Agulliver
Member
In terms of colour etc, Gold 200 is the right kind of wrong. Compared to Portra 160 it's less accurate in colour reproduction/ saturations and considerably grittier (Portra 800 levels at least), but that fits with certain aesthetics (classic-era Juergen Teller & several (many) contemporary scandinavian photographers of similar mien - in particular when used with fill-flash) - and it also delivers a more 1980s/1990s colour neg look rather than the more-real-than-reality Portra look. All of these aesthetics are popular with younger contemporary practitioners, but so are 120 cameras - and Lomography seem to sell decent amounts of toll-coated 1990s style Kodak colour neg emulsions (VR-G derived for 100 & 400 I believe) in 120.
Portra is more or less designed to yield colours accurately in natural light, and pro's know how to use it with lighting to get the end results they desire.
Gold was designed for the everyman, and part of it's appeal is that it can make dull days look brighter. It was the film of choice for Mr and Ms Average who went on holiday a couple of times a year and took snapshots with automatic or semi-automatic cameras. As such it sold like crazy, became the film many (possibly most) people associate with 80s, 90s and 2000s photos. It's not a look I personally like, but I am very much in the minority there.
If the camera shops that I converse with are anything to go by, Gold in 120 is something young film shooters want. The Lomography 100 and 400 films are very good, I use them myself, but supply is inconsistent and supply channels aren't as thorough as Kodak-Alaris. A lot of camera shops cannot get hold of it at all. THey want to sell C41 film to amateur photographers shooting on 120, and currently there is actually nothing they can offer. Enter Gold 200 in 120.