- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 2,196
- Format
- Multi Format
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
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
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.
It doesn't appear that you are analyzing the current 120 emulsion here.
I am not alone in my assessment of it.
Most of the 'analysis' you are using is really analysis of minilab software's understanding of colour.
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.
I never claimed they stated this.
Kodak says it is different, and the difference is clear for all to see!
That's true. That came from you and/or "intelligent" reviewers.
So, can you point us to the place where they say Gold 200 120 is different emulsion than 135?
It was a hypothosis formed from film comparisons, and mine alone.
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/
Which ones?
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.
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.
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.
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.
From Shanebrook, it looks like Gold 200 got an update in 2007.
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.
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.
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 levelOn 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.
Kyle McDougall makes a comparison, which I would say is practically useful for most users (lab scan, etc).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?