Kodak Gold in 120, WOW

[Henning Serger]

OK, after reviewing all the facts about this film, including reviews posted by the most intellegent reviewers, and noting all of the technical data therein, I am here to tell you that this emulsion isn't likely to be what you have know as Gold, but is in fact mostly identical to Portra 400.

Oha, that is quite a bold claim..........
Now we are eagerly waiting for your sophisticated side-by-side tests for proving that claim .

Best regards,
Henning

 

[George Mann]

Oha, that is quite a bold claim..........
Now we are eagerly waiting for your sophisticated side-by-side tests for proving that claim .

Best regards,
Henning

I don't think that I currently have the means to conduct such a test.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Oha, that is quite a bold claim..........
Now we are eagerly waiting for your sophisticated side-by-side tests for proving that claim .

Best regards,
Henning

The Mk 1 human eyeball tells me that George's excitement has got far ahead of his ability to distinguish the materials.

On a light table it's immediately obvious what is Portra 160/400/800 and what is Gold 200 simply from the mask colour. And, just as Kodak states in the data, the visually apparent granularity of Gold 200 is about level with Portra 800 - and that's before getting on to the colour rendering differences - and that Gold's colour repro latitude is wider but less realistic (i.e. a more idealistic memory) - which may well be playing a role in why people want to claim it is 'better' than more accurate films like Portra. Either way, I think it's a useful expressive material to have available.

 

[George Mann]

The Mk 1 human eyeball tells me that George's excitement has got far ahead of his ability to distinguish the materials.

On a light table it's immediately obvious what is Portra 160/400/800 and what is Gold 200 simply from the mask colour. And, just as Kodak states in the data, the visually apparent granularity of Gold 200 is about level with Portra 800 - and that's before getting on to the colour rendering differences - and that Gold's colour repro latitude is wider but less realistic (i.e. a more idealistic memory) - which may well be playing a role in why people want to claim it is 'better' than more accurate films like Portra. Either way, I think it's a useful expressive material to have available.

It doesn't appear that you are analyzing the current 120 emulsion here.

I am not alone in my assessment of it.

 

[Lachlan Young]

It doesn't appear that you are analyzing the current 120 emulsion here.

I am not alone in my assessment of it.

I am, I have rolls 120 Gold 200 & Portra 400 in front of me now that I processed side-by-side under appropriate process controls within the last few days. The differences are immediately obvious.

Most of the 'analysis' you are using is really analysis of minilab software's understanding of colour.

 

[George Mann]

Kodak themselves says that this is a new professional film.

https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sit...ts/Kodak Professional Gold 120 FAQs_Final.pdf

 

[brbo]

Show us where Kodak says Gold 200 and Portra 400 are the same emulsion and where it says Gold 200 135 and Gold 200 120 are not the same emulsion.

 

[George Mann]

Most of the 'analysis' you are using is really analysis of minilab software's understanding of colour.

Whether or not it uses Portra as a base, it is clearly a different and more professional grade of film than the consumer grade Gold in 35mm.

 

[George Mann]

Show us where Kodak says Gold 200 and Portra 400 are the same emulsion

I never claimed they stated this.

and where it says Gold 200 135 and Gold 200 120 are not the same emulsion.

Kodak says it is different, and the difference is clear for all to see!

 

[brbo]

I never claimed they stated this.

That's true. That came from you and/or "intelligent" reviewers.

Kodak says it is different, and the difference is clear for all to see!

So, can you point us to the place where they say Gold 200 120 is different emulsion than 135?

 

[George Mann]

That's true. That came from you and/or "intelligent" reviewers.

It was a hypothosis formed from film comparisons, and mine alone.

So, can you point us to the place where they say Gold 200 120 is different emulsion than 135?

Kodak states that it's a new professional-grade emulsion which several reviewers as well as myself can clearly see.

https://www.todddominey.com/2022/07/25/kodak-gold-200-120-format/

 

[brbo]

It was a hypothosis formed from film comparisons, and mine alone.

Which ones?

Kodak states that it's a new professional-grade emulsion which several reviewers as well as myself can clearly see.

https://www.todddominey.com/2022/07/25/kodak-gold-200-120-format/

Nowhere does it say that 120 has a special new emulsion that isn't already in 135.

 

[George Mann]

Which ones?

Gold 35 vs Gold 120 vs Portra 400 120.

