@Photo Engineer Is this film the same as Kodak Gold 200?
Kodak Colorplus 200
-
A
- Thread starter Raghu Kuvempunagar
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS: Parting out a Cambo wide
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale FS: "Photographic Workroom Handbook", by Sigismund Blumann. Camera Craft, 1930
- Started by AnselMortensen
-
Free FREE for shipping cost: LEICA Literature
- Started by AnselMortensen
-
For Sale FS: Lot of (2) Brian Ulrich Photo Books. "IS THIS PLACE GREAT OR WHAT" & "CLOSE OUT"
- Started by AnselMortensen
-
For Sale FS: Bronica ETR / ETRS 120 Film Back
- Started by AnselMortensen
Forum statistics
Another thread about Kodak Gold vs Colorplus
There were multiple threads on this topic in 2015.
The short answer is “no”.
A longer answer must be given to the question, “... then what is it?”
PE was not very responsive to that other question. Maybe he will be this time.
The short answer is “no”.
A longer answer must be given to the question, “... then what is it?”
PE was not very responsive to that other question. Maybe he will be this time.
Colorplus is an older formulation of Kodacolor, no ? Perhaps VR 200 whilst Gold is VR-G 200 ?
Ultramax is VR-G 400 ?
I'd take a guess Lomography 800 is VR 1000 ?
Ultramax is VR-G 400 ?
I'd take a guess Lomography 800 is VR 1000 ?
I've used a lot of Colorplus in the last 12 months or so. It's emphatically not Gold 200. As someone who fondly remembers Kodacolor VR films of the 90s I would say I believe it is VR 200, or very closely related.
I've assumed the Lomography branded 800 is Kodak Max 800 as found in single use cameras. The only Kodak 1000 I ever used was Royal Gold 1000 (USA circa 1997). The Lomo 800 is much more accurate with it's colour rendition than Royal Gold - which had the muddy brown look of other Gold products.
I think Ultramax may well be VR-G 400 but it doesn't tend to render reds as browns, as with other Gold films. Maybe it's been tweaked in the last decade since I used VR-G400 before. I quite like Ultramax these days.
I've assumed the Lomography branded 800 is Kodak Max 800 as found in single use cameras. The only Kodak 1000 I ever used was Royal Gold 1000 (USA circa 1997). The Lomo 800 is much more accurate with it's colour rendition than Royal Gold - which had the muddy brown look of other Gold products.
I think Ultramax may well be VR-G 400 but it doesn't tend to render reds as browns, as with other Gold films. Maybe it's been tweaked in the last decade since I used VR-G400 before. I quite like Ultramax these days.
I have no idea and I have never asked anyone about it. Sorry.
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2012
- Messages
- 3,398
- Format
- Medium Format
The question if it is the same needs the additional information : " at what time ? " ! During the past there have been a lot of differences from the specific emulsions in regard of production dates and in regard of improvements from that emulsions of the "gold family".
So many here have answered correct - when they have shown ( or covered out ) differences of specific " Gold " and specific "Color plus " emulsions. But that was the past - it have obviously changed.
There is a difference of 2002 - 2005 Kodak VR films between Kodak " Gold" because Kodak VR was a cheap priced emulsion with little poor characteristics in comparison with the more " high tech" Gold emulsion.
( high tech means : there were a couple of improvements between VR´s 80th technology.)
The last offered cheap VR films have had no difference between Kodak Gold because they were sold out and Kodak saw no chance to revieve that older emulsion with low production costs as special offering for low budget !
But Kodak was sitting on imense masses of produced Gold masterrols with daily lack of demand. So they changed the name of Kodak Gold in " VR "
.That interims " VR " films of the last batch have to be seen in regard of contracts with retailers. There was still a demand to that low budget films but Kodak wasn`t able to fullfill the last deliverings without starting an additional
production run of VR what would not make sense BTW - so it was much cheaper to " name " some Kodak Gold as VR.
