Kodak Gold 200 : first roll ;-)

[Gimenosaiz]

Hello!

I was reading this amazing post about Kodak and its production of Gold 200 ...
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/kodak-gold-vs-colorplus.123313/page-2ç

... and I just wanted to shot one roll. I was really intrigued because I thought that the film that I shot with my Mju-I in my honeymoon was Kodak Gold. On those days I didn't mind neither the camera nor the manufacturer of my rolls. Kodak sounded good.
I really love the results. Of course I'm not an expert like those users who debated in the above mentioned thread, but I think that Kodak Gold is a very decent color film. Just a bit yellowish under some lighting scenarios (exposure) ... but with very nice vintage look ! I don't know if its characteristics would satisfy to a professional but it's enough for me ... I cannot say any strong argument to use Portra 160 135mm film instead of Kodak Gold 200. Acutance? Latitude? Grain?
Well, latitud may be the difference if I compare it with Portra 400.

Well, here you have some examples.

Leica M6 : Summicron 35/2 v.4 : Summicron 90/2 v. 1970
Kodak Gold 200 : ISO 200 : Tetenal Kit C-41
Epson V800

1. Summicron 35/2 v.4 @ f/8

violeta by Antonio Gimeno, on Flickr

2. Summicron 35/2 v.4 @ f/2

violeta by Antonio Gimeno, on Flickr

3. Summicron 35/2 v.4 @ f/2.8


4. Summicron 90/2 v. 1970 @ f/2

violeta by Antonio Gimeno, on Flickr

5. Summicron 90/2 v. 1970 @ f/4??

violeta by Antonio Gimeno, on Flickr

6. Summicron 35/2 v.4 @ f/2


7. Summicron 35/2 v.4 @ f/11


8.Summicron 35/2 v.4 @ f/8


What do think of this film?

Thank you!
Antonio

 

[Carter john]

I've been using it since Gold 100 is gone. I like it, like you I use it non-professionally. I like it's skin tones and it is not trying to produce vivid colors.

 

[trendland]

Hello!

I was reading this amazing post about Kodak and its production of Gold 200 ...
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/kodak-gold-vs-colorplus.123313/page-2ç

... and I just wanted to shot one roll. I was really intrigued because I thought that the film that I shot with my Mju-I in my honeymoon was Kodak Gold. On those days I didn't mind neither the camera nor the manufacturer of my rolls. Kodak sounded good.
I really love the results. Of course I'm not an expert like those users who debated in the above mentioned thread, but I think that Kodak Gold is a very decent color film. Just a bit yellowish under some lighting scenarios (exposure) ... but with very nice vintage look ! I don't know if its characteristics would satisfy to a professional but it's enough for me ... I cannot say any strong argument to use Portra 160 135mm film instead of Kodak Gold 200. Acutance? Latitude? Grain?
Well, latitud may be the difference if I compare it with Portra 400.

Well, here you have some examples.

Leica M6 : Summicron 35/2 v.4 : Summicron 90/2 v. 1970
Kodak Gold 200 : ISO 200 : Tetenal Kit C-41
Epson V800

1. Summicron 35/2 v.4 @ f/8

violeta by Antonio Gimeno, on Flickr

2. Summicron 35/2 v.4 @ f/2

violeta by Antonio Gimeno, on Flickr

3. Summicron 35/2 v.4 @ f/2.8


4. Summicron 90/2 v. 1970 @ f/2

violeta by Antonio Gimeno, on Flickr

5. Summicron 90/2 v. 1970 @ f/4??

violeta by Antonio Gimeno, on Flickr

6. Summicron 35/2 v.4 @ f/2


7. Summicron 35/2 v.4 @ f/11


8.Summicron 35/2 v.4 @ f/8


What do think of this film?

Thank you!
Antonio

hmm what hapened with your film is my first thought? Where are the colors? It looks very pale?
That is for example an indicator to some Fuji films (expiration date some years over guarantee)
I will not say it is looking bad but it looks not like typical Gold 200??

From a first look there is a reason : No sun ! But picture No 7 showes pretty clear : blue sky?

A bit too pale is my feeling - but the look of your film is going in direction of KodakVR!

Have your perhaps mixed your films?

with regards

PS : Gold is more saturated - in summer, in direct sunshine a.s.o.
(Not at cloudy sky of course but there was much sun - wasn't there?)

 

[trendland]

There is also a color shift in picture No.3 ( regarding the hair (of your daughterr?) there is a
"lila" in her brown hair? First thought was that is my tablet - but have a look there other pictures show a real midtle brown?
Such color tones can be caused from your lighting (refrections) have a look in her suite - color reflection! But for that cast it is much to much what is seen in the hair!

Let me ask from what production date was your film?

with regards

PS : Gold tendency from expiration is not in direction of pale tones - but more in direction of
little color shifts [KodakVR has massive brownish shifts from expiration AND pale colors]

 

[trendland]

Aha look at pic. No 8 that could be a little overexposure ....hmm notice the sky!
That would not cause pale colors???? That would cause little more brilliance!
So that is my impression - I could have stated : very fine, super, best job you done!
But this would not help you - or would it ?

with regards

PS : I guess you are still knowing that you made an exclusive fine job - no need to mention

 

[trendland]

not trying to produce vivid colors.

