Im aware Kodak made both Gold 100 and 200 in 120 format up until the late 90s. I assume both were discontinued around the same time. I really wish Kodak would bring back Gold 100 in both 35mm and 120, but since that will probably never happen, it would be nice if they offered Gold 200 in 120. That would sell to Millenials wanting a cheap film option in 120 to shoot on their medium format gear. And they all seem to like the look of Gold 200, so I think Kodak should consider it again. I'd buy it in 120. More grain and bolder colors. Gold 200 has a different color balance then Ektar 100, and more obvious grain. Plus there really isn't a cheap $5 to 6 dollar a roll option at the moment. If you want 120, you pretty much have to shoot the Pro films which are twice the dollar amount. I dont know why Kodak won't slit a small batch off the master roll in 120? They certainly sell enough of this in 35mm.
That said, Gold 100 was one of my favorite color films until they discontinued it. I grabbed a roll out of the freezer in 120, and it is dated 06/94. Being over 25 years old, and no idea how it was kept before I purchased it a few years back, I'd like to shoot some of this to see what I end up with. Im expecting color shifts, massive grain, loss of speed, and some fogging. Im wondering if I should rate this at 25 ISO to be safe? Im shooting it in my Fuji GW690, so Im only wasting 8 shots if it doesn't turn out. Any recommendations?
That said, Gold 100 was one of my favorite color films until they discontinued it. I grabbed a roll out of the freezer in 120, and it is dated 06/94. Being over 25 years old, and no idea how it was kept before I purchased it a few years back, I'd like to shoot some of this to see what I end up with. Im expecting color shifts, massive grain, loss of speed, and some fogging. Im wondering if I should rate this at 25 ISO to be safe? Im shooting it in my Fuji GW690, so Im only wasting 8 shots if it doesn't turn out. Any recommendations?