Kodak Ultramax 400

[Вormental_old]

If you shoot a lot of this film, can you please comment on its contrast? I am asking because I am on my 3rd roll and, despite switching the scanning method (from Plustek 120 Pro scanner to DLSR scanning) I am battling excessive contrast here.

A couple of samples:

It's tempting to suggest the exposure error, and I'll accept the blame, but it's hard for me to ignore the pattern of three rolls of high-contrast images, especially when comparing to its slower cousin: Gold 200. In fact, the images above were developed in the same tank as a roll of Gold 200, which didn't turn out this contrasty.

Moreover, the images above are OK, but they are better than average, any scene with sun-lit parts & shadows looks like this:

If you're shooting a lot of Ultramax, are you seeing something similar? Is this an inherently high-contrast film? Should I rate it at ISO 320? I think I'm leaning towards using Superia but I still have quite a few rolls of Ultramax left.

Another possibility is maybe my development temperature is too high? Can't be higher than 101F though, as I'm pouring out of 102F bottle (it drops by 2F during transfer, as I've tested numerous times) perhaps I'm agitating too much... But again, I'm not seeing this contrast on Kodak Gold.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Maybe I have low standards, but i don't see anything to complain about in the above images. The bottom one seems like a faithful rendition of harsh lighting -- nothing worse. Looks like six or seven stops of brightness ratio between areas like the motorcycle wheel hub and brake rotor, and the face of the man just inside the Trattoria doorway (with the dark ball cap). There's still good detail in the mask on the bare-shouldered woman, and in the deepest shadow on the street side of the temporary enclosure...

 

[Ariston]

If they were all exposed the same, try more exposure for the shadows and see what your scanner gives you. It takes a lot to lose the highlights. That being said, the photos look acceptable to me, too.

 

[MattKing]

The contrast in that top example is moderately low. The subject luminance range is quite wide, so the exposure choice - favouring the foreground - results in the highlights being a bit blown out, but that is normal given the lighting conditions.
With those conditions, if you had full detail in both the foreground and the background, the contrast would be truly insipid.

 

[Вormental_old]

Hmm... maybe three rolls just isn't enough, and I simply haven't gotten any variety of light on this film, most of the frames were exposed between 3pm-6pm, while some Gold 200 rolls have seen more favorable light. Thanks guys.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Late in the day you'll also get some change in the color of the light -- even when the sun is an hour or more above the horizon, the light is a good bit redder than midday (not accounting, of course, for heavy wildfire smoke, which reddens the light for everything). If your scanning is correcting that out, it'll probably have some effect on the contrast as well.

 

[guangong]

The eyes use the brain to convert colors of scene to perceived “natural” colors; film has no brain as sees scene as it is.