Anyone actively shooting Kodak Gold films in quanity?

DanielStone

Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2008
Messages
3,114
Location
Los Angeles
Format
Multi Format
Hey all,

I've been using a good bit of MF lately, and have even been picking up my 35mm cameras again(F4's and a K1000).... Enough about that.

looking back from past exploits and shooting, I seem to have favored using Kodak Gold 200 and 400 for 35mm shootin. Mostly 200(rated @ 100). I still love the rendering and color palette. Reds are saturated, but not overly so, like with Ektar(that I've found w/ c-printing and even drum scanning them)....

Whilst browsing though Flickr this evening, I came across a series of shots done with Gold 400:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/28916846@N03/8248946807/

boy, I love it! Ya ya, I know that a scan(most likely a scan) isn't the "best" way to tell, especially with negatives.
But still... The colors have some great kick, but not too much kicks-ya-in-the-tushy saturation, like ektar does.

and @ $2.49/roll (36exp), it's cheap enough to not really "worry" about anything....

anyone with a good deal of experience with this emulsion?

thx,
Dan
 

Fixcinater

Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2008
Messages
2,500
Location
San Diego, CA
Format
Medium Format
That looks much better than anything I've seen out of Gold 400. Maybe I should try some in-date and get it developed promptly instead of waiting for months.
 

mopar_guy

Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2009
Messages
1,176
Location
Washington,
Format
Multi Format
I used to really like Gold 100 (sigh).
 
OP
OP

DanielStone

Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2008
Messages
3,114
Location
Los Angeles
Format
Multi Format
Fixcinater said:
That looks much better than anything I've seen out of Gold 400. Maybe I should try some in-date and get it developed promptly instead of waiting for months.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY what I was thinking.... Most of the 200-speed 'zombie'(what I've dubbed it, it "never dies" hahaha) stuff I've shot in my less-$$$-in-my-pocket-days was $1 store 3-roll 24exp packs. Usually 1-3yrs O.O.D. or so.

But some 400 fresh-dated stuff for $2.50/roll, nothing to stop me now(except it being back-ordered @ B+H )

-Dan
 

Vonder

Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
1,237
Location
Foo
Format
35mm
I have about a hundred rolls of Kodak Gold 100 in storage. Gold 200 is good, but I've lately been shooting more Fuji Superia 200 because it's easier for me to scan. Don't know why. My 400 speed film of choice is also Fuji's but the Kodak Gold I have shot has been good too.
 

Hatchetman

Member
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
1,553
Location
Chicago, IL
Format
Multi Format
IMO those look pretty good b/c the size of the film (xpan), not the quality of the film.
 

mauro35

Member
Joined
May 28, 2013
Messages
219
Location
Finland
Format
35mm
I have shot about 15 rolls of both Kodak Gold 400 and 200. I am still puzzled with the results. The colors are natural and not overly saturated, but both films are quite slow, I think actually Gold 400 looks best around ISO 100-160 and Gold 200 at 64-100, and not very consistent. I got mixed results depending on the type of light and the sunsets look more blue than with Fuji Superia. They are grainy films too. What I can conclude is that, even though color negative has great exposure latitude, it´s important to find the correct exposure to get the most from these emulsions and hit their sweet spot, usually at lower speed than declared by the manufacturer.
 

BrianShaw

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
16,594
Location
La-la-land
Format
Multi Format

Maybe there is a difference in light at your latitude, but my experience wiht Gold 200 has been excellent: virtually no grain and great color when shot at box speed. Where I have run into problems like you describe is when Adorama substituted "ColorPlus" for what they advertize as Gold. That happened to me once and it is such a different (inferior) film from Gold that I considered it a bait-and-switch tactic.
 

E. von Hoegh

Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
6,197
Location
Adirondacks
Format
Multi Format
I used Gold 100 exclusively for around 10 years, it did a fine job for me. I have some Profoto, but haven't seen any negatives yet.
 

bvy

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
3,285
Location
Pittsburgh
Format
Multi Format
BrianShaw said:
Where I have run into problems like you describe is when Adorama substituted "ColorPlus" for what they advertize as Gold. That happened to me once and it is such a different (inferior) film from Gold that I considered it a bait-and-switch tactic.
Click to expand...