And today it is the same with Kodak Gold 200 and Color Plus 200. You may get a real Color Plus emulsion if you have a little luck ( concerning to the production date ) but your chance is great that you get a real Kodak Gold 200
named as Color Plus 200 !
Because Kodak in 2018/2019 is definitifly not producing 2 different standard c41 films in ISO 200
!Bon chance with Kodak Gold ( it is the best ISO 200 with exeption of Portra films )
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2012
- Messages
- 3,398
- Format
- Medium Format
Yeah - great information and thanks to that Aguliver ! I have to add something ( forgot it to mention ) :
There are still differences in different regions. But my guess is : that differences will come to an end when the last masterols of Color Plus 200 are assembled ( that may be finished meanwhile ).
So some of you may be also right if they have noticed specific differences between Gold and Color Plus in the past . The reason therefore should be that Kodak in the US have had a bigger stock of original Color Plus masterolls
while in other regions that stock was still assembled and was getting out.
( don´t forget the production scales of that best selling films during the period till 2003 - with a daily run of that time you can serve the worlds market today for a couple of month )
with regards
Are you certain that Kodak is not producing both Colorplus and Gold 200? They are very different films and exist in different sectors of the market. They're priced very differently and appeal to different types of photographer for the most part.
OP
OP
PE, is there a practical way to find out whether two C41 emulsions are the same or closely related by doing some tests?
Not easily. It would require a set of extensive "undercut" and "double undercut" images along with wedge spectrograms and sesitometric curves averaged over 2 or 3 different coatings to bring out the real differences. Of course, after one test the answer might be obvious.
As I typed, I thought that microscopic cross sections might also show you whether they are the same, but again this might not work.
PE
As I typed, I thought that microscopic cross sections might also show you whether they are the same, but again this might not work.
PE
The difference in colour palette between ColorPlus and Gold 200 leaves no real room for doubt. They're not the same. However, @trendland makes an interesting point regarding the possibility of Kodak manufacturing just one 200ISO emulsion and not two. Hitherto I am as confident as I can be without someone performing the tests PE suggests.
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2012
- Messages
- 3,398
- Format
- Medium Format
A todays manufacturer of films have no chance anymore to produce a cheap c 41 emulsion. During the past it wasn`t in that way but this was in concern of the production scale. Regarding the " Gold " films it was the best selling emulsion Kodak ever manufactured. A scale in the near of one billion 135film equvalentes including al versions (ISO 100/ISO200/ISO400 in 135-36/135-24/135-12) was sold within one single year - the top of selling was 2000/2001.
To that time it was economical to higher the sellings of amatheuric c-41 films with special priced cheap alternates. Amatheuric photographers used this films most during holidays. The sellings reached one top after top from year to year and ( perhaps you remember the merchandising
articles Kodak offered during summer in adition with 3 pack bundles - later with 5 pack offerings) people were animated to shot more and more films.
From reasons of lower priced raw materials Kodak used with VR films ( the more concerning effect was obviously the little more simple production processes with 80th emulsions ) Kodak was able to come on lower unit cost with oldschool c41 emulsions in comparison to modern Gold films. Remarcable if you remember the higher scales of Gold films. But generally this wasn`t a must. The task of Kodak to that time was to higher the sellings of films and therefore they had to achive their aim on whatever the cost.
And each single film Kodak wich was able to sell instead of Agfa and Fuji was a " GOOD FILM " ( from the management perspective ).
Today the minimal production scale did not longer allowe such " cross calculation " . And there is no way anymore to save money buy using old recipes for emulsion backing. ( just if this method was indeed successfully during the past ).
So it is indeed with lower cost to produce a modern more complicated processed emulsion. Because the absolute indicator in calculation is the production scale. And the todays method in manufacturing is definitifly to produce in greater scales during a single production run.
And to store masterrolls for interims asembling. Because the scale today is allwas for the worlds demand of some several following years. Just in case of still existing stocks of other emulsions , produced in the past ( and in the past could mean 4 year ago BTW ) - a manufacturer
is able to offer a wider range of films.
