BetterPhoto Q&A
Category: Best Photographic Equipment to Buy : Film-Based Camera Equipment : Camera Film

Photography Question 
Aaron Vogel

Kodak vs Fuji

I have heard people talk about the differences between Fujifilm and Kodaks film. In anyones opinion, is one better than the other (especially in regards to 100 speed slide film)? I know it varies, but are there any clear , overreaching pros and cons between Ektachrome and Velvia?

To love this question, log in above
2/22/2004 10:04:26 PM

Steven  Stovall   Kodak is generally a warmer film than fuji. So for sunsets, fall leaves, and other simular situations where you want to enhance the warm tones, I would suggest kodak. However for everything else, Fuji is the best all around film. I especially like the new velvia 100f for slides and the reala for prints. Both are exelent 100 ISO films.

To love this comment, log in above
2/22/2004 11:07:17 PM

Bob Cammarata
BetterPhoto Member Since: 7/17/2003
  Fuji Provia 100F is my slide film of choice. Its true-to-life colors, fine grain, and overall sharpeness are tough to beat. Velvia is good for fall foliage, or any time you want richer, exaggerated colors.

I used to shoot Kodachrome 64, but it is getting harder to find as time goes by. (Plus, the special processing requirements for KR films have always been a hassle.)
I've never cared much for Ektachrome, except for 160T which I've used for indoor, studio work and copying. I haven't tried Fuji's tungsten-balanced films yet, but I plan to.

To love this comment, log in above
2/23/2004 5:35:35 AM

Jon Close
BetterPhoto Member Since: 5/18/2000
  Kodak's ISO 100 Ektachomes are just as fine grained as those from Fuji. Color balance is a very subjective thing and what is best for one person is not for another.

Kodak is not generally "warmer" than Fuji. Some films are (like print film Gold 100 v. Superia 100) but others aren't. Ektachrome comes in many "flavors": E100G (neutral color balance), E100GX (warmer balance), and E100VS (vivid saturation). Similarly, Fujifilm comes in Provia, Astia, and Velvia flavors.

Try each and determine which you like best for a given situation.

To love this comment, log in above
2/23/2004 9:02:24 AM

Robert Bridges   One more thing to chew on: My experience has been that the fuji is also cheaper by a significant amount then the comparable kodak films. Why this is I have no idea, and it may just be a regional thing. I still like the old velvia, I like the astiaF and I agree the new velvia is a very good but also contrasty film which many around here feel is better rated at 125-160 ASA depending on what you shoot.

The fuji tungsten film is EXCELLENT!
Don't over look agfa films - sometimes hard to find but have a nice color pallete

To love this comment, log in above
2/24/2004 8:52:32 AM

Denise N   Kodak is far a more superior film. I use nothing but Kodak because I always know my film will come out crystal clear and true to colors. Fuji is cheaper - but you get what you pay for.

To love this comment, log in above
2/24/2004 8:55:53 AM

Jen Hernandez
BetterPhoto Member Since: 3/11/2003
  I remember it this way:
Kodak comes in yellow packaging because it comes out yellower.
Fuji comes in green because it really brings out the greens.
Unless it's fall, I wouldn't touch Kodak. More expensive does not mean better quality! The industry is not that honest.
You'll see the difference in their digital cameras as well. Kodak digitals are not very highly recommended because of their coloring.

To love this comment, log in above
2/24/2004 10:25:34 AM

Jon Close
BetterPhoto Member Since: 5/18/2000
  A fine mnemonic if it works for you, but not for me. Kodak boxes were primarily yellow for 50 years before they created a color film and has nothing to do with denoting a warmer color balance. The lab making your prints has far more influence on the color balance than the brand of film.

To love this comment, log in above
2/24/2004 11:12:13 AM

Robert Brosnan
BetterPhoto Member Since: 10/17/2003
  I was strictly a Kodak man for years. (25+) I have now switched to Fuji and I am more then pleased. It's color are as good as Kodak or even better. I just shot an entire wedding with Fuji NPH400 and I only had 1 bad print. (probably a flash problem) The price is always better then Kodak, no matter where you go. Even the professional films. I am now using Fuji ink jet photo paper, it's also cheaper then Kodak's, and far superior. For quick shoots I buy rolls of 12 exp at Ritz Camera. Usually around $1.00 to $1.89. Find a Kodak 12 exp for that. I can't.

