Kodacolor 100. New

brbo · Tuesday at 1:35 PM

So making slower speed film worse than it needs to be with additional work/cost and achieving basically nothing (Koldacolor 100 and 200 do not share the same "look")... is a thing now?

Either EK went completely mad or people have too much time speculating...

koraks · Tuesday at 1:45 PM

brbo said:
So making slower speed film worse than it needs to be with additional work/cost and achieving basically nothing (Koldacolor 100 and 200 do not share the same "look")... is a thing now?

That might be expressed a bit cynically - but yes, apparently that's sort of what happened. Kodak made a 200 film, then basically throttled it back to 100 to be able to also offer that variant on the market. IDK how both products compared in terms of grain etc; I'd expect that the 100 version would have been relatively grainy for its speed.

MattKing · Tuesday at 4:05 PM

brbo said:
So making slower speed film worse than it needs to be with additional work/cost and achieving basically nothing (Koldacolor 100 and 200 do not share the same "look")... is a thing now?

Either EK went completely mad or people have too much time speculating...

More like they can essentially make two products with just a relatively minor tweak in the middle of a coating day.
The reasons to do this are quite likely to do with the economics of large coating runs vs. short coating runs, in a world where the cost of having not yet sold inventory is a barrier to the coating runs happening at all.
That and not having to acquire two overlapping but still different sets of constituent components - mostly from non-USA sources.

mshchem · Tuesday at 5:12 PM

BrianShaw said:
Free to send it in and about 6 bucks to get it back.

And I abhor the locked postboxes and the locked post office lobbies. Very inconvenient.

I can walk down the street with a bazooka but I can't mail a package that weights more than 4 ounces LMAO

mshchem · Tuesday at 5:18 PM

MattKing said:
More like they can essentially make two products with just a relatively minor tweak in the middle of a coating day.
The reasons to do this are quite likely to do with the economics of large coating runs vs. short coating runs, in a world where the cost of having not yet sold inventory is a barrier to the coating runs happening at all.
That and not having to acquire two overlapping but still different sets of constituent components - mostly from non-USA sources.

Maybe the only tweak is the DX. coding and paint scheme on the cassette.

brbo · Tuesday at 5:33 PM

Yes, and people that shot both are just delulu. Photrio just knows!

mshchem · Tuesday at 5:47 PM

I think taste is the ultimate test. Proimage has rich earthy flavor where Kodacolor........ OK I'm sorry. I'll try to behave.

brbo · Tuesday at 6:08 PM

You are right on the money. Maybe Photrio should rely on other sensory input and taste is as good as any if we decide that eyesight is too bourgeois... I mean, @RafLopes wrote a really nice article (that was linked in this thread) showing the difference in grain between Kodacolor 100 and 200. The difference that you really have to be blind not to see.

Yet, here we are, inventing reasons why both films are basically the same (when they are clearly not).

flavio81 · Tuesday at 10:05 PM

foc said:
What if Kodak coated Kodacolor 200 with a neutral density layer and there by reducing exposure by one stop. (I remember PE mentioning something similar, on a different Kodak film, years ago)

If I recall correctly, and i'm 80% sure this was the case, since I recall reading about it:

What he said was that Kodak Gold 100 was Kodak Gold 200 with added particles that reduced scattering for increased sharpness. The drawback is that this reduced speed, thus the 100 speed as a result.

When you check the datasheets of Gold 100 and 200, 100 is clearly a sharper film. Sadly i don't have the datasheets available, but here's Gold 100 (the old one):

MTF curves are even better than for Velvia 50 of those times.

For comparison, Fuji Superia 100, which by the way, was noticeably FINER grained than Gold 100:

Source:

Resolution and MTF curves in film and lenses

brbo said:
So making slower speed film worse than it needs to be with additional work/cost and achieving basically nothing (Koldacolor 100 and 200 do not share the same "look")... is a thing now?Either EK went completely mad or people have too much time speculating...

Sharper, not "worse",,,

Animalcito · Wednesday at 8:49 PM

Agfa did this film speed reduction with the Agfachrome 100 and 50, too. RMS stayed the same, but resolution and sharpness improved a bit:

braxus · Thursday at 12:11 AM

Interesting points so far guys. I got my 3 rolls of C41 film back from the lab just tonight. Yesterday I shot 1 roll each of Gold 100 version 7, Kodacolor 100 version 8, and Proimage 100 bought just this year. As mentioned earlier, both Proimage and Kodacolor 100 are on Estar base. The base emulsion color looks identical between the two films, but maybe all Estar films looks the same with the base. Comparing shots with the naked eye, between the two films, there is almost no difference visually. If there is a difference, it could be accountable to the other cameras exposure being slightly different. So a camera difference. I started scanning the Kodacolor 100 tonight and will continue with the other two rolls tomorrow. So far what I noticed on the Kodacolor with using Vuescan and my Primefilm XAs scanner, is the color is very cool tone. There is a hint of blue in the scans. I initially set the film type to Kodak, Gold 100 version 6, but the image looked very yellow and washed out. So I set my color profile to generic color film. I'll scan all 3 films with this. My dpi is set to 10000, so its taking a lot of hours just to do 1 roll of 36. Stay tuned for more comments.

Agulliver · Thursday at 4:14 AM

Analogue Wonderland in the UK report that they are soon to receive a "limited amount of rolls" of the new Kodacolor films. AW also state that even they don't know if these are new/tweaked films or simply Pro Image and Color Plus under another name. They also say that full international distribution will happen later. Right now it seems they've got some coming over from the states.