This is at the same time the reason why we have noticed that Fuji discontinued a lot of films. We wonder about the decision to stop this or that special emulsion. But we should better wonder about why this films were offered till the last years.
The simple answer in concern of this mystery is in short : Fuji was sitting on a produced scale of films wich was calculated for the demand of a single year - but at the end these inventories could only be sold after a couple years. And to the time Fuji had to decide for a further
production run they calculated that it might be such expensive ( in lower scales ) that the calculated pricing for the films could be such high that the demand would come to zero.......
So we all wonder about the end of Fuji C 200.......
?
with regards
PS : The color palette of c41 films ( and E6 of course ) varies between different production runs of the same emulsion. The effect is in most cases very small and therefore the production run is indicated from emulsion numbers.
If there are immense differences in color palette between Color Plus and Gold 200 like Agulliver noticed it is indeed a very strong indicator that both films are from different emulsions. I got some Color Plus 200 ( don`t ask me in what year - it might be 2 years ago ) and
I realy are not able to notice a difference to Gold. But as I said before - it may depend from different markets ( regions )
To that time it was economical to higher the sellings of amatheuric c-41 films with special priced cheap alternates. Amatheuric photographers used this films most during holidays. The sellings reached one top after top from year to year and ( perhaps you remember the merchandising
articles Kodak offered during summer in adition with 3 pack bundles - later with 5 pack offerings) people were animated to shot more and more films.
From reasons of lower priced raw materials Kodak used with VR films ( the more concerning effect was obviously the little more simple production processes with 80th emulsions ) Kodak was able to come on lower unit cost with oldschool c41 emulsions in comparison to modern Gold films. Remarcable if you remember the higher scales of Gold films. But generally this wasn`t a must. The task of Kodak to that time was to higher the sellings of films and therefore they had to achive their aim on whatever the cost.
And each single film Kodak wich was able to sell instead of Agfa and Fuji was a " GOOD FILM "
( from the management perspective ).Today the minimal production scale did not longer allowe such " cross calculation " . And there is no way anymore to save money buy using old recipes for emulsion backing. ( just if this method was indeed successfully during the past ).
So it is indeed with lower cost to produce a modern more complicated processed emulsion. Because the absolute indicator in calculation is the production scale. And the todays method in manufacturing is definitifly to produce in greater scales during a single production run.
And to store masterrolls for interims asembling. Because the scale today is allwas for the worlds demand of some several following years. Just in case of still existing stocks of other emulsions , produced in the past ( and in the past could mean 4 year ago BTW ) - a manufacturer
is able to offer a wider range of films.
This is at the same time the reason why we have noticed that Fuji discontinued a lot of films. We wonder about the decision to stop this or that special emulsion. But we should better wonder about why this films were offered till the last years.
The simple answer in concern of this mystery is in short : Fuji was sitting on a produced scale of films wich was calculated for the demand of a single year - but at the end these inventories could only be sold after a couple years. And to the time Fuji had to decide for a further
production run they calculated that it might be such expensive ( in lower scales ) that the calculated pricing for the films could be such high that the demand would come to zero......
.So we all wonder about the end of Fuji C 200.......
?with regards
PS : The color palette of c41 films ( and E6 of course ) varies between different production runs of the same emulsion. The effect is in most cases very small and therefore the production run is indicated from emulsion numbers.
If there are immense differences in color palette between Color Plus and Gold 200 like Agulliver noticed it is indeed a very strong indicator that both films are from different emulsions. I got some Color Plus 200 ( don`t ask me in what year - it might be 2 years ago ) and
I realy are not able to notice a difference to Gold. But as I said before - it may depend from different markets ( regions )
Your explanation and speculation is fascinating... but the differences are too different to accept batch variations as the only difference. However it happens... they are different.