Exactly but it is a bit too pale would you not feel?

with regards

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Very nice photos, Antonio. All of them have very good color tone.

Kodak Gold 200 is the color film I use most often. It produces pleasing, natural colors. Ektar 100 has more saturation and therefore produces more vivid images, but I think Gold 200 is better for photographing people, neighborhoods, and landscapes.

 

[1kgcoffee]

It's the Tri-X of colour films. Prints well in the darkroom. Nice middle ground between Ektar and Portra. Can handle both people and things well. o not let the price tag fool you into thinking it is a lower quality film it is the most versatile colour film

For medium format lomography 100 seems to be similar. So you can have the same colours with less grain.

 

[Gimenosaiz]

I've been using it since Gold 100 is gone. I like it, like you I use it non-professionally. I like it's skin tones and it is not trying to produce vivid colors.

Hello!

Thank you for your commet !! We like it for the same reasons ;-)

Regards
Antonio

 

[Gimenosaiz]

There is also a color shift in picture No.3 ( regarding the hair (of your daughterr?) there is a
"lila" in her brown hair? First thought was that is my tablet - but have a look there other pictures show a real midtle brown?
Such color tones can be caused from your lighting (refrections) have a look in her suite - color reflection! But for that cast it is much to much what is seen in the hair!

Let me ask from what production date was your film?

with regards

PS : Gold tendency from expiration is not in direction of pale tones - but more in direction of
little color shifts [KodakVR has massive brownish shifts from expiration AND pale colors]

hmm what hapened with your film is my first thought? Where are the colors? It looks very pale?
That is for example an indicator to some Fuji films (expiration date some years over guarantee)
I will not say it is looking bad but it looks not like typical Gold 200??

From a first look there is a reason : No sun ! But picture No 7 showes pretty clear : blue sky?

A bit too pale is my feeling - but the look of your film is going in direction of KodakVR!

Have your perhaps mixed your films?

with regards

PS : Gold is more saturated - in summer, in direct sunshine a.s.o.
(Not at cloudy sky of course but there was much sun - wasn't there?)

Hello!

Thank you very much for your in-depth analysis!
I scanned the negatives twice just to make sure that everything was in order in that part of the process.
Then I edit just a little with lightroom.

As you said, the light was dim or in most of the scenes. No sun and even some light haze ... wonderful mornings of early spring in Spain ;-)
Pic#7 shows very natural, fine colors for me. I must admit that it could be a bit overexposed. Most of them actually.

Mi girl has pale skin tone (hehe, her grandmother came from nothern Spain), so, it was expected ;-)

Another sunny example:
9. Summicron 35/2


About the color shift in Pic#3. I think that you are right. The backgroud was reflecting in her hair ... but I think I should re-scan it again because the shift is, as you said, too much cast to be a mere reflection.

I'm not sure about the production date. But I'm sure it was not even close to expiration.

Aha look at pic. No 8 that could be a little overexposure ....hmm notice the sky!
That would not cause pale colors???? That would cause little more brilliance!
So that is my impression - I could have stated : very fine, super, best job you done!
But this would not help you - or would it ?

with regards

PS : I guess you are still knowing that you made an exclusive fine job - no need to mention

Of course, thank you for your analysis!!! I really appreciate it, your effort !!
Another example of the overexposure ... that I did on purpose because it's what a used to do with my bronica when I shoot Portra 400:

10. Summicron 35/2:


And another one, just to compare the "glass" effect ;-)
11. Canon 50/1.4 LTM


THANK YOU again.
Kind regards,
Antonio

 

[Gimenosaiz]

Very nice photos, Antonio. All of them have very good color tone.

Kodak Gold 200 is the color film I use most often. It produces pleasing, natural colors. Ektar 100 has more saturation and therefore produces more vivid images, but I think Gold 200 is better for photographing people, neighborhoods, and landscapes.

Hello!
I agree: I really prefer Gold 200 ... even if I haven't done a fine job along the process. I mean, they look as I like the colors, that is not what I get using ektar in this format.

Kind regards
Antonio

 

[Gimenosaiz]

It's the Tri-X of colour films. Prints well in the darkroom. Nice middle ground between Ektar and Portra. Can handle both people and things well. o not let the price tag fool you into thinking it is a lower quality film it is the most versatile colour film

For medium format lomography 100 seems to be similar. So you can have the same colours with less grain.

Hello!
Thank you ... "Tri-X of colour films"! I agree with you: middle ground between Ektar and Portra. I've just purchased some more rolls ;-)

Kind regards
Antonio

 

[baachitraka]

Local drug store sell them for https://www.dm.de/kodak-200-color-negativ-film-135-36-3-filme-a-36-bilder-p41771880804.html

 

[miha]

Nice snaps, but the colours are off.

 

[Gimenosaiz]

Local drug store sell them for https://www.dm.de/kodak-200-color-negativ-film-135-36-3-filme-a-36-bilder-p41771880804.html

Hello!