Same happened to me with Unique Photo. Ordered Gold and got Profoto. I ended up using and liking (if not loving) it. Still...
 

adelorenzo

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2012
Messages
1,421
Location
Whitehorse, Yukon
Format
4x5 Format
I've been buying Gold 400 at the local Wal-mart and running it through a Konica A4 from the thrift store. I take it on hikes and whatnot where I don't want to worry about the camera too much. 1-hour processing and scans at the Wal-mart, I re-scan any of the frames I want to use.

This is my only 35mm camera so I can't compare it to anything but here are a few of my pics. They seem really grainy, not sure if that is the lab or the film. I don't do any noise reduction when I process my scans.


Paul hiking down to an alpine lake by Dead Link Removed, on Flickr


Carbon Hill by Dead Link Removed, on Flickr

It seems to handle overcast pretty well but the colors get a little saturated (for my taste) in full sun:


Packrafting the upper Wheaton River by Dead Link Removed, on Flickr
 

02Pilot

Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
321
Format
Multi Format
I've got an order in with Adorama right now for some Gold 200 that seems to be slow in coming (the rest of the order already arrived)...this discussion makes me wonder what will actually show up. Hmmm....

In any case, I've been pretty happy with the Gold 200; less so with the Gold 400. As others have said, the former is no Portra 160 or Ektar, but at half the price it's perfectly serviceable for general use. I tend to shoot it at box speed, but erring on the side of overexposure whenever there's a question (I generally don't use a meter). For whatever reason, I particularly like the look of it through the uncoated lenses on some of my older cameras.
 

Truzi

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2012
Messages
2,656
Format
Multi Format
For the consumer film I always liked Gold 100. Not too long ago I had purposely used 400 (which I'd avoided for years if it were at all possible) and was very pleasantly surprised at how far 400-speed has come. Right now I have a nice stock of Gold 200, which I used often.
 
OP
OP

DanielStone

Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2008
Messages
3,114
Location
Los Angeles
Format
Multi Format
Hatchetman said:
IMO those look pretty good b/c the size of the film (xpan), not the quality of the film.
Click to expand...

agreed, but the color,density and apparent contrast was what I was referring to more, not just the larger negative size. I have given thought to an Xpan or TX-2 kit, but have always held off. Not so sure now . My usage of 35mm film is LOW, very low in fact. Usually 2-3 rolls/6mo period right now. I just prefer to use MF.

But I love the ratio of the Xpan's negative size, and find it "fits" my vision of things very well. And as we all know, "bigger is better" a lot of the time with shooting film: cleaner, clearer scans w/ less apparent grain, etc...

Now only if Gold film were still available in 120 format
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mauro35

Member
Joined
May 28, 2013
Messages
219
Location
Finland
Format
35mm


It can really be a light difference. Here in Finland the endless summer sunsets can be challenging to photograph and the light changes very fast in intensity and color temperature. It's difficult to remember that, cause our eyes are so incredibly adaptive. Or I might have had a long lag between exposure and development as well (few months). But I have tried ColorPlus too and can agree completely, it is a far inferior film.
 

ArtO

Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
260
Location
Florida
Format
Multi Format
I use quite a lot of GC400 and for me the colors are great.
 

wblynch

Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2009
Messages
1,697
Location
Mission Viejo
Format
127 Format
Not a ton, but I use them. I don't often spend extra for Portra or Ektar.

80% of my color 35mm use is on Kodak Gold 200 or 400. I have always loved Kodak color films.

Fuji are great too and I use them a lot but less than Kodak. I love the Fuji Pro 400H but have only used 2 or 3 rolls of that.


So I guess I use about 40 rolls of Kodak Gold and 10 of Fujicolor per year.
 

Les Sarile

Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2010
Messages
3,425
Location
Santa Cruz, CA
Format
35mm
DanielStone said:
boy, I love it! Ya ya, I know that a scan(most likely a scan) isn't the "best" way to tell, especially with negatives.
But still... The colors have some great kick, but not too much kicks-ya-in-the-tushy saturation, like ektar does.
thx,
Dan
Click to expand...

That is an understatement particularly since there are no standards. And just to be sure you know, below are examples from a minilab Noritsu compared to a Coolscan of the same frame of Kodak Gold 100.

Straight from a Noritsu


Straight from the Coolscan


Doesn't look like the same frame of film does it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…