Kodak Gold 200 in 120 format...what do you feel about this film since its launch in March 2022?

[sperera]

Yes yes it's all linked, asking loads before I invest in fresh stocks of film

I want to learn what you all think about this stock now you have had time to use it. As a film snob I have turned my nose up at it sticking to my beloved Portra family of films thus far......now some time has passed what do we feel about this stock since its launch in March 2022? Attach images at will...thanks for your time.

 

[BrianShaw]

I provided you with comparison photos in another thread. Gold is good film. It's my #1 film for 35mm and the 120 version seems about the same. But for softer color tones and "serious work", I still remain a Portra 160 "snob". The photo opportunity dictates the film.

 

[sperera]

Thanks Brian, apologies for my cross-over threads, but I want to hear from dedicated Gold 200 120 format users. I don't trust YouTube reviews. You're one of them already, thanks!

 

[BrianShaw]

I want to hear other opinions too! There aren't too many, other than the YouTubers. Please, folks... chime in!

 

[blee1996]

I never liked the palette of Kodak Gold 200. For landscape and things I use Ektar 100, for people Portra. Life is too short for yellow, which seems the dominant color for Gold 200.

 

[sperera]

......typically the 'scanning' of film is quite poor by a lot of reviewers. Before anyone slaps my wrists mentioning scanning, well if you're getting paid for jobs it's going to be scanned for marketing purposes. I have been scanning film since the 90s when I used a ScanMate 5000 drum scanner. Back then it was mostly Fuji slide film like Provia and then Provia II that I scanned.

 

[sperera]

I never liked the palette of Kodak Gold 200. For landscape and things I use Ektar 100, for people Portra. Life is too short for yellow.

that's what I'm seeing....drift to sour yellow....but is that bad scanning like I mentioned......

 

[BrianShaw]

I never liked the palette of Kodak Gold 200. For landscape and things I use Ektar 100, for people Portra. Life is too short for yellow, which seems the dominant color for Gold 200.

This is the great thing about photography... individual differences. Had I written the comment you did it would read:

I never liked the palette of Kodak Ektar 100. For landscape and things I use Gold 200, for people Portra. Life is too short for garish colors...

 

[abruzzi]

one thing I'll say--the current US prices for 120 Gold 200, is cheaper than most B&W film. A five pack for $32 (B&H) = $6.40 a roll. $0.40 more than Arista or Kentmere. So anyone complaining about the cost of color film needs to shoot 120.

I don't shoot a lot of color and usually prefer Provia (if I can get it) or E100. I do like gold more than the portras (though I do shoot portra 800 when in dark and colorful places.) I prefer the Fuji C41 colors and still have a bunch of Pro400H, but there is very little more that I can get, so I do shoot Gold at times. (I don't really shoot 35mm anymore, so my choices are 120 and sheet film.)

 

[sperera]

...the perfect colour negative film for professional use (traditional print or digital) would give you accurate colours and have loads of latitude. Saturation and contrast you can tweak easily. Obvious....

 

[sperera]

one thing I'll say--the current US prices for 120 Gold 200, is cheaper than most B&W film. A five pack for $32 (B&H) = $6.40 a roll. $0.40 more than Arista or Kentmere. So anyone complaining about the cost of color film needs to shoot 120.

I don't shoot a lot of color and usually prefer Provia (if I can get it) or E100. I do like gold more than the portras (though I do shoot portra 800 when in dark and colorful places.) I prefer the Fuji C41 colors and still have a bunch of Pro400H, but there is very little more that I can get, so I do shoot Gold at times. (I don't really shoot 35mm anymore, so my choices are 120 and sheet film.)

Still have expired Provia, Astia and E100 in the freezer....

 

[BrianShaw]

I must wear sour yellow tinted spectacles, because I haven't noticed (or been bothered by that) in the pst. Here are some Gold 200 images recently made. Forgive the lousy scans as they are mostly the default provided by the lab. Also forgive any bad focus... these were taken with an Anniversary Graphic and 6x7 roll film back. I'm not as able to hold that heavy camera steady anymore. Sad...

