Kodak Pro Image 100 Vs Gold 200/ 100

[braxus]

I loved shooting Gold 100 back in the day, and version 7 of that was an improvement on the colors looking cleaner and brighter. I think grain was slightly reduced as well, if not as sharp as version 6 or lower.

Im aware Pro Image is not really like Gold 100, but closer to Gold 200. Colors aren't as saturated on the ProImage film vs Gold 200. What Im wondering is if the grain on Gold 200 is finer then Pro Image 100? I have some rolls of Gold 200 around my house I can still use, though outdated. But what real differences are there between these two films really? I can still buy both films fresh, so Im not sure what the differences may be? I have never used Pro Image 100 nor have any rolls of it. Not sure its worth buying if Gold 200 is finer grained (is it?) and also available here?

 

[braxus]

So ProImage 100 is finer grained then. I heard comparisons saying Portra 400 has grain similar to the Pro Image 100. Portra may even be finer grained. Have you used Gold 100 before? If so, how does ProImage compare to that in grain size? I know the Gold 100 will be more saturated.

 

[braxus]

Looking at those 3 full rez shots, Pro Image 100 still looks finer grained then Gold 200 or Portra 400. Interesting. I wish I still had some rolls of Gold 100 version 7 to compare.

Somehow my rolls of Gold 200 went missing, so now I really start fresh for C41 35mm. I still have some Gold 100 version 6, but its aged not very good, so it looks pretty horrible today. For fun I still have some Fuji HR100 in 100 foot roll, kept frozen. But I have yet to crack into that, since I dont have a bulk loader.

 

[Paul Howell]

Pro image is a less expensive version of Portra?

 

[Carter john]

I like Gold 100 too, but is is gone. I also like Gold 200 but not as much a Pro-Image 100. Skin colors are great with Pro-Image. Someone called it poor man's Portra.

 

[George Mann]

Pro image is a less expensive version of Portra?

ProImage is a version of Kodacolor VR that has been optimized for scanning.

 

[MattKing]

@George Mann I bet the scanning optimization took place in the marketing department, probably even at what is currently Sino Alaris

Sino Promise has nothing to do with film. But it does have a lot to do with supplying and servicing processing labs. Which includes dealing with the technical requirements of scanners.
And Kodak Alaris' marketing efforts are also highly connected with the needs of labs.
I guarantee that the criteria for effective scanning played a large role in the recent rebuild and re-introduction of Ektachrome.
And as digital scanning of negatives was already prevalent before the implosion of the film market, changes that optimize scanning will have long been in place before Kodak Alaris even existed.
All of the Kodak films were designed with lab requirements in mind, and labs have been scanning for a long time.

 

[George Mann]

All of the Kodak films were designed with lab requirements in mind, and labs have been scanning for a long time.

Kodacolor VR-G (ColorPlus) predates the use of commercial scanners.

 

[Ten301]

Kodacolor VR-G (ColorPlus) predates the use of commercial scanners.

So does that mean ColorPlus would look best optically printed?

 

[George Mann]

So does that mean ColorPlus would look best optically printed?

Yes, or scan it with a Fuji Frontier, which does best with pre-scanner 35mm color emulsions.

 

[braxus]

Color Plus 200 is not VR-G film updated. It's based off the original Kodak VR film from early 80s. VR-G film is Gold 100 version 1, before they started calling it Gold which was version 2 and beyond.

Pro Image 100 is a slightly less saturated version of Gold 100, with the cleaner look and color balance of Ektar 100 to some degree. It's grain size is basically the same as Gold 100 version 6. This film used to be called Pro Foto before the name change.

 

[MattKing]

A lot of the scanning optimization steps relate to things like overcoats and factors that affect how film can be handled and how different types of light are transmitted through the film. They can be implemented even with older types of emulsions.
So yes, the ColorPlus films will reflect some scanning optimization.
And like everything else, a great film stock handled poorly in an optical workflow will be lousy in comparison to a budget film handled with expertise and care in a scanning workflow.

 

[George Mann]

Color Plus 200 is not VR-G film updated. It's based off the original Kodak VR film from early 80s.

Pre-scanner Kodacolor nonetheless.

Pro Image 100 is a slightly less saturated version of Gold 100, with the cleaner look and color balance of Ektar 100 to some degree.