Ten301 · Thursday at 9:56 AM

braxus said:
Interesting points so far guys. I got my 3 rolls of C41 film back from the lab just tonight. Yesterday I shot 1 roll each of Gold 100 version 7, Kodacolor 100 version 8, and Proimage 100 bought just this year. As mentioned earlier, both Proimage and Kodacolor 100 are on Estar base. The base emulsion color looks identical between the two films, but maybe all Estar films looks the same with the base. Comparing shots with the naked eye, between the two films, there is almost no difference visually. If there is a difference, it could be accountable to the other cameras exposure being slightly different. So a camera difference. I started scanning the Kodacolor 100 tonight and will continue with the other two rolls tomorrow. So far what I noticed on the Kodacolor with using Vuescan and my Primefilm XAs scanner, is the color is very cool tone. There is a hint of blue in the scans. I initially set the film type to Kodak, Gold 100 version 6, but the image looked very yellow and washed out. So I set my color profile to generic color film. I'll scan all 3 films with this. My dpi is set to 10000, so its taking a lot of hours just to do 1 roll of 36. Stay tuned for more comments.

It seems odd that the colors were so off on the new Kodacolor 100 with your scanner setting for Gold 100 version 6. It’s generally accepted that Pro Image is a slightly tweaked version Gold version 6, so the results at that setting should have been more or less in the ballpark. Of course, this doesn’t confirm anything, but with other preliminary reports noting the cooler bias of Kodacolor 100, I’m starting to question if it’s Pro Image as everyone seems to believe.

braxus · Thursday at 10:32 AM

I dont think its Gold 100 either, as that film was warm. Im leaning towards Lomo 100 which is basically Kodacolor VR 100 which by name later became VR Plus. (In 200 speed VR Plus became Color Plus). Im scanning Gold 100 now, so we'll see.

Does anyone who has some Lomo 100 on hand know which version of the film it states on the film itself?

brbo · Thursday at 11:31 AM

"Film profiles" in scanning softwares are... whatever. And in Vuescan they are not even that.

Lomography Color Negative 100 has "100-2" markings (135 format, never shot 120).

braxus · Thursday at 1:29 PM

Im getting cooler blue tones on my Gold 100 roll too today. I wonder if it was because I shot the roll as the sun was going down? I now wonder if its possible if Kodacolor 100 is Gold 100 version 8? Version 7 was the last of Gold 100 before it was discontinued in 2010-12. Maybe they tweeked it to be version 8? That said the colors are more muted for a Gold film, so I question still if its Gold 100? And Gold 100 was not currently being made either, as Lomo 100 was Kodacolor VR Plus.

koraks · Thursday at 3:09 PM

braxus said:
I wonder if it was because I shot the roll as the sun was going down?

Depends. Under fading sunlight, everything will shift to red. But if you shoot as the sun's below the horizon or your subject matter is in the shade, it'll go blue.

Frankly, I think what you're running into is really this:

brbo said:
"Film profiles" in scanning softwares are... whatever.

A scan is a starting point; you take it from there. I wouldn't attribute too much value to what the scanning software does in terms of color interpretation, much less on how a film was designed. You can't tell that from how it scans under these conditions.

MattKing · Thursday at 3:27 PM

What @koraks said.
All you are really evaluating is how appropriate the profile you choose matches up to the film you are using, the light available and exposure and filtration you used at the time of exposure, and if you are using a development resource that may not be in spec, how the film was developed.
Unless you pin down all those potential variables, the scans you obtain really won't tell you anything about the colour response of the film is.

blee1996 · Thursday at 3:44 PM

Adding a color checker in one of the test photos (under same lighting condition) will help you balance the color in post processing.

0x001688936CA08 · Thursday at 4:41 PM

braxus said:
My dpi is set to 10000, so its taking a lot of hours just to do 1 roll of 36. Stay tuned for more comments.

Quite a lot higher than necessary or actually useful? I'd imagine something like 75% of the data you're creating is just wasted disk space.

braxus · Thursday at 5:05 PM

My scanner goes from 5000 dpi to 10000 dpi as the next step. I just go full rez and I can always downrezz later if needed. I use my photos in 8K rez videos, so going full rez on the scanner has benefits for the video. Im starting to work with the files now, before I start on my video. Depending on how long my laptop takes to render the video, I hope its online by Sunday.

Taylor Nankervis · Thursday at 9:41 PM

blee1996 said:
Adding a color checker in one of the test photos (under same lighting condition) will help you balance the color in post processing.

Yes, absolutely. An essential first step for the roll of film you load in the camera.
It's a great pity though so many photographers don't understand colour checkers, and again, are repulsed by the high cost! The Calibrite I have is no bigger than a credit card, and joins a same-sized grey card in a retractable double-sided ID-card holder.

braxus · 2025-10-10T23:12:01-0400

I dont test films often enough to get a color checker. Might be a once in a 5 year thing.

Kodacolor 100. New

brbo

koraks

Moderator

MattKing

Moderator

mshchem

mshchem

brbo

mshchem

brbo

flavio81

Animalcito

braxus

Agulliver

Ten301

braxus

brbo

braxus

koraks

Moderator

MattKing

Moderator

blee1996

0x001688936CA08

braxus

Taylor Nankervis

braxus

Kodacolor 100. New

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency