Fujifilm 400 Speed 25 Exposure APS Film (3 Pack)

For ASA 100, Kodak kicked butt. Clearly better color rendition, and much, much tighter grain and better detail in all the bright lighting situations, especially with panorama print.

For ASA 400, I was pleasantly surprised that Fuji really outperformed the Kodak film. Fuji had vibrant blues and was good all across to the reds. Kodak felt washed out on the blue side, weirdly. Also surprising was that Fuji had tighter grain in bright conditions; they both looked grainy of course in lower light, but the Fuji somehow felt smoother or less chunky in the blown-up panorama prints. It also seemed to have better tonal range in both light and dark settings.

Frankly, neither of the ASA 200 films seemed acceptable to me for outdoor shots; indoors with flash, both were OK and Kodak was maybe better color. Outside, they both felt lower contrast/saturation, subsequently cramped color, didn't have the tight grain of the 100, and didn't work as well in low light and indoors (without flash) as the 400. Just seemed not worth it compared to the two options.


Go For the Kodak   July 25, 2002
 3 out of 6 found this review helpful

You get what you pay for... In many places and stores the Fuji film is less exppensive than the Kodak. Spend the extra 2 dollars and buy the Kodak. I bought the Fuji film because it was on sale, the first roll that i shot was okay, except that my friend was using the exact same camera as me (Olympus) and he shot w./the Kodak 400 ISO and it was much sharper and much better quality than my shots. Then the second roll of the Fuji i put in jamed and i had to get my camera fixed for a cost of 20 dollars. The peeople at the repair shop said that the film was made improperly and that is why it got stuck in my camera. I will never buy Fuji film again, their developing process is also sub-par compared w/Kodak but i won't disuss that here. Save yourself the touble buy the Kodak.


Sharp, vivid photos   October 23, 2001
 9 out of 9 found this review helpful

Recently I shot several hundred photos with my Elph 2 camera using both Fuji and Kodak film. The pictures were taken under a wide range of lighting conditions. To my eyes, the photos taken with Fuji 400 film are consistently brighter with more vivid colors than those taken with Kodak film. Fuji 400 is now the only film that I buy.


Excellent performance   August 28, 2001
 5 out of 6 found this review helpful

I've run a lot of this film at ASA400 and ASA200 through a Fuji Tiara 1010 APS camera, and have gotten excellent results with it. The Fuji's fixed focal length lens is nice and sharp, and the combination of the sharp lens with this film produces brilliantly colored, sharp photos. I've had a number of photos with this film blown up to 8 x 12 size, and it's surprising how sharp and ungrainy the photos are. You really can't see the grain all that well except at ASA400 looking at a patch of blue sky. I've framed and mounted some of these photos on the wall of my office, and have gotten many compliments on them over the last several months by people who've dropped by my office. (Of course, it helps that these photos were of the Bryce Canyon Nat'l Park Amphitheater. Bryce Canyon has to be about the most photogenic place on earth.) If the person is a knowledgeable photographer, they're always surprised to find out the photos were taken with an APS camera with its smaller film format and relatively fast, ASA400 film. One thing I've noticed is that this film doesn't punch up the color intensities, especially in the green and blue range, as much as the Fuji Velvia series, which produces the most riotous colors you could possibly want. If you want really brilliant and intense colors, you can't beat the Velvia film. The Nexia film is closer to actual reality, and sometimes I prefer that to the Velvia. Either way, I've gotten good results from both films.