A good question that nobody can answer and most avoid: why is Kodak not willing to provide photographers with any information ColorPlus. In 2015 I asked and perused their catalog to no avail. The late, great PE (perhaps jokingly) suggested I was asking questions that might result in a mafia hit being placed on me. (I somehow avoided the hit man despite his valiant attempts.). But never found any official information on the film other than the fact that lots of it is available and seems to be selling quite well.
Three years later... can anyone provide any information on the differences beyond experiental or speculative????
As for me, I don’t like the ColorPlus palette and for what little color neg film I shoot use either my stock of Gold 200 or Portra.
A good question that nobody can answer and most avoid: why is Kodak not willing to provide photographers with any information ColorPlus. In 2015 I asked and perused their catalog to no avail. The late, great PE (perhaps jokingly) suggested I was asking questions that might result in a mafia hit being placed on me. (I somehow avoided the hit man despite his valiant attempts.). But never found any official information on the film other than the fact that lots of it is available and seems to be selling quite well.
Three years later... can anyone provide any information on the differences beyond experiental or speculative????
As for me, I don’t like the ColorPlus palette and for what little color neg film I shoot use either my stock of Gold 200 or Portra.
Last edited:
The color palette of a series of runs of a given color film does not vary substantially. This is one of the release tests for the product.
And when Kodak does not release such information, perhaps there is an NDA with the company being supplied??
PE
And when Kodak does not release such information, perhaps there is an NDA with the company being supplied??
PE
Good point... NDA... I should have thought of that. Interesting notion. 
Because Kodak in 2018/2019 is definitifly not producing 2 different standard c41 films in ISO 200
Definitely? You sure know Ilford are producing five different ISO 400 emulsion or at least have that many ISO 400 films in their portfolio.
I agree that B&W and colour film cannot be compared....but I also see only speculation and no evidence that Kodak isn't producing two different emulsions. Certainly the current Kodak Gold 200 acts like the Gold 200 of 10-20 years ago, and the Color Plus acts like it's predecessor (VR 200). The two films cannot reasonably be mistaken for each other.
Given that I still see Color Plus for sale in brick and mortar shops, as do others, and it is widely available at prices much cheaper than Gold via online retailers.....I am assuming there is currently a good supply
Given that I still see Color Plus for sale in brick and mortar shops, as do others, and it is widely available at prices much cheaper than Gold via online retailers.....I am assuming there is currently a good supply
Just for clarity, it is a product, not an emulsion. The product contains about 9 emulsions.
And, I guess we will never know for sure.
PE
And, I guess we will never know for sure.
PE
Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't entirely comfortable using the word "emulsion". "Product" is a much better word.
My post was not about comparing different technologies.However stating with certainty that there is no room for two c41 products (thanks PE) of the same speed coming from the same producer whereas Ilford make 5 films of the same speed is highly unlikely.
MattKing
Moderator
It is probably correct to say that there isn't room for two colour negative films of the same speed in any particular amateur market segment.
But the amateur market segments are quite fragmented, and highly dependent on distribution issues.
My favourite local photo retailer has, in the past, elected to buy some amateur oriented 35mm colour negative Kodak films from distributors that supply drugstore and grocery store shelves, because the "photography industry" oriented Canadian distributors either don't supply the product, have extra-ordinarily high prices, or have extra-ordinarily high minimum purchase requirements.
But the amateur market segments are quite fragmented, and highly dependent on distribution issues.
My favourite local photo retailer has, in the past, elected to buy some amateur oriented 35mm colour negative Kodak films from distributors that supply drugstore and grocery store shelves, because the "photography industry" oriented Canadian distributors either don't supply the product, have extra-ordinarily high prices, or have extra-ordinarily high minimum purchase requirements.
It's equally impossible to state with any certainty that the room is there for more than two (Gold & Portra) color products of the same speed. I can very well imagine that it simply isn't feasible to meet the production and logistics requirements of maintaining two 400 speed color products aimed at a still marginal amateur segment. Especially given the faster rate of deterioration of higher speed emulsions.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |