Film Reviews

Firstly let me just say, that I'm slightly confused as to all the different 35mm Fuji 'quicksnap' cameras out there. The 2 that I used were like the one shown here, but a slightly different color. Anyway, on to the review:
The Flash indicator took a while to light up, but we got it going after some persistance. The photos were ok, nothing great though. The results produced fairly natural looking colors, but many of the indoor/nightime shots were slightly blurry and grainy. Many photos appeared under-exposed, like the Flash wasn't bright enough. 3/5 stars.

Recently I bought 2 One Time Use Cameras. The Kodak Max HQ Camera and a Fuji Quicksnap Flash Camera. After finishing both Camera's I had the Kodak Camera/Film Developed at a Kodak Express, then the Fuji Camera/Film developed at a Fuji Lab. The Results were very different to each other. The Fuji Quicksnap Flash is clearly the Superior Film/Camera. While the Kodak Prints came back slightly blurry with not much color, the Fuji Prints were Crystal Clear with exceptional Clarity and Bright Colors. The Fuji Camera was also cheaper than the Kodak HQ!

I work in the photo processing world, I am a manager of a high volume photo lab and I must say that Fuji film has taken very large steps to over take Kodak in the film world. From their minilabs, to their digital kiosks, to their one time use 35mm cameras, Fuji film is the way to go. From truer colors, more real film grains, to the obvious less blur, this camera is a wise decision for a one time use camera.

This is the finest consumer-grade SLR I have owned, and I have been in the SLR autofocus market since the Minolta Maxxums came out in the mid-80's. I have owned several Nikon SLRs and Canon EOS SLRs, and the Elan 7 is the closest to perfection that a 35mm autofocus slr will ever come (that is, one that is not a professional camera).
It has all the pro features you would want, has superb weight and balance, metal top and front plates, several custom functions, excellent compatibility with Canon EX speedlights, accepts all EOS lenses, etc, etc. I can't go into all the great features now, there are too many.
I got the amazing BP-300 battery pack for this camera, which adds a great deal to its fine balance when using long lenses. The battery pack also allows you to use cheaper AA batteries instead of the pricey lithiums. And, it adds some length to the grip (for those with large hands). This is a great "must buy" accessory, and can be had for around $60-70.
The controls are simply laid out, easy to access, learn and use. The exposure can go full-automatic or total manual control.
Do not go with the 7 "E" (eye control) version. This is only a gimmick, does not increase focus time, but does increase the cost of the camera.
The built in flash is nice when not using a shoe mounted flash, the quick control dial is a great improvement, and its speed is increased over the previous Elan versions.
A couple of downsides:
1. In low light, it uses the flash as a focus asist light, instead of an IR beam. This is a bit of a nuisance.
2. The LCD screen on top, while very legible and informative, has no backlight to read in low light.
3. The pop up flash should extend a bit higher to avoid vignetting over long zoom lenses.
-However, these are VERY minor complaints, and no camera is perfect. This is a great camera, well-made, with outstanding features and accessories. For the price there is none better.

I've been "into" photography for a very long time. I started out with a Mamiya-Sekor 35 mm SLR. That camera was built like a tank and could take a lot of abuse. Its best feature, however, was that it was an all-manual camera and so I had to learn about exposure from the ground up. I did not trust auto-exposure cameras but eventually I broke down and bought a Minolta XE-7. That camera shared its body, and many other features, with the Leica R3. Again, like the Mamiya, the XE-7 was a solidly built and rugged camera but its aperture-priority mode had its limitations. Then the Minolta X700 came along and it featured dual-mode exposure automation. The Minoltas were both great cameras, but I wanted a little bit more.

When AF hit the market I switched over to a Canon EOS 10s because I liked it better than anything else that Minolta had to offer 10 years ago. I am glad that I did.

That was my entry into the EOS world. I recently bought my son a Rebel GII and the same week I bought the EOS Elan 7. I love the camera.

The EOS Elan 7 is a smooth, quiet and easy to use camera. It takes great pictures, under almost all conditions. It has features to satisfy the "pro wanna-be" in me (I can run the camera in full manual mode and the camera is still very fast and responsive). Or, if I am feeling particularly lazy, I can let the camera's brain do all the thinking for me and I still get great pictures over 99% of the time. The controls are easy to use and the functions are all very intuitive, so that I don't have to carry the manual with me at all times. In fact, after having used the EOS 10s for so long, the Elan 7 feels right at home in my hands. The Elan 7 has definitely cured me of my "Nikon-envy."

