Kodak Gold in 120, WOW

[brbo]

Gold 35 vs Gold 120 vs Portra 400 120.

I was hoping you would be kind enough to provide links to those (properly made) comparisons.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Another futile fishing expedition in a backyard swimming pool. Just look at the characteristic curves on the spec sheets, Portra 400 versus Gold 200 Pro - big difference. And it's inevitable the color profiles are different too.

The "Pro" designation would imply tighter batch to batch coating control, plus a few other tweaks they state up front on the latest Tech Sheet.

 

[MattKing]

In the Kodak world, "Professional" now only refers to the distribution and marketing segment that films are in.
And it has been that way for decades.
From the Kodak Alaris website:

The listing is for all different available sizes of Gold 200.
Here is the 2023 datasheet, which has been updated to reflect the fact that they have moved the 135 format over to Estar base - a change that isn't simple or cheap, but does bring substrate manufacture in-house for them. That change was most likely accompanied by their usual incremental improvements.
https://kodakprofessional.com/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/pro/resources/E7022 Gold tech sheet.pdf

 

[DREW WILEY]

Gold is engineered with even wider latitude than Portra 400 for sake of more exposure error forgiveness. But that equates to lower contrast.

But I don't see how Pro labeling would relate to special distribution channels in the case of the 35mm version, especially in small packs, since those are specifically amateur oriented products sold all over the place. All it would imply going forward it that's it's the new PET base version. But I'm an Ektar addict anyway, so don't want to make a fuss about it.

 

[koraks]

Gold is engineered with even wider latitude than Portra 400 for sake of more exposure error forgiveness. But that equates to lower contrast.

Maybe that's simplifying it a bit. Here are the curves of Gold 200 (cyan-ish) and Portra 400 (magenta-ish) overlayed on top of each other:

Gold shoulders off quite pronouncedly, but it takes quite a while for this to happen. The toe is also not as nicely controlled as in Portra, and the channels of Portra track a whole lot better than Gold's.

Of course both films share a lot in terms of technology, but implying they're somehow the same product slightly tweaked...nah. The data don't add up to that picture.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yup. The more pronounced toe and shoulder of Gold tells it all. It allows "something" to be bagged way out there in the Kuiper Belt; of what quality is another matter. Different personalities, that's for sure. Different looks.

 

[Anon Ymous]

The toe is also not as nicely controlled as in Portra, and the channels of Portra track a whole lot better than Gold's.

Gold's blue channel characteristic curve has an obvious plotting error where density decreases with a bit more exposure at the toe region. In reality, it's better than what it looks there.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I suspect that much of the marketing appeal for even offering Gold in 120 size is it's somewhat nostalgic retro or amateurish look, flaws n' all. It's nice that Kodak is offering distinct choices in their CN film lineup.

 

[MattKing]

Gold is engineered with even wider latitude than Portra 400 for sake of more exposure error forgiveness. But that equates to lower contrast.

But I don't see how Pro labeling would relate to special distribution channels in the case of the 35mm version, especially in small packs, since those are specifically amateur oriented products sold all over the place. All it would imply going forward it that's it's the new PET base version. But I'm an Ektar addict anyway, so don't want to make a fuss about it.

There is no "Pro" labelling any more - at least in terms of differentiating similar films.
There is no special handling of "Pro" films - just different marketing and distribution.
And the different distribution relates mostly to packaging - think of film on cards - and which local distributors are the target market for Kodak Alaris.
You will recall that Kodak Alaris doesn't sell to retailers.

 

[koraks]

Gold's blue channel characteristic curve has an obvious plotting error where density decreases with a bit more exposure at the toe region. In reality, it's better than what it looks there.

That's a weird anomaly, yes. It's also so deep down in the curve that it's barely relevant what happens there.

Here's the spectral sensitivity; again Gold 200 in cyan and Portra 400 in magenta:

Note Gold's peak at 470nm, which is a cyany-blue to which it's apparently slightly more sensitive. Portra on the other hand has a thing for deep reds, which probably makes sense since the eye's sensitivity tends to drop there and I guess people like it if those deep reds still 'pop' nicely.
Interesting is also Gold's red/blue crossover; if exposed with a deep violet (400nm is at the brink of UV), it'll start to create a little cyan density (i.e. red positive image), shifting those deep violets to red. Maintain scenes with clear skies and lots of UV may go a little pink as a result. I guess many people will actually appreciate this as it takes the edge of the harsh blue. Maybe.