I find ProImage to be too muted and slightly muddy for my taste.

 

[braxus]

I find ProImage to be muted and slightly muddy.

interesting. The scans I've seen on YouTube videos look better then that. I guess it depends on the scanner and color profile. Pro Image has the same saturation as the old VR film, which is now sold as Color Plus.

 

[flavio81]

I loved shooting Gold 100 back in the day, and version 7 of that was an improvement on the colors looking cleaner and brighter. I think grain was slightly reduced as well, if not as sharp as version 6 or lower.

Im aware Pro Image is not really like Gold 100, but closer to Gold 200. Colors aren't as saturated on the ProImage film vs Gold 200. What Im wondering is if the grain on Gold 200 is finer then Pro Image 100? I have some rolls of Gold 200 around my house I can still use, though outdated. But what real differences are there between these two films really? I can still buy both films fresh, so Im not sure what the differences may be? I have never used Pro Image 100 nor have any rolls of it. Not sure its worth buying if Gold 200 is finer grained (is it?) and also available here?

10 or more years ago, ProImage 100 was a budget pro film sold in only certain countries (like mine). It was intended for portraits/wedding use, with correct skin tone reproduction. It wasn't a fine grain film, and neither was Gold 100 for that matter. And to me the color palette was rather muted compared to the consumer films(for example, Superia 400, which had an extremely saturated palette). I found the color reproduction a bit boring.

I am pretty sure it wasn't the same film as Gold 100. It was sold at the same time than Gold 100 was everywhere and if I recall correctly even the film base had a slightly different tone.

 

[braxus]

No it wasn't the same as Gold 100, but shared some qualities of that film, like its grain index. Both had about the same size of grain. I really just wish they'd re-release Gold 100 again. I think it was the best of the budget films in terms of its color reproduction.

 

[flavio81]

No it wasn't the same as Gold 100, but shared some qualities of that film, like its grain index. Both had about the same size of grain. I really just wish they'd re-release Gold 100 again. I think it was the best of the budget films in terms of its color reproduction.

Yes. I lament that film. And I use to prefer Superia 100 only because it had visibly finer grain. But Gold 100 had better colors.

 

[George Mann]

To hell with these inferior film stocks. Give my back my Kodachrome!

 

[braxus]

Now if they'd just make one of these cheap films in 120, for all the Millenials on a budget, while using used medium format cameras.

 

[braxus]

If its not cheap, then why bother? You can get Portra 160 instead, probably for the same price.

I just purchased an order from B&H for some more film. I decided to go with the ProImage 100 5 pak after all. I got a roll of Color Plus 200 as well, if I want a vintage color look. I also found where I put my few rolls of Gold 200. I'll give it a go on my PrimeFilm scanner, to see if I like the results. I havent used ProImage 100 before.

 

[braxus]

Watched some more Youtube videos on Pro Image. They all say the same thing, that the saturation of this film is inbetween Portra and Ektar. From the pictures they posted, the color doesn't look flat at all. VR looked flatter then what they posted.

 

[Ernst-Jan]

Now if they'd just make one of these cheap films in 120, for all the Millenials on a budget, while using used medium format cameras.

Film has never been as cheap as it was now. If you keep in mind inflation, prices of labour and raw materials. Finnaly the last two years manufacturers dare to ask a more sustainable price for their product.

I don't know what is the age of a millenial? Are they born in 2000? I am born early 90'ies. It is a matter of choices. You don't need the newest iPhone every two years. A €250 Motorola can last over 3 years

 

[George Mann]

Film has never been as cheap as it was now.

It's the opposite here in the US, and not available in 35mm at the moment.

 

[braxus]

There is still stock on Color Plus 200 and Pro Image 100 in 35mm at B&H. This is what I ended up getting recently, and where I got it. Its still in stock today if someone wants to get 35mm color.

 

[Arcadia4]

Pro. Image has a pgi of 43 compared to 44 for gold 200. So slightly finer grain. Gold 100 was pgi 42. All for 6x4
It is as i understand it an overcoated version of gold 200 making it more neutral and which also made it economical to produce.
The 100 is an e.i. Not iso, which tells you all you need to know about its origins.
Shooting gold 200 @100 vs pro image @100 would be a closer comparison.