Nowhere does it say that 120 has a special new emulsion that isn't already in 135.

I can't help you with your reading comprehension failures.

 

[BrianShaw]

I can't help you with your reading comprehension failures.

Then help me. I didn't see either Todd Dominey or the Kodak FAQ indicate emulsion difference.

I did see, but can’t link it at the moment, where Kodak acknowledges that the current Gold emulsion is updated since the last time, decades ago, when the Gold product was offered in 120. But never did they even imply that there were separate Gold emulsions.

 

[George Mann]

Then help me. I didn't see either Todd Dominey or the Kodak FAQ indicate emulsion difference.

I did see, but can’t link it at the moment, where Kodak acknowledges that the current Gold emulsion is updated since the last time, decades ago, when the Gold product was offered in 120. But never did they even imply that there were separate Gold emulsions, only different film based.

Todds review clearly says that it has been reformulated where Kodak just says that it is new.

I just found a new review of what appears to be the updated 35mm version that shows improvements over what I have previously seen from it here:

https://www.myfavouritelens.com/kodak-gold-200-35mm-film-review/

 

[Lachlan Young]

where Kodak acknowledges that the current Gold emulsion is updated since the last time, decades ago, when the Gold product was offered in 120. But never did they even imply that there were separate Gold emulsions.

From Shanebrook, it looks like Gold 200 got an update in 2007.

 

[BrianShaw]

“Todd says” is rather weak evidence. It seems that Kodak never said anything of the sort (about 2 different emulsions) and their reference in the PRESS RELEASE and DATA SHEET more implies that the “new product” means a new SKU.

 

[BrianShaw]

From Shanebrook, it looks like Gold 200 got an update in 2007.

Yes, I believe him. And so does Kodak. But that’s not exactly the point being argued at the moment. Thanks for putting both a date and an authoritative reference on my memory!

 

[Lachlan Young]

Whether or not it uses Portra as a base, it is clearly a different and more professional grade of film than the consumer grade Gold in 35mm.

Kodak has made several professionalised variants on Gold in the past. There will have been changes for coating on Estar, but overall, most of the changes you think you are seeing are more likely simply tighter parameters - i.e. it looks more like Gold 200 is supposed to look.

 

[George Mann]

From Shanebrook, it looks like Gold 200 got an update in 2007.

I believe that this older update lacks the Estar base.

 

[George Mann]

Kodak has made several professionalised variants on Gold in the past. There will have been changes for coating on Estar, but overall, most of the changes you think you are seeing are more likely simply tighter parameters - i.e. it looks more like Gold 200 is supposed to look.

A badly needed improvement nonetheless.

 

[BrianShaw]

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Kodak uses the term "Professional" on the Gold 120 primarly because of the 120 format rather than for any other reason.

 

[George Mann]

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Kodak uses the term "Professional" on the Gold 120 primarly because of the 120 format rather than for any other reason.

Well, I will tell you that it appears to be finally good enough to be a professional product.

 

[Prest_400]

On a light table it's immediately obvious what is Portra 160/400/800 and what is Gold 200 simply from the mask colour. And, just as Kodak states in the data, the visually apparent granularity of Gold 200 is about level with Portra 800 - and that's before getting on to the colour rendering differences - and that Gold's colour repro latitude is wider but less realistic (i.e. a more idealistic memory) - which may well be playing a role in why people want to claim it is 'better' than more accurate films like Portra. Either way, I think it's a useful expressive material to have available.

Mostly this, I still haven't taken the chance to try Gold in 120 (only in 35mm) because I have been able to stock up on Portra 160 at about the same price level

Kyle McDougall makes a comparison, which I would say is practically useful for most users (lab scan, etc). The largest difference IIRC (saw the video a while ago) is grain. P400 is quite finer. Otherwise color+contrast difference and a tiny bit more halation in specular highlights for Gold.

Count on that negative films nowadays rely a lot on inversion and postprocessing, making it possible for different films to look similar.

It's quite possible that components are shared with the Portra line, but something is changed for the difference in price and performance. Even PE mentioned that changing base material required non trivial changes.

 

[brbo]

Kyle McDougall makes a comparison, which I would say is practically useful for most users (lab scan, etc).

Yes. For most users that can't tell Portra from Gold and those that have no idea how to go about comparing different films. Dude runs both scans through NLP (for crying out loud) and then tries to make conclusions based on that.