 

[koraks]

Might as well finish the set with the spectral dye density plots; Gold 200 = cyan, Portra 400 = magenta

What this mostly suggests is that the two products are really distinct; I guess what we see here is a combination of differences in spectral sensitivity as well as differences in the dyes used; both the actual CMY and the mask dyes.
The difference in orange mask color mentioned earlier in the thread is also plainly visible as a bump in blue density (i.e. more yellow-ish mask) for the Gold film. I've never looked specifically for it, but I'd expect that Portra does a better job at rendering yellows since it will achieve a better s/n ratio in the blue density band. It might also be the explanation why people find Gold so 'yellow' overall, because the lack of separation and sensitivity to yellows can then only be worked around by an overall shift of the entire image towards yellow.

Maybe people who have used these films side by side can say something about their practical experiences in relation to the theoretical exercise above.

 

[George Mann]

Thanks for your technical illustrations koraks. The closer I look at these films, the more I seem to prefer the more neutral rendering of Portra.

 

[koraks]

You're welcome! In the end, what matters of course is if you like what you see. It's been a long time since I shot any Gold and this comparison in fact makes me want to revisit it. It's nice to have options.

 

[George Mann]

You're welcome! In the end, what matters of course is if you like what you see. It's been a long time since I shot any Gold and this comparison in fact makes me want to revisit it. It's nice to have options.

Yes, and I have decided that Portra 160 will be the next film that I am going to shoot with my newly acquired Yashica A.

 

[BrianShaw]

Yes, and I have decided that Portra 160 will be the next film that I am going to shoot with my newly acquired Yashica A.

I like Gold and LOVE Portra 160. Performs well under both available lighting and strobe. A unique look. You might really enjoy it.

 

[Romanko]

I could write volumes on the beauty of Ektar, and how easy it is to vary its saturation to fit your subject matter.

Could you please share your experience with Ektar in the thread I started?

Tips on shooting Ektar

I would like to hear some tips on shooting Ektar. I had a closer look at a few rolls I shot recently and I really like this film. I am getting better at achieving more consistent results but there is still room for improvement.

www.photrio.com

I'm starting to shoot more Ektar in 120. The film can be difficult at times and I would like to get more tips from people who use it regularly. I hope @DREW WILEY could contribute.

 

[Romanko]

I shoot it @ 80iso to control it.

Thank you I'll try bracketing to see what slight overexposure does.

 

[Romanko]

What this mostly suggests is that the two products are really distinct

No doubt. I also believe that with a careful choice of scene, exposure and processing you can achieve similar results from the two films. Knowing Kyle's photography I understand why he came to his conclusion.

 

[Brad Deputy]

I would love to know if the very-new Gold 200 in 135 format, on Estar (polyester), is changed from the previous acetate version.
A good start would be, do the edge markings still include "GB 200-7" ?

 

[DREW WILEY]

I already have posted many times before on using Ektar. It's quite different from typical color negative films. But if a dedicated thread helps, why not?

 

[brbo]

I would love to know if the very-new Gold 200 in 135 format, on Estar (polyester), is changed from the previous acetate version.
A good start would be, do the edge markings still include "GB 200-7" ?

It’s the same. Also same edge markings.

In the past years Kodak shifted many 135 films to Estar base. I don’t think anyone ever said that any film looked differently now. I certainly haven’t noticed anything and I shoot all if those regularly (except ColorPlus 200).

 

[Brad Deputy]

It’s the same. Also same edge markings.

In the past years Kodak shifted many 135 films to Estar base. I don’t think anyone ever said that any film looked differently now. I certainly haven’t noticed anything and I shoot all if those regularly (except ColorPlus 200).

Thanks. Yes, my experience with ColorPlus and UltraMax 400 on poly is also the same -- no differences I can ascertain.