Thank you ... very good Price!

Kind regards!
Antonio

 

[Gimenosaiz]

Nice snaps, but the colours are off.

Hello!
Thank you ... but, please, can you share any example! I'm not sure about what should I expect ;-)
Perhaps I need another re-scan ...
Kind regards
Antonio

 

[baachitraka]

Hello!

Thank you ... very good Price!

Kind regards!
Antonio

Some years ago I was buying APX 100 for that price. Nevertheless, its still a good price for KG 200

 

[Gimenosaiz]

Hello!
a reference pool
https://www.flickr.com/groups/2858856@N21/

 

[baachitraka]

Hello!
Thank you ... but, please, can you share any example! I'm not sure about what should I expect ;-)
Perhaps I need another re-scan ...
Kind regards
Antonio

I am sure you would have calibrated your scanner/monitor...

 

[Gimenosaiz]

I am sure you would have calibrated your scanner/monitor...

Hi!
The monitor is ok ! At least I calibrated it, my new BenQ ;-)

Ciao!

 

[tezzasmall]

I haven't used it for years, as I don't really do colour work very often lately.

But one summer spent in America, and a couple of weddings were both done with 35mm Kodak Gold, along with snaps from holidays abroad. I found it gave lovely colouration and never let me down. People whose weddings I did were extremely happy with the prints that I gave them and even commented that they preferred them to the pictures taken by the (expensive) 'pro' photographer.

Terry S

 

[trendland]

Hello!

Thank you very much for your in-depth analysis!
I scanned the negatives twice just to make sure that everything was in order in that part of the process.
Then I edit just a little with lightroom.

As you said, the light was dim or in most of the scenes. No sun and even some light haze ... wonderful mornings of early spring in Spain ;-)
Pic#7 shows very natural, fine colors for me. I must admit that it could be a bit overexposed. Most of them actually.

Mi girl has pale skin tone (hehe, her grandmother came from nothern Spain), so, it was expected ;-)

Another sunny example:
9. Summicron 35/2


About the color shift in Pic#3. I think that you are right. The backgroud was reflecting in her hair ... but I think I should re-scan it again because the shift is, as you said, too much cast to be a mere reflection.

I'm not sure about the production date. But I'm sure it was not even close to expiration.



Of course, thank you for your analysis!!! I really appreciate it, your effort !!
Another example of the overexposure ... that I did on purpose because it's what a used to do with my bronica when I shoot Portra 400:

10. Summicron 35/2:


And another one, just to compare the "glass" effect ;-)
11. Canon 50/1.4 LTM


THANK YOU again.
Kind regards,
Antonio

Unterstand - Gimenosaiz Well let me state : The wether condition during a shooting a photographer is best able to remember! From some shots it is hart to say for people looking at!
Well the color cast we are looking isn't that problem - speculated in direction of light reflection (and I had in mind also the (brownish) background but I can't say precise) - now you cleared it -so it is solved! The next general issue is from vegetation, environments - sometimes it is pale - but then the results are exactly like the reality! Good that we spoke about ....so your film is total OK!
Well other examples pretty show much more colors (the blue sky) thats b.t.w. what I expect from a film in general : It is OK if one prefer a film with more neutral color look (sometimes there is a real need for [fashion has to have the 100% original colors the clothes show] portraits have to show
the neutral look of peoples skin [there are also other intentions with portraits] architecture is often from a strong factual neutral color look [ but there are also other ways so it depends] .....comming soon to the point : BUT WHAT I EXPECT FROM A FILM IS THAT A DEEP BLUE SKY IS INDEED BLUE FROM A NEUTRAL FILM!
That all is with Gold - and your further pictures prove that in addition!

Well were is the difference? Many other films like the Velvias for example have much saturated colors. ....that can be very fine for ALL kind of landscape ....and it is prefered for most amatheuric shooters for holiday! Examples are often from Velvia50 but also the discontinued Ektachrome
E100VS had this tendency! An example with c41 is the discontinued Agfa Ultra:

That all is a total diference of neutral colors!
I gues the one and only most saturated film ever is this here:

So what is the task of a photograper ?
Beside all the techniques from exposure, framing a.s.o. (not to forget lighting = very important)
To find the right color look! Regarding films there are still oportunitys!
With digital postproduction there are much more of course, but the danger is in regard of overdriven color management! There are many examples from the past wich have shown us total new looks (never possible before) these looks came up very popular (but just for a short time)!
If you regard photography during the last 15 years you can find EVERYTHING! Today one would not shot any longer such colors! So films today give a good basis of learning color compositions!

with regards

 

[miha]

Hello!
Thank you ... but, please, can you share any example! I'm not sure about what should I expect ;-)
Perhaps I need another re-scan ...
Kind regards
Antonio

Sorry, no example to share, however your there photos show an abvious green tint.

 

[MattKing]

Sorry, no example to share, however your there photos show an abvious green tint.

In my mind, the colour caste is more cyan then green.
But that is one of the hazards of sharing images through the internet.

 

[miha]

True, cyan it is.