Kodak Max 800 ???

joeyk49 · Dec 16, 2006

Is this stuff crap, or is it me?

I picked up about 16 rolls of this stuff about a year ago. I finally got around to using it. First four rolls I shot at box speed....&*%@$#! dark shadows and blown highlights...

The last twelve rolls I rated at 640 to try and pull in the shadows and used flash for all of my indoor shots. The results were worse! I've got grain the likes of which would put 3200 stuff to shame...

The outdoor shots seem ok, but the indoor stuff (which is why I wanted to play with 800) is horrible!

What gives? Aaargh!

glennfromwy · Dec 16, 2006

I don't know about indoor and flash shots, but some of the most colorful, extremely fine grained prints I ever got from the one hour joint was on Max 800, accidently dhot at 200. Outdoors in rather flat light. Honestly, I was flabbergasted. The very worst thing you can do with the stuff is unde expose it. Makes it grainy as hell and just all around awful. How old is it? Storage?

Neal · Dec 17, 2006

Dear joeyk49,

One big problem I've run into with Max 800 is age. Poor storage may add to the mix. When fresh, Max 800 has a very wide range that can be collected nicely onto a print by most minilabs. I have some old (exp 1999) 800 film that I'm keeping around just to see how bad it gets. With luck the effect will pass for artistic intent. ;>)

Neal Wydra

srs5694 · Dec 17, 2006

I'm giving a camera to a friend's child for Christmas. It came with a roll of Kodak Max 800 film, but its expiration date is December 2004. Just how badly deteriorated do you think this will be? I'll trade the film for a fresher roll if it's likely to be bad, but if it's likely to be OK for snapshots I'll just leave it. (I got the camera at a bargain price, so returning it because of expired film isn't reasonable.)

dmr · Dec 17, 2006

Grainy and rough is what I would describe the Kodak Max 800. Not nearly as bad as the old Walgreens/Agfa 800 (GAG) but not good.

I've had very good luck with the Fuji 800 particularly for low-light and night scenes and such. Ditto with their 1600.

nworth · Dec 18, 2006

I hate the stuff too! Max 800 was designed for maximum latitude in point and shoot cameras. There were definitely some compromises in quality to make it work. I suspect that it is really about a 400 or 320 film that will still work (sort of) at 800. Even so, the look is pretty terrible in my opinion.

joeyk49 · Dec 18, 2006

dmr said:
Grainy and rough is what I would describe the Kodak Max 800. Not nearly as bad as the old Walgreens/Agfa 800 (GAG) but not good.

I've had very good luck with the Fuji 800 particularly for low-light and night scenes and such. Ditto with their 1600.

Until I read some really glowing reports, I'll never use 800 speed color film again! In fact, unless its Tri-X I may never use another Kodak film either!!! I've got some Portra in the fridge and when thats gone....

htmlguru4242 · Dec 18, 2006

The Kodak Max 800 may not be great (I'm unimpressed by it), but that's no reason to cross off all ISO 800 or higher color films. I love Fuji's 1600 color film, and Portra 800 is great, albeit a little grainy. Fujicolor Press 800 is also good.

Karl K · Dec 18, 2006

Kodak Max 800 was designed for the one-time-use camera. The highlights and shadows are compressed...that is the entire tonal scale is truncated, IMHO. Fuji 800 and 1600 are much better choices. In fact, the 1600 is a better choice than Max 800, except for grain. Also, the storage life of Max 800 has been pointed out here as being short. I agree.

Lee L · Dec 19, 2006

I'd agree with the others here that the Max 800 is not very good, and for the same reasons, but I certainly wouldn't write off all Kodak films because of it. It's no indicator of what the other non-Max Kodak color films are like. I like Fuji 1600 for indoor available light sports, but downrate it to about 1000 to 1250 ISO for healthy shadow detail.

Lee

eddie gunks · Dec 19, 2006

i use NPZ and portra 800 with good results. do not give up yet.

Kodak Max 800 ???

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency