Summary: Chrome, it's not!
Comment: Every now and then, a fellow film buff calls me 'out of my mind' because I shoot exclusively chrome. I am always told that negative films have advanced to the point where they are at least as good as chrome. And that, given the downsides of chrome (like less convenient processing and less exposure latitude), why shoot it? So when I was told by someone that Ultracolor is BETTER than Kodachrome, I decided I just HAD to give it a try. Well, let's just say that I will still be sending film off to Dwayne's for processing - and not for their C41 services!
Anyway, I had the Ultracolor processed by Dale's in order to get slides (my preference for slides is one reason I shoot chrome, but not the only one). And let me just say they left ALOT to be desired in terms of color quality (unnatural, unpleasing, 'C41-like' colors). It just seemed like I was looking at print film projected on the wall (which I guess I was). Certainly NOTHING that can compare to high quality chrome. So I thought that maybe the process at Dale's is not a good one, and had some conventional prints made. They didn't come out much (if any) better. Now maybe, as a chrome shooter, my standards are on the high side here. But when C41 film like Ultracolor (or the new Ektar) is promised to be as good as (if not better than) chrome, ALOT is going to be asked of it. More than it can deliver.