To love this comment, log in above
2/24/2004 2:52:54 PM

Robert Bridges   In response to the concerns of price, lab, and cost of fuji vs kodak I offer this tidbit.
There is a place called the Slideprinter in my town (Denver) it advertizes nationally and some of you may have used their services. They are good folk. Anyway I was talking to the owner one day about films and she told me that the fuji rep stops in weekly, always gives free film to who ever is there, that fuji gave them an ice box to store film and made no demands about it being only for fuji. That the kodak rep who lives near by seldom if ever comes to visit.....Am not sure what exactly but I think this anecdote says something important about the two companies and why fuji is doing fine and kodak is not.

To love this comment, log in above
2/24/2004 3:10:50 PM

Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/11/2003
  It's the Hatfields vs. the McCoys

To love this comment, log in above
2/24/2004 3:29:52 PM

Ken Henry   I have two viewpoints. Artistically I'll use the appropiate film and filters, and normal to extreme exposures to portray what "I" see. They are Reala, 800NPZ, Agfa Otima 100 and 400, Ultra, Agfa Portrait, Kodak high definition, Fuji NPC & 1600.

For my architectural work for income I use Fuji Reala. Why? Sharp, I love Velvia and Provia, but nobody can print chromes as sharp as Reala. I do not know of any other print film (I have tested them all) which can produce accurate rich colors for both interior and exterior. Requires very little correction if any. And finally, it doesn't get blown out by high contrast bright sunlight scenes. So I'm getting details from both sunlight and shadow areas.

All the above is my opion. Ken Henry

To love this comment, log in above
2/26/2004 8:46:31 PM

Robert Bridges   Here's a variation on the above - a question and a problem to be solved. I will be shooting a trade show down the road. I have shot there before and the lighting basically sucks. It is a mix of sodium vapor, daylight balanced florescent, and photo flood lights ....these three are the overheads - then various displays will use tungstens/and god knows what else. In the past I have used the Fuji Press and its ok but it tends to be too red. Flash is out of the question both from a logistical and an expense persepective. Am wondering (Ken) if Reala would be a decent choice?
I have never used that film so I have no clue. I can and no doubt will have to do some back end color corrections.......any suggestions?


To love this comment, log in above
2/26/2004 9:42:46 PM

Sandra Persch
BetterPhoto Member Since: 2/17/2004
  I don't like Kodak. I usually go for AGFA as the coloring is better and the shorts clearer, as least with my camera.

When I last used an Kodak 200 film the prints had a golden shine. It was nice on some prints but above all it didn't really fit.

If you can't get your hands on AGFA, FUJI is quite an adequate alternative.

To love this comment, log in above
2/27/2004 10:35:52 AM

Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/11/2003
  Clearer shorts? Is that see-thru underwear, or you just need a new laundry detergent?

To love this comment, log in above
2/27/2004 2:19:49 PM

Ken Henry   Hello Rob,

Reala would be my only choice to use in extremely mixed lighting. Fuji Press/Fuji Superia, (the same) do have a magenta cast . I do not quite understand why you would not use flash, as this will help reduce some color casting. Logistics? Expense perspective?...I use 433D dedicated Sunpak Flashes...$79.95 from
I have shot trade shows and here is what I do. I use a light weight tripod, flash bracket, Lumiquest pocket bouncer with the silver insert, this is good for wide angle.
My camera settings are manual to the average overall ambient exposure, not under the direct lighting. I use a light meter at the subject plus one exposure(shutter speed). Or you can use your palm of your hand plus one exposure. The flash is on auto/TTL, used only for fill in.
But wether you do or don't use flash you will need to make corrections from your first run of proofs.
Because of the accuratecy of Reala you will probably be making minor corrections at the proccessor. Should you need more understanding on how to make color and density corrections contact me at

To love this comment, log in above
2/29/2004 3:38:39 PM

Brenda Tharp
BetterPhoto Member Since: 6/9/2003
  Aaron, You can see by the numerous answers how we all feel so individually about film! The key to remember on this is that, as human beings, we all respond to color differently. Some of us are even color blind to a certain degree in some areas. Think about it this way: if you were amongst 5 painters, each of you would choose a unique color palette based on your emotional feelings about color, and how you respond to color. With photography, it's the same. So to really decide what film you want to use, you have to experiment. Try some of the Kodak and Fuji films side by side if you can. Do a test. Get yourself two camera bodies, and load one with a Fuji 100 and the other with a Kodak 100 slide film. Shoot the same subject under identical lighting conditions, and compare the results. Do this for several situations: full sun, shade, overcast days, low light, etc. Then look at them on a daylight balanced (5500 degree Kelvin) light table, for true color evaluation. Note also the contrast that each film will have. Choose the film that speaks to you the most, that more 'accurately' represents either what you want to express or what you remember the scene to have been like.

There is more than one right answer! Good luck, Brenda

To love this comment, log in above
3/1/2004 10:39:53 PM

Log in to respond or ask your own question.