Kodak or Fuji

[Ektagraphic]

Hi- I know I have come out with lots of polls, but I am just a curious person. Do you shoot more Kodak or Fuji Film? I am looking more on the color film end. I can't edit the poll, but where I have I shoot both, I ment to put and equal amount of Kodak and Fuji. I shoot all Kodak except for instant film, for that I use Fuji. I find all of the Kodak films to offer more natural and real colors. Thanks

 

[Christopher Walrath]

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry9000/4.6.0.167 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/102 UP.Link/6.3.0.0.0)

Fujifilm. If I ever shoot color.

 

[JLP]

Most Fuji for color and most Kodak for B&W.

 

[paul_c5x4]

Colour, Fuji

B&W, Ilford (and now processing first ever roll of Adox).

 

[nickandre]

I shoot it by which film I like. Right now I hate the look of digital so I like most films.

 

[railwayman3]

As I'm trying to use Kodachrome whenever the slower speed is suitable for the subject, definitely more Kodak than Fuji for color slides at the moment. If/when K64 finishes, I'll probably go with Astia.
No strong preferences for color neg, whatever's in the fridge for the speed I need.
And Ilford for B&W.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Almost exclusively Kodak for both black & white and color. On rare occasion Fuji, if I get a sample or the price is really wonderful.

Steve

 

[brian steinberger]

Fuji films for color transparencies. I'm thinking of trying some Kodak Ektar 100 in 120 though, looks enticing. Then in black and white, almost all Fuji Neopan 400 and some Ilford FP4.

 

[kraker]

I shoot both Fuji and Kodak, I guess it's about 50/50. For 35mm Kodak wins the equation with Kodachrome. For MF, Fuji Velvia, Provia and Fortia SP are the most used. When I shoot colour, I usually opt for slides.

Adding C-41 to the equation would tip the scales to "others" (Agfa Optima 100) for MF and Fuji (Superia Reala 100) for 35mm.

 

[mtjade2007]

I have shot far more Kodak than Fuji films. I simply like better the colors from Kodak negatives. Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that most labs out there use Fuji processors, Fuji processes and Fuji papers that are not optimized for Kodak films. I process my own films using a Jobo processor, Kodak chemicals and I scan my own films. When it comes to printing I print myself too with a Canon Pro9000 inkjet printer. I am not saying Fuji films are not good. I just like the colors from Kodak Portra VC 160 or 400. Have tried NPH, NPS and some Konica before. They are OK. But still the colors from Portra VC always got the praise. In my opinion processing is far more critical for good films to really shine. I screwed up in my own processing too often that I have no doubt that I know how good the result will be when it's done right.

 

[mrladewig]

I've got slide film from Kodak and Fuji. There are differences between how the brands and emulsions render certain situations and I'll choose the flavor I think is best for the situation at hand. As readyloads become harder to find, I'll have to shoot more and more Fuji quickloads when hiking and backpacking.

Again for color negatives I've got both brands. I really like the new Portra 400NC, but its not available in readyload, so I've got a good supply of Fuji NPS quickloads for backpacking.

 

[Vonder]

All films are good, but most of my money is in Acros (B&W) and Reala and Astia for color. If I need a faster film I try to use Kodak HD or Tmax in 400 speed. I use Ilford films whenever I feel like it. There are still so many film choices out there, why limit yourself?

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

The type of film you use should reflect the purpose for which it was intended, rather than the colour of the box! Since 1996 Fuji (i.e. Velvia) has been my prime stock for saturated landscape and nature photography which ideally passes to chrome (Ilfochrome) for printing exhibition. C-41 neg film is ideal for people/docu photography or spur-of-the-moment imaging, having greatly more flexibility in exposure than the restrictive latitude of reversal stock); for this I use Fuji's NPC 160, –1. Black and white photography for capturing or enunciating mood and texture ... Ilford's Delta 100 (printed to FB paper). I don't use anything else.

My consumption of Velvia and Provia exceed consumption of the other two films mentioned. An enthusiastic early user of Kodachrome (1980-1993), that film ceased to be available in the Australia/Asia Pacific region more than a decade ago.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The type of film you use should reflect the purpose for which it was intended, rather than the colour of the box! Since 1996 Fuji (i.e. Velvia) has been my prime stock for saturated landscape and nature photography which ideally passes to chrome (Ilfochrome) for printing exhibition. C-41 neg film is ideal for people/docu photography or spur-of-the-moment imaging, having greatly more flexibility in exposure than the restrictive latitude of reversal stock); for this I use Fuji's NPC 160, –1. Black and white photography for capturing or enunciating mood and texture ... Ilford's Delta 100 (printed to FB paper). I don't use anything else.

My consumption of Velvia and Provia exceed consumption of the other two films mentioned. An enthusiastic early user of Kodachrome (1980-1993), that film ceased to be available in the Australia/Asia Pacific region more than a decade ago.

It is generally accepted that acquiring and shooting unavailable film can become problematical!

Steve

 

[stwb]

Neither for black and white (mostly Ilford) and leaning towards Kodak for color now. Colors always seem a bit "warmer" with Kodak vs. Fuji.

 

[jgjbowen]

Ok, if it comes down to strictly color film, then I shoot more fuji 35mm chromes than Kodak. I shoot about 10 rolls of 35mm chromes a year. NOW for b&W it is ALL Kodak. That amounts to about 10 rolls of 35mm Tri-X, about 30-50 sheets of Tmax 400 in 5x7, about 200 sheets of Tmax 400 in 8x10 and about 50 sheets Tmax 400 in 7x17. On rare occasion I will also shoot some 4x5 Tri-X.

I grew up in Western NY....what can I say

 

[Pinholemaster]

Whatever works for the project. Brand loyalty isn't important to me.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

Recently I shoot Fuji color and Kodak B&W. But chances every once in a while.

Jeff

 

[John Bragg]

Lately Fuji Neopan 400 which has taken the place of Tri-X for me. I still have some Tri-X in stock and would happily use either if the other was not available. This is deliberate on my part as I spent time getting to know the Fuji in case Tri-X was in short supply (Unlikely I know) and found that the results from the Fuji are more pleasing to my eye.

 

[Ektagraphic]

I find all of the Fuji colors to be very unnatural.

 

[nyoung]

Two years ago it was all Tri-X for B&W and all Fuji for color. The Portras have brought me back to Kodak for C41, still using Fuji for transparency when I want positives.

 

[removed account4]

mainly fuji color
and kod b/w

i like other stuff too,
but don't shoot it as often.

 

[Steve Roberts]

Fuji for colour transparencies, Kodak for colour prints, though if Kodachrome processing was available in the UK/Europe, I'd still be using it.

Steve

 

[StorminMatt]

I find all of the Fuji colors to be very unnatural.

I find that Fuji films tend to unnaturally overemphasize pastel colors in comparison to primary colors (unlike Kodak films). But I think that for those people who prefer Fuji over Kodak, this is probably the whole point in doing so.

 

[Ian Grant]

I don't shoot any Kodak films now, I found getting Tmax was becoming very difficult outside the U, living abroad & travelling so switched to Ilford films which are far easier to find.

For Colour I switched to Fuji more than 30 years ago because I prefer their films, even in the days of E4 their colour rendition was better suited to what I required, with E6 & C41 their films have been outstanding.

Ian