I followed the salesperson recommendation and bought the standard 7 model, w/o the eye focusing feuture. I am glad that I did because I can now use the extra money to buy accessories such as the battery grip.

After living with a manual focus camera for 20 years, I'd splurged and bought myself the Canon Rebel and a couple lenses. I was happy with it, but it lacked some features I was seeking. Enter the Elan 7. Oh my! Once I learned how to use the multiple frame feature, there was no stopping me! I stopped getting so-so shots of my sons in their soccer games, and was getting at least one spot on perfect out of the two or three. This alone makes the camera worth its price for me, but there are other aspects I like as well.

The camera just feels solid to me. My Rebel was lightweight, but I always worried that came with a price. I use my camera often in an active way, hiking in our bluffs, riding my bike through the wetlands and cross country skiing in the rare years we get enough decent snow cover. The camera can handle these kinds of conditions, and I've always had nice photos come back to me. I also appreciate the very high shutter speeds it affords me. I've nearly stopped the action of hovering hummingbirds with this camera, it's that fast. It's also fairly quiet as SLRs go, another plus for those who need that feature. The rewind is almost silent, which helps when I am stalking birds and my film runs out, as it invariably does.

There were a few little glitches in going from the Rebel to the Elan for me. Although they are both EOS cameras, one can't assume that the Elan is just a more expensive Rebel and will operate as such. For one thing, the film counter system is completely reversed. The Rebel counts down, the Elan counts up.
The benefit to this is that I always get 25 exposures with my Elan, whereas 24 was the max with the Rebel. Yes, film is cheap, but it does add up!

Also, the creative controls work differently. I'd become very used to setting the Rebel to under or over expose, and needed to relearn the way to set that with the Elan. On the plus side, with the Elan, there is a setting that will allow for autobracketing, so that you can achieve the same thing with less thought, once you know that setting.

The kit lens was a nice plus as well. My Rebel had 35mm as its widest angle, and the 28mm allows a little more range for me. I've had my Elan now for three years, and I am still learning to take full advantage of all it has to offer. From a camera junkie, that is high praise indeed.

This is the finest consumer-grade SLR I have owned, and I have been in the SLR autofocus market since the Minolta Maxxums came out in the mid-80's. I have owned several Nikon SLRs and Canon EOS SLRs, and the Elan 7 is the closest to perfection that a 35mm autofocus slr will ever come (that is, one that is not a professional camera).
It has all the pro features you would want, has superb weight and balance, metal top and front plates, several custom functions, excellent compatibility with Canon EX speedlights, accepts all EOS lenses, etc, etc. I can't go into all the great features now, there are too many.
I got the amazing BP-300 battery pack for this camera, which adds a great deal to its fine balance when using long lenses. The battery pack also allows you to use cheaper AA batteries instead of the pricey lithiums. And, it adds some length to the grip (for those with large hands). This is a great "must buy" accessory, and can be had for around $60-70.
The controls are simply laid out, easy to access, learn and use. The exposure can go full-automatic or total manual control.
Do not go with the 7 "E" (eye control) version. This is only a gimmick, does not increase focus time, but does increase the cost of the camera.
The built in flash is nice when not using a shoe mounted flash, the quick control dial is a great improvement, and its speed is increased over the previous Elan versions.
A couple of downsides:
1. In low light, it uses the flash as a focus asist light, instead of an IR beam. This is a bit of a nuisance.
2. The LCD screen on top, while very legible and informative, has no backlight to read in low light.
3. The pop up flash should extend a bit higher to avoid vignetting over long zoom lenses.
-However, these are VERY minor complaints, and no camera is perfect. This is a great camera, well-made, with outstanding features and accessories. For the price there is none better.

I've been "into" photography for a very long time. I started out with a Mamiya-Sekor 35 mm SLR. That camera was built like a tank and could take a lot of abuse. Its best feature, however, was that it was an all-manual camera and so I had to learn about exposure from the ground up. I did not trust auto-exposure cameras but eventually I broke down and bought a Minolta XE-7. That camera shared its body, and many other features, with the Leica R3. Again, like the Mamiya, the XE-7 was a solidly built and rugged camera but its aperture-priority mode had its limitations. Then the Minolta X700 came along and it featured dual-mode exposure automation. The Minoltas were both great cameras, but I wanted a little bit more.

When AF hit the market I switched over to a Canon EOS 10s because I liked it better than anything else that Minolta had to offer 10 years ago. I am glad that I did.

That was my entry into the EOS world. I recently bought my son a Rebel GII and the same week I bought the EOS Elan 7. I love the camera.

The EOS Elan 7 is a smooth, quiet and easy to use camera. It takes great pictures, under almost all conditions. It has features to satisfy the "pro wanna-be" in me (I can run the camera in full manual mode and the camera is still very fast and responsive). Or, if I am feeling particularly lazy, I can let the camera's brain do all the thinking for me and I still get great pictures over 99% of the time. The controls are easy to use and the functions are all very intuitive, so that I don't have to carry the manual with me at all times. In fact, after having used the EOS 10s for so long, the Elan 7 feels right at home in my hands. The Elan 7 has definitely cured me of my "Nikon-envy."

I followed the salesperson recommendation and bought the standard 7 model, w/o the eye focusing feuture. I am glad that I did because I can now use the extra money to buy accessories such as the battery grip.

After living with a manual focus camera for 20 years, I'd splurged and bought myself the Canon Rebel and a couple lenses. I was happy with it, but it lacked some features I was seeking. Enter the Elan 7. Oh my! Once I learned how to use the multiple frame feature, there was no stopping me! I stopped getting so-so shots of my sons in their soccer games, and was getting at least one spot on perfect out of the two or three. This alone makes the camera worth its price for me, but there are other aspects I like as well.

The camera just feels solid to me. My Rebel was lightweight, but I always worried that came with a price. I use my camera often in an active way, hiking in our bluffs, riding my bike through the wetlands and cross country skiing in the rare years we get enough decent snow cover. The camera can handle these kinds of conditions, and I've always had nice photos come back to me. I also appreciate the very high shutter speeds it affords me. I've nearly stopped the action of hovering hummingbirds with this camera, it's that fast. It's also fairly quiet as SLRs go, another plus for those who need that feature. The rewind is almost silent, which helps when I am stalking birds and my film runs out, as it invariably does.

There were a few little glitches in going from the Rebel to the Elan for me. Although they are both EOS cameras, one can't assume that the Elan is just a more expensive Rebel and will operate as such. For one thing, the film counter system is completely reversed. The Rebel counts down, the Elan counts up.
The benefit to this is that I always get 25 exposures with my Elan, whereas 24 was the max with the Rebel. Yes, film is cheap, but it does add up!

Also, the creative controls work differently. I'd become very used to setting the Rebel to under or over expose, and needed to relearn the way to set that with the Elan. On the plus side, with the Elan, there is a setting that will allow for autobracketing, so that you can achieve the same thing with less thought, once you know that setting.

The kit lens was a nice plus as well. My Rebel had 35mm as its widest angle, and the 28mm allows a little more range for me. I've had my Elan now for three years, and I am still learning to take full advantage of all it has to offer. From a camera junkie, that is high praise indeed.

The film is fine. Its ASA of 400 is a good speed for outdoor pics with little motion. An ASA of 200 is however preferable for those whose pictures will be taken mostly indoors. Those who want to freeze motion (eg. sports) will benefit from an ASA of 1000. Portraiture should be done on slow, ASA 100 or lower (if available) film. Value within each speed should be calculated by exposures divided by roll price; in general, the 40 exposure size is a better bargain than these 25s.

Kodak makes the industy's best film. Period. Like the title says, the faster the film, the better the results (for amatures anyway). 400 is the minimum that any amatuer should buy, and generally the results are pretty good. 800 speed is even better, but be prepared to pay more for it. 800 is good for low light and high-speed subjects. However, for most situations, 400 should be fine.

I recently came back from a trip to Europe and developed my 200 speed and 400 speed film at the same time. The pictures from the 400 speed film were far superior to the 200 speed film - even though the pictures were taken under the same conditions. The pictures from the 200 speed were grainy and lacked the color quality. It is worth spending more money for the 400 - regardless of the what the conditions will be when you expect to take your pictures.

This classic Kodak high speed black and white film still holds its own against its newer competitors because of its versatility. It is one of the few films that can be easily pushed and yet still retain much of its shadow detail. However, it isn't the best; I believe Ilford HP5 Plus is better than Tri-X for shadow detail and contrast. And of course Kodak T-MAX 400 and Ilford Delta 400 are vastly superior with regards to shadow detail and contrast. Still, one can't go wrong using this high speed black and white film; a classic that is still worth using.

I have used Tri-X Pan at EI 3200 and even 6400, developed in Rodinol. Tri-X was introduced in the 1950's, Rodinol in the 1890's. Such a combination produces low-light performance that is quite remarkable. Now we have T-Max 3200, which has much greater speed, but was not introduced until the 1980's.
In the 1950's, 1960's, and to some extent 1970's, if you wanted to shoot in dim light, it was Tri-X Pan.

This film is classic stuff. A bit grainy, but extremely forgiving of questionable exposure times and screwy processing conditions and therefore great for a darkroom knucklehead like me. Plus, it's cheap and readily available; in this color-oriented day and age, few other B&W films are either.

Ever tried using an Olympus digital camera and wished it were a little easier to navigate the menu's? Fuji digital cameras are the answer!

I've tried Olympus' digital cameras before and must say the people who designed the menus and buttons were not thinking of the average camera user when designing it.

This little A310 camera is nice. It has an automatic sliding cover that covers the lens when the camera is turned off.

The pictures it takes are great, as long as you are in Fine (3MP) mode. 1 and 2 MP modes are good too, but noticeably less than the 3MP. Macro mode works excellent. Colors are good.

To compare it to an older Fuji Finepix 2400 camera- the 2400 would show mysterious white circles in the photos when taking pictures under low-battery conditions. With the A310, I can take pictures until the batteries are on their last legs.

The only real beef I have with this camera is that its movie mode does not allow sound via any type of built-in microphone. You're stuck with silent movies. This isn't a big deal me however, since I'm not into videotaping..

Pictures are worth a 1000 words. Please see the pictures in my photo gallery (www.people.umass.edu/nishanth/ ) which I took with FinePix A310 at 1MP setting.

+ Points:
It doesn't drain the batteries quickly as others.
Crystal clear pictures.
Extreme close-up and long range shots with equal ease.
Light, compact and elegant.
High quality 6 MP prints.
Equipped with almost all functions which you can ever need.
Easy picture management software.

The only defect I can find is the lack of an UV filter.
I strongly recommend its purchase.

I own an awesome Canon Rebel S2 camera (35mm) and needed a fit-me-in-a-pocket sleek digital camera with decent megapixels. I saw this camera and bought - LOVE IT! It shoots in 6 MEGAPIXELS! What Fuji did was they found a way to "overlap" the 3.1 megapixels onto eachother to creat 6 megapxls.
I OWN IT FOR OVER 2 WEEKS NOW AND TESTED THE PHOTO QUALITY:
Let me tell you the COLOR is 100% ACCURATE - TRUE TO LIFE COLOR which was my number 1 quality I was looking for (next to megapxl and clarity).

I blew up one of the photos to 13" x 18" and THE PICTURE IS CRYSTAL CLEAR, the picture was of me and my dog and you can see the finest hairs on my dog. NO PIXELATION WHATSOEVER!!!! People were very impressed!!!!

It's very compact. The next best one is Canon S400. See the complete reviews with test images at www.imaging-resource.com . For the money you can't beat it!
Wait a year or two and then upgrade to a fancy 5 megapixel or by then 8 megapixel
(which just came out for $1000). Technology rapidly advances- in the meantime stick with this camera- you'll love it!!!

Krissy

Yes, it's nice to have a 28 mm lens on an auto-everything camera, but other than that, I don't really understand what the big deal (the raves of other reviewers) is with this camera. The pictures are not any sharper than with my Olympus Stylus Zoom, the exposures are not that great under many conditions, it is very difficult -- if not impossible -- to stop the zoom where you want to in the middle of its range, and -- worst of all for me -- the camera comes pre-set with a printable (wrong) date, that unless you reset or erase it will ruin all of your photos!! I stupidly took this camera on vacation without testing it first and shot eleven rolls of film with it. I sure wish I had taken my Olympus instead.

I needed a small camera with a 28 mm lens. The other choice was an Olympus stylus epic, fixed 28 mm. But for travel the zoom is great. I also took photos with my 5 megapixel camera. there is no comparison. used Fuji superia 200 film, amazing colors, detail, even the kodak photo cd blew away the Dig. And the batteries never die (unlike a dig). destined to be a clasic like its previous incarnataion.

I've gone through around ten rolls of film, and the results are really clear. rarely have I seen this camera on the street I would guess most purchases today are digital cameras. I own both. but after the many request for copies of the clear photos from the t-4. I now use it all the time. I really enjoy the remote control,with a tripod.\ get close to subject when shooting, and you will look like a pro.its a good camera, and its easy to use. and for 200 dollars you will be very happy.

This was a great scanner for it's time. It does a good job of scanning slides (haven't used it much for negative scanning). The Color Management System doesn't do the job I wish it did, often the colors are darker than the slide, so I usually adjust them in Photoshop. The shadows can be dark as well.

Overall, it's a good scanner, especially if you're only doing small-print or web work. Nikon now has newer scanner models with greater o/p and bit depth.

The question to ask yourself is "What am I going to do with the images I scan? Produce small prints or put them on the web?" If so, this scanner is perfect. If you're a semi-pro or pro who wants as much detail as possible, then get a newer model (ie: 4000 ED).....which will most likely be my next purchase. :)

This is a great scanner - but first time buyers of such a scanner, with Windows XP as an operating system beware! If you purchase the scanner, be sure that the package contains the Installation CD that contains the Windows XP installation update. Many of the inventoried Scanners do not have the update and to trying to get an update is an exercise. You have to download it from the website, but you must first call Nikon support to get this information. The hold times for the support line can take more than an hour. Then, best of luck on the download. After spending 4 hours on the thing myself, I finally had to call Nikon back, wait on hold for an hour and 15 minutes to then learn I had to call someone else to get them to mail me a disk. Hopefully, this tip can save you hours!

If you're looking for a 35mm film scanner, your research has finally come to an end. Specially now that THE PRICE HAS BEEN LOWERED! I've been using this scanner for about two months and I can only say that it's worth every cent you put on it. Colors are great, detail is incredible, the resolution allows really big output (around 12.5 X 8.5 at 300DPI - even bigger if you use 250DPI). But the biggest star is ICE. Ok, it doesn't work on B&W film, but the time it saves you from retouching on Photoshop more than pays for this scanner. And ICE comes in two flavors - normal or sharpen. You can improve sharpness while removing scratches and dust. Mine came with the latest firmware (1.31), but I updated to the software's latest version (2.5.1) via download. The software works fine. Specially if you know how to use curves to correct color casts, improve details on certain areas, etc. And it has a very special feature that makes it better than all others I've seen - you can resize the preview window to the size of your monitor. You can't imagine how much this little detail helps on correcting or improving each scan. Great. The Nikon Coolscan III (LS-30) is such a good scanner that I don't believe paying more for the LS 2000 makes sense. Ok, the other has 36 bit and multiscan for improved shadow detail. But until now I never felt the need for this. Or for throwing US$ 700 more on a scanner. Better buy another Coolscan III... Ah, with Vuescan, a third party software, you can do multiple scanning on the Coolscan III for better shadow detail. It has a nice place for storing the transport screws on the back, has built-in termination. The connectors are HDI-50. It comes with a cable (HDI-50 to 25 pin SCSI), but if your SCSI chain has other equipment and you want to place it right after the computer, you'll probably need another HDI-50 to other connector cable. As with most things Nikon, it feels solid as a rock. Certainly will last a long time. Hope as much as the faithful Nikon Fs. Looks like. It's hard to go wrong with the Nikon Coolscan III.

I've been using the FS4000 since January. I previously had a 2400dpi Minolta DImage II(I believe!) that kept on freezing up and was exceptionally slow. I can't comment in absolute terms about the speed of the FS4000 but it is certainly way faster than the old Minolta. My deduction of one star (more properly about 1/2 a star)is due to the fact the scanner still seems like it could be a lot faster - perception only, maybe, but still....

I have been scanning slides at the highest resolution with the noise reduction on but no color management or adjustments made during scanning (preferring to work on the scanned image in Photoshop). Overall scan quality is excellent with no issues from a functional or performance perspective from any of the approx. 1000 scans done to date. The noise reduction capabilities are the primary benefit I notice in that the time spent touching up dust and minor scratches afterwards is very very minor (and usually due to forgetting to clean the slides in the first place!). Color balance and detail resolution are far superior to what I experienced beforehand. Desk footprint is great and noise level while scanning is comfortable.

If I had any complaint at all it is that the scans can reveal problems in the original image such as a lack of sharpness in some areas of the image due to me using lower quality lenses in the old days - such problems don't show up quite so easily either when viewing the slides through a loupe or after the 2400dpi scans - serves me right for using cheap glass, I guess.

