KODAK 400 or FUJI 400 FILM FOR ALASKA... which one??

[Sandy R]

Would love to know how many of you opted for Fuji 400 for Alaska and felt it was a good choice. I've been happy with Kodak 200 but everyone is urging me to buy Fuji 400 because of Alaska scenery and conditions. I'm leaning toward Fuji...

 

Sandy

[lmcd]

I only use Fuji film and used mainly 400 speed. The colors in Fuji film seem to be more vibrant. The only Kodak film I used was the Royal Gold and it is not available any more.

 

Larry

[Krazy Kruizers]

:)

 

Before we got a digital camera, we always used 400 film. Pictures turned out very good for our Alaskan cruises.

 

:)

[Budget Queen]

A significant difference can be with processing and I always use a professional lab in Fl. Pro Photo. In the past I have also mailed film directly to them from Alaska so as to avoid any xray damage. I have used both and also Agfa new color film. Take a variety. :)

[Thoth]

400 speed is most likely best, becouse I take quit a few inside photos on a cruise ship.. That's what I used last year. Fuji and Kodak both work for me. Even some store brands make great photos in Alaska!!!

This year, I got a great deal in 200 speed in bulk. I need it in bulk becouse I take LOTS and LOTs of pictures in Alaska.

[mpk]

When I used film a lot, I normally used Kodak Royal also. These days, Kodak Max 400 is all you can get. They say it is a little grainy compared to Royal. Recently, introduced Kodak High Definition 400. I recall a magazine somewhere saying that this is the same stock as the old Royal. I've only seen it in one store, and it was pricey.

 

I went opted for Fuji Superia 400. It has a good reputation, plus it was a good deal (0.06c a frame, no rebate needed). I picked up a dozen rolls. I plan to shoot mostly digital on a point and shoot.

[Aggie95]

We used Fuji 400, which is what we always use, and the pictures turned out great!

[mbisson]

I've used both Kodak & Fuji and haven't had any problems with either. (although I now use mainly digital)

 

For daytime, outside shots 200 speed film is fine and if you think you may have enlargements made it will show less grain than 400.

 

-Monte

[lmcd]

With the technology of today, 400 speed film won't be grainy on enlargements if you use the better quality films such as Kodak Royal or Fuji Superia. I have enlarged several Alaska pictures from 4 X 6 to 8 X 10 and 8 X 12. The Fuji Superia can be both in 4 roll packages at Ritzcamera or Wolfcamera for about $2.00 per roll. These packages are not available at Wal-marts or other such discount stores.

 

Larry

[elephant98]

I haven't used the Fuji film. But, I was very pleased with my Alaska pics taken using Kodak 400 High Definition film.

[Veloran]

Personally, I find Kodak High Definition 400 provides better results with my Nikon SLR. It's my roll of choice, but being budget conscious as well, I actually bring a mix of Fuji 400, and Kodak HD 400. Currently, Fuji has a 5 pack (regular 4 pack plus 1 free roll) of 400 out there at a hard to beat price though.

 

As for the x-ray machines, I try to always have my film hand inspected. The fewer x-rays the better.

[tetons]

What about 800 vs 400 for Alaska pictures?

[lmcd]

Very few places where 800 is needed. The bear watching at Anan Creek was one place. The area was a canopy of trees and without the 800 speed, the bear's faces would have been totally black. They are mostly black any way, but Michelle at Island Wings recommended the 800. Other than that I have only used 400 on 2 cruises and land tours. I had some 100 available for bright snow areas or water.

 

Larry

[cdjulie]

I just got back from Alaska and used two cameras, 35 mm with Kodfak 400Max film (7 rolls) and pocket digital camera. By far, the digital pictures came out much better--clear as a bell. I wish I had used it for all my pics.