greece tour in the summer of 2000. Before the trip I posed a similar question to yours on several photography forums. I got a lot of widely divergent opinions. For that trip I used Fuji Reala 100, Kodak Supra 400, and Fujipress 800. We're probably doing Best of Europe this summer. I'm trying to decide on the films to take this time. Weather permitting, I hope to do some testing this weekend. You're exactly right though that the quality of the processing (and printing) can make or break any film choice. I think the choice of the processor is as important as the choice of the film. Different films do look better on particular papers also. If you've got a processor you like, go with whichever film gives you the best test prints. If I were leaving shortly and had no time for test prints, my personal choices at the moment would be Fuji Reala 100, Agfa Vista 400, and Fujipress 800. That may well change before our trip but I believe that the Fuji Reala 100 would still be my 100 speed choice. I know I haven't really given you any answers here. Sorry about that. Here's a link to film opinions that others have: http://www.photographyreview.com/Print,Film/PLS_3120_913crx.aspx

You might take a look at the newsgroup rec.photo.film+labs or just do a google search for "best 400 speed film". Good luck in your decision making.

Mike W.

When I went to European Highlights last year, I used Kodak Max 400, Tri-X and T-Max; Fuji 200 and 400; and POLAROID 200 and 400. Under low lighting, the quality of the POLAROID was the most impressive! It has a slighter higher contrast; but it registers colours as rich as the Fuji.
I am a photo-journalist in The Bahamas, and, unless we're doing hard news, we use Fuji for the vibrant, sharp and accurate colours. Therefore, if you want your colours to snap, use Fuji.

itstriom (eric)

It looks like Fuji has the advantage from what I have read so far. Now I am really anxious to get my roll of Fuji developed. On my trip to Europe last year I used Kodak 200 and while the pictures were excellent for the most part, I had quite a few dark ones. I'm sure that changing to a 400 for this trip will help.

Just spent the afternoon wandering around our local Museum (Auckland) with a roll of Fuji ASA800 - couldn't find enough interesting things to use as test subjects!
we're going to Egypt in May.
Will post a couple of shots once I've finished the roll.

I am taking a trip next month. Can you use 400 film both indoors and outdoors? I was planning on taking just one camera. If I need to have two different speeds of film I'll have to take two cameras. Any suggestions?

400 speed is designed for both indoors and outdoors. Fuji, my colleagues and I have found, gives richer colours and has less grain than Kodak at that speed. I even use it on photo assignments, unless I have Kodak Supra or Portra, of course. Unfortunately those two are professional grade and could be hard to find.
Hope this helps.

triom (eric)

AM,

If you're talking P&S cameras, I would take 2 anyway. I've read too many stories of someone's only camera malfunctioning (or being stolen).

Eric,

Which Fuji (since there seem to be 4 or 5 400 speed versions out there)? Do you like Supra better? If unavailable to many folks locally, I know Supra can be mailordered from Adorama or B&H. I've heard that it is a better film for use with film scanners but also that, as a professional film, proper storage is required. Any thoughts there?

TIA,

Mike W.

Hiya
Fuji that you can get at Walmart or Kmart (I think its Superia) is great for travel shots. Superia has a higher contrast level, so it does scan better than most. However, for travel photos, it is not enough of a benefit to justify the added cost of mail order. In fact, you can get a 4-pack of Fuji from the big "mart" for under $9. Hope this helps.

triom (eric)

FUJI

Thanks for all your replies. I decided to go with Fuji - a mixture of 200 and 400. I also bought a couple of Fuji's QuickSnap Panorama cameras. There were only NZ$19 each but hopefully the photos will turn out OK. Thanks again

Well, I got my Fuji pictures developed. I laid them out side by side with the similar shots I had taken with Kodak. Result: I can hardly tell any difference! They both look fantastic. I even examined them with a magnifying glass. So, at this point, I am still undecided and not sure what to do.

Glad to hear the pics came out good.
Fuji has a slightly more saturated colour than Kodak; but you might not be able to notice this difference unless it is a colourful subject (stained glass windows, countryside, etc.) However, where the Fuji really shows itself is on a technical level: smaller grain than a comprable Kodak. That means a clearer enlargement and sharper image. Hope this helps.

triom (Eric)