This is a very good scanner. The FARE system has worked well for me and that is the reason I bought it. I have the HP PhotoSmart S20 as well. While the scanners are roughly in the same price range, each has its strengths and weaknesses. The FS4000US is SLOWER and the images have more grain than the S20, but the images appear sharper, with better color depth. As to speed, I don't have to spend hours removing dust and scratches manually. And a neat s/w package called "NeatImages" workes wonders with the grain. Bottom line, total processing time is quicker with the FS400US, and the finished product is noticably better.

Given the price, this is a great film scanner. But, it's not perfect.

First, it produces wonderful images with color depths up to 42 bits. Its scratch-removal system (FARE) works well (within limitations), and it seems reasonably quick (though I have nothing with which to compare it). Since it supports both SCSI-2 and USB, its versatility is hard to find - even in more expensive models. Setup was a snap. I just plugged it into my (Windows ME) USB port, added the software and voila!

There are some limitations: Unlike competing Nikon models, there are no accessories. And the scanner is made for 35mm only (slides, negatives and APS). As I said above, FARE seems to work very well. But if a negative is too scratched, the software will fail and may even hang your system.

I recently bought a three pack of this stuff (just for grins) and was pretty impressed by the results (despite my bungling - read on).

I had a roll of the stuff loaded and rewound mid-roll as I wanted to shoot some color film (rated at ISO 100). When I loaded the Kodak B&W back in later, I forgot to reset the ISO back to 400. It wasn't until after I finished the roll that I realized my goof (and a good one at that as I had to deliberately override the DX coding in order to do it). Thinking that I everything was hosed - I just had the lab give me negatives (no proof sheet).

I scanned a couple of the images in via a 35mm film scanner and the results were quite usable. This stuff has exposure latitude up the wazoo. I would recommend this stuff to the casual photographer who wants B&W snapshot - but the latitude makes it useless for the serious amateur thinking this to be an alternative to real B&W.

Kodak's Black & White + is what is known as a chromogenic black and white film. What this means, when compared to traditional (panchromatic) B&W films is that it can be developed in C-41 (color processing). Given that traditional black and white processing has grown quite expensive and that many photo labs no longer possess the capability to process regular B&W, this film provides exceptional convenience.

I think the other reviewers of this film here have probably lacked experience with this film and its competitors from ILFORD of the UK and Konica of Japan. Yes, there are color shift issues with this film. Much of that depends on the quality of the C-41 processing and the willingness of the technician to spend time with some exposure compensation.

Most color shifts with this film result from the use of color paper. If photos taken with this film are developed using regular B&W paper, then the user will receive true black and white prints. Using color paper often times will result in a slight color shift toward sepia or blue/gray. However, I find the shift toward sepia pleasing to the eye because it lends the picture the air of an old time B&W print that has faded with age. Sepia provides a classical look to monochromatic prints.

Because this film and its competitors use dyes rather than silver halide crystals, it is capable of being developed by normal 1-hour labs using C-41 processing. This is incredibly convenient and much less expensive than using traditional black and white film and then having to wait for its return if your lab lacks the facilities to do traditional black and white printing.

This is a very fine grained film for its speed. It is also a medium to medium-high contrast film. It delivers very sharp imagery and has served as a very nice platform to re-introduce casual photographers to the elegance and drama of black and white photography.

Yes, traditional black and white is still alive and well. But for less cost and a lot more timeliness, this film offers very sharp imagery to folks who would not normally consider black and white film.

Kodak markets Black and White+ as a consumer grade film. The Professional emulsion of this film is called T400CN and offers the same convenience and cost benefits. Kodak also offers a chromogenic B&W in professional grade among its PORTRA family of films. That film is known as PORTRA 400 and is often used for wedding and portrait work when people choose black and white prints.

Don't underestimate this film. It offers a lot of advantages and the flexibility to shift tonal variations based on the use of color OR black and white paper.

For those considering this film, be aware that all chromogenic films, such as the ones discussed here, as well as the ILFORD and KONICA offerings are ONLY SOLD AS ISO 400 speed films. Despite that medium/fast speed, all are very fine grained films and will provide incredibly sharp images.

I recommend this film and its professional family members.

This film seems a lot better than Kodak Max 400 even though it is basically the same thing (except for the fact that it's black and white). I wouldn't recommend this for proffesionals, but it's great for the average person.