Anyone actively shooting Kodak Gold films in quanity?

[DanielStone]

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]

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]

I used to really like Gold 100 (sigh).

 

[DanielStone]

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.

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

 

[bvy]

I used to really like Gold 100 (sigh).

Ditto that. I shot my last fresh roll while on vacation a couple weeks ago. Kodak Profoto XL 100 is the obvious replacement, though I'm not feeling the saturation.

 

[Vonder]

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]

IMO those look pretty good b/c the size of the film (xpan), not the quality of the film.

 

[mauro35]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[adelorenzo]

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]

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]

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.

 

[DanielStone]

IMO those look pretty good b/c the size of the film (xpan), not the quality of the film.

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

 

[mauro35]

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.

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.

 

[GarageBoy]

DanielStone: Time for a 6x12 Horseman?

 

[ArtO]

I use quite a lot of GC400 and for me the colors are great.

 

[Lamar]

The shots referenced by the OP look finer grained that what I'm used to seeing from the film. Here's my latest roll of GC400. Nothing special tho, just some snaps because I felt like burning a roll.

http://www.lamarlamb.com/On-Film/Film-Blog/Dublin-on-Gold/30454051_tJPpfx#!i=2625338613&k=MhK8t36

 

[wblynch]

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.

 

[GarageBoy]

Gold 400 is NOT ultramax 400, right?

 

[adelorenzo]

The film imprint on mine is "Kodak GC 400" and I believe (someone please correct me if I am wrong) that the brand names can be Max 400, Gold Ultra 400, Ultra 400, Ultramax 400... Essentially the same film.

 

[Lamar]

That's how I understand it.

The film imprint on mine is "Kodak GC 400" and I believe (someone please correct me if I am wrong) that the brand names can be Max 400, Gold Ultra 400, Ultra 400, Ultramax 400... Essentially the same film.

 

[Kokoro]

I get whatever films I can and recently that has meant Gold 200. I like it anyway.

 

[Les Sarile]

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

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.