(I'll have to attach the others later. My attempts to resize to conform to the absurd size limit seems to have failed on the others.)

 

[sperera]

damn, I will just have to try it out for myself!!!!! doh!!! no casts visible in ur shot Brian

 

[BrianShaw]

 

[sperera]

the Anniversary Graphic swung to the right there Brian!! the tones and hues are excellent in this film I see

 

[BrianShaw]

... and from another day. Same location; same film; same camera. Both days, though, were overcast cloud conditions.

I'm generally satisfied with Kodak Gold 200 in 120 and especially loving the price. If only the grain was smaller, but it's not really obnoxious so I can live with it. Eagerly awaiting other examples, especially of the yellow cast! It might be related to specific weather/lighting conditions???

 

[skylight1b]

I do not like Gold in 35mm, but I really like it in 120. It has given me pretty accurate color portrayals, especially since my last batch of Portra 400 felt exceedingly dull.

Gold example below (not many good choices from my work computer):

 

[sperera]

thanks for the posts from everyone, very helpful

 

[BrianShaw]

I know that this isn't a 35mm discussion, so forgive the minor diversion. Love the image by @skylight1b ! My biggest complaint about Gold 200 in 35mm is the grain. color, though, I find generally reasonable and believable. I'm rarely concerned with "accurate" color, but that's just me. (Kodak/Nagel Retina IIc; 50 mm SK lens)

That one seems to have a yellow color cast, but seems predictable and reasonabley accurate.

This last image was re-shot in 120 Gold 200. I don't have the 120 version on my desktop to post, but it is in another of @sperera threads if one want to do comparison. https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...hts-interiors-photography.207920/post-2812149

If not completely obvious... I'm sold on Gold 200 and have been for a long time.

 

[Oldwino]

I don't like it (in 120 - no experience in 135). Yellowish cast, greens turn brown sometimes, not very sharp, overall murky vibe. I'll stick with portra...

 

[BrianShaw]

Do you have any example to share so we can better understand your observation?

 

[Paul Howell]

Although I no longer shoot color film, I did try a roll of Gold in 120 and shot with my Kowa Super 66. meter was a Gossen SBC,I had the roll developed and printed at Tempe Camera Imaging Center. If I can find the prints I will scan them. I think like all color film there are many variables, how old the lens, meaning how good are the coatings. How accurate is the what meter, and developing and printing. In my case gold was good, 6X6 negative grain was good, contrast fine, colors more vivid than Porta and a bit less than Extar. I think it would make a nice film for general purpose film, travel, family snapshots and the like. Really the way to judge is shoot a roll, have it commercial developed and printed or and scanned.

 

[MattKing]

I would shoot a roll of each of Gold and Portra in the lighting conditions I normally work in and then see how they respond in my workflow.
Preferably nearly identical or identical shots on each roll.
Your printing/scanning workflow is critical to the answer.

 

[Lachlan Young]

If you're ok with it having about the granularity of Portra 800, then it's good stuff, if you are able to scan/ darkroom print it competently.

It really ain't Portra on the colour rendering front, just so you're aware. It's pretty warm overall, and the proclamations about mud are largely from people trying to force the curve behaviour off in directions it isn't meant to go. It's useful precisely because isn't Portra, not a cheaper substitute.

 

[BrianShaw]

If you're ok with it having about the granularity of Portra 800, then it's good stuff, if you are able to scan/ darkroom print it competently.

It really ain't Portra on the colour rendering front, just so you're aware. It's pretty warm overall, and the proclamations about mud are largely from people trying to force the curve behaviour off in directions it isn't meant to go. It's useful precisely because isn't Portra, not a cheaper substitute.

Hi Lachlan. Forgive me for being postentially annoying, but what are you referring to by "it" - Portra 800 or Gold 200? I seem to be easily confused by pronoun and indirect references today.