Kodak or Fuji

[tim_walls]

For as long as Kodak make Ektachrome E100VS (and I genuinely worry how long that will be,) I'll be shooting more Kodak than Fuji. But that's because I love the film, not because of the colour of the box.

(I really do need to spend more time with Provia 400X though; the few rolls I've shot I've liked very much.)

 

[Ektagraphic]

Well I'm glad to be seeing some happy Kodak people!

 

[aldevo]

I don't shoot much color these days and I shoot lots of Kodak Tri-X, so Kodak has the edge there. Mind you, I also shoot Ilford HP5+, Fortepan 100 & 200 (until my stash runs out), and Agfa 100 and 400 (still have lots eft).

Where I do shoot color I tend to shoot Kodak for C-41 and a mix of Kodak & Fuji E-6.

 

[Frank Bunnik]

Here in the Netherlands (and the UK where I order my films most of the time) Fuji films are often half the price of comparable Kodak films. So my choice is easily made since Fuji films are more than excellent. I used to shoot Tri-X for b&w but since that film has also become very expensive here, I switched to Acros 100 and Neopan 400. Different but so much cheaper and beautiful films too.

 

[JMC1969]

I voted Fuji because it is about the only color I shoot outside of some expired 4x5 Ektachrome (which is beautiful), but as of late B&W is where I live.

The Freezer:
1 box 50 sh - Tri-x 320
1 box 25 sh - Delta 100
50 rolls of HP5+ 120
5 rolls Efke 25 120
2 Rolls Rollei retro 400 120
2 rolls Tri-x OLD AS HELL
6 rolls Delta 3200 35mm
2 rolls neopan 100 acros 35mm

I'm hoping to add some new things, I love finding different looks. It brings a new feeling even if it is the same subject and I love that.

 

[jd callow]

I generally shoot more Kodak than Fuji, but currently it is about the same. When Kodak dropped 100T and 160T I lost about 50% of my colour film and probably 80% of my T film. I have about 25 rolls of Fuji 64T left and when that's gone I'm going to have to use filters (EPY if it is still made sucks). My daylight transparency films are all Kodak. Fuji makes good transparency film, but it doesn't crossprocess as well and I crossprocess E6 75 to 100% of the time. For neg film 160nc is great, the ektar 100 seems excellent and I like 160c and 800z by fuji. For what little black and white I shoot I have TX and TXP -- mostly TXP.

 

[accozzaglia]

In colour, Kodachrome excepted, nearly all my colour work is with Fujichrome — usually Provia 100F, 400X, T64, MS100/1000 cold-stored, etc. I did try out Ektachrome E200 and it wasn't bad, but the colour palette will take some getting used to if I return to it again. I do like the Ektachrome tungsten (320T, 160T, 64T) look a lot. Presently, I'm shooting nothing but Kodachrome in my 35mm cameras. In b/w, I just avoid Kodak and use mostly Ilford HP5+ (sometimes Delta 3200P) and used to use Agfa APX emulsions, though recently have begun trying out Efke and soon, Rollei emulsions. I have never shot Fuji in b/w. I don't shoot colour negatives, but I have a ton of frozen 220 rolls of NPS160 (I think) that came with an MS100/1000 120 and Provia 220 lot. I've never shot it, and I have doubts as to whether I ever will. I'm guessing they'll languish in perpetuity.

I went with "more Fuji than Kodak", but that's a simplified reflection of my experiences.

 

[Herzeleid]

I shoot Kodak slightly more, because it is more available. My next purchase for neopans and superias will fill the gap imo. I mostly use fuji for color and kodak for bw, and there is always ilford.

 

[ajuk]

Pro film, Kodak, consumer film Fuji, I cant stand Kodak gold it's like an 800 speed film.

 

[popeetheus]

Kodak, mostly Gold 200. I know, its only a "consumer film". After trying all sorts of films from both companies, its the only one that consistently comes out looking natural. Most of Fuji's films I have tried all have strange/funky colors, although I have some shots where that quirkiness really worked out.

 

[Ektagraphic]

Gold works for you? Have you tried Kodak Portra or Kodak Ektar?

 

[Photo Engineer]

I think the survey would be more useful to us with 8 categories as follows:

I shoot mostly Kodak C-41 films
I shoot mostly Kodak E-6 films
I shoot mostly Fuji C-41 films
I shoot mostly Fuji E-6 films
I shoot mostly Kodak B&W films
I shoot mostly Fuji B&W films
I shoot Other brands of color
I shoot Other brands of B&W

This should allow a person to mark at least 2 categories, one color and one B&W and would give us a lot of "market research". It might allow 3 to be marked for B&W, reversal and negative. IDK but this poll gives no data about reversal vs negative and can confuse color and B&W IMHO.

PE

 

[funkpilz]

I shoot Ilford mostly. For slides, Fuji, for color negative, Kodak. I don't shoot much color neg, so out of the two options, I choose Fuji.

 

[2F/2F]

Before answering, shall I assume this only pertains to color films, since the third major manufacturer, Ilford, is not a choice?

 

[Photo Engineer]

That is the problem, and ambiguity, about this current poll. Even my suggestions could be expanded on.

PE

 

[popeetheus]

Gold works for you? Have you tried Kodak Portra or Kodak Ektar?

Yes, I've tried Portra 400VC in 120 format. I liked that one quite a bit actually, didn't care much for the UC line in 35mm, seemed either a bit too foggy in the shadows or my yellows would get blown out. Maybe a bad batch or processing issues. I haven't tried Ektar yet...what do you think of it? I'm wanting to try the Rollei Digibase films, maybe the reversal as the maskless negatives sound like it could be an issue. As silly as this sounds, I'm trying to get something close the old 5035 Kodacolor II film from the mid-late 70's.

I found a batch of Fuji negatives my father shot in the 70's, with prints on 3M paper. The prints looked to be in good condition, but with subdued in color and low contrast. When I scanned the negatives, the colors were brash with somewhat high contrast comparable to modern films, but with the grain comparable to the Kodacolor film of the time. I guess 3M paper back then was very subdued?

 

[2F/2F]

I find it interesting that people say this. Because everywhere I go, Fuji films are generally a dollar or two MORE than comparable Kodak films. Maybe things are different when ordering online. But at actual stores, Kodak products tend to be a little cheaper.

This is not the case at any store I've ever been to. Where I get my film (Freestyle and Samy's), Kodak generally runs about 10-20 percent higher than the comparable Fuji product. I have only bought film online once in my life (not counting film from private parties off of APUG classifieds or E-Bay).

 

[2F/2F]

I generally shoot more Kodak than Fuji, but currently it is about the same. When Kodak dropped 100T and 160T I lost about 50% of my colour film and probably 80% of my T film. I have about 25 rolls of Fuji 64T left and when that's gone I'm going to have to use filters (EPY if it is still made sucks). My daylight transparency films are all Kodak.

I am right with you on Portra 100T and Ektachrome 160T (and 320T), as well as the point that EPY is destroyed by Fujichrome T64. I have 160T, 100T, and some NPL stashed, and I am always looking for more. I guess I will have to start doing the same for T64. DAMN!

 

[Anon Ymous]

That is the problem, and ambiguity, about this current poll. Even my suggestions could be expanded on.

PE

Everything would be solved with 3 different polls (BW, C41, E6).

 

[nocrop]

There are other processes too: dr5 Chrome? Ilfochrome? Okay, I'm just being pedantic. The original poll I don't like though. Just shot some HP5--I love the stuff, and to consider Ilford an "other" is anathema to me.