Ordered Kodak Gold 100, got Profoto XL 100 (?!)

[bvy]

Apparently Kodak Gold 100 has been discontinued. Neither B&H nor Adorama has it in stock. Unique Photo showed it as in stock, so I ordered five rolls. And I got something called Kodak Profoto XL 100 instead. It's interesting that it says "Kodak Professional" on the package, which would place it in the same category as Portra and Ektar -- yet it sells at consumer film prices. Anyway, I've read many conflicting and wide ranging things about this film -- that it's marketed to "poor" countries, that it stands up to heat, that it's just Kodak Gold 100 rebranded, that it's very different from Kodak Gold (better and worse)...

My initial instinct was to return it, or complain that I didn't get what I ordered. But then I thought, what the hell. So I plowed a roll through my XA2, though it will be several weeks till I'm developing C-41 again.

Anyone have any thoughts, facts or experiences about this film?

 

[pstake]

I don't have any experience with this film ... but I do wonder if it's a sign of what's to come with Kodak film since they sold the film business.

In any circumstance, it's bad business to send someone something other than what they ordered. I had this happen with a filter once at B&H. They didn't have the one I ordered in stock so they gave me a refund and told me to keep the wrong one, too.

Might be worth making a phone call.

 

[Tom1956]

Kodak sold it's film business? When?

 

[RattyMouse]

Kodak sold it's film business? When?

A couple of weeks ago. Where you been? There's hundreds of posts on this topic.

 

[cramej]

I haven't shot it, but I've processed and printed it. Not sure if it's Gold with a different label, though. I printed wedding photos from a Las Vegas photographer and wedding photos from somewhere in the Caribbean. They were both pleasantly saturated and sharp. I think you'll be happy with it.

 

[Tom1956]

A couple of weeks ago. Where you been? There's hundreds of posts on this topic.

Oh... that explains that really dark day we had a couple weeks ago. I passed it off as part of all the wet weather we've had the last several weeks.
Actually mostly on my back with prostatitis. That miserable little organ can make you SO sick.

 

[anikin]

I believe it is Kodak Gold, just in different packaging. Excellent film, by the way. I like it very much. Almost grainless and with very true color.

 

[LunoLuno]

I liked Kodak Gold very much. It has always been the film to grab when I needed to cut back on film expenses. But I can't say I like the ProFoto very much even though the price of it is actually even cheaper than the Gold. The ProFoto is a good film, I believe most people prefer the ProFoto to the Gold, but it lacks something I liked about the Gold.

Luno

 

[Simonh82]

There is a long thread on flickr about this film http://www.flickr.com/groups/ishootfilm/discuss/72157628870074419/. Generally people seem to like it, although like anything some are not so keen.

It seems to be very similar to gold 100 but has been treated to allow room temperature storage even in hot climates. Printing characteristics are the same as gold 100.

The only consumer films Kodak still lists are gold 200 and ultramax 400 although I've never found good info on colorplus/kodacolor which I think is still being made.

 

[BrianShaw]

You really need to test it and see if you like it. Adorama substituted "ColorPlus 200" when I bought Gold 200 from them... stating that it was the same stuff. Not true. The ColorPlus had a muted color palatte more like what we once got in Kodacolor film back in the 1980's. I didn't like the film and I didn't like the experience of buying "gold" and getting something else. If it really wre the same I'd have no problem, but it wasn't. Test a roll and decide for yourself if you like it.

 

[Simonh82]

Colorplus and gold 200 are different film. Colorplus is the stuff you find in £/$ stores. It is budget film, not just consumer film. It performs terribly under mixed lighting. I would be very upset I'd someone tried to say it was the same thing as gold.

Saying that there is nothing to stop Kodak renaming colorplus as gold 200 but hat would be deceptive.

 

[brianmquinn]

One of the factors to consider in the formulation of a color film is how it records skin tones. If it is to be sold in Europe or North America when most of the subjects are Caucasian the film will be made one way. In other markets, like India, the film is made differently to record the darker skin tones there. I just so happens that it is also warmer where the skin tone are darker. So the warm temperature storage story may also be coupled with a different way of rendering skin tones and other colors and harsh light. Just my theory.

Also as far as I know Kodak has stopped selling Gold 100 in the USA. So the only "Gold 100" you can buy is grey market stuff.

 

[heterolysis]

I buy Profoto when I want to make sure my C41 chemistry is up to speed. I've used it a couple of times and it's....okay. But for consumer 35mm, because I refuse to believe it's anything else at that price, I'll take Superia over it.

I only have these two scans on my computer, which were me just screwing around with exposure settings, so take them with a grain of salt (there's still stabilizer smeared on the second one)...ran the jpegs through auto tone/color in photoshop.





For good measure, here's a shot on Reala I processed right after. Same photoshop treatment.



I wasn't crazy about the tones or the grain of the Profoto (nor Kodak Ultramax 400 for that matter), and find them disappointing next to Ektar and Portra, and even some old, old shots on Gold.

 

[railwayman3]

Colorplus and gold 200 are different film. Colorplus is the stuff you find in £/$ stores. It is budget film, not just consumer film. It performs terribly under mixed lighting. I would be very upset I'd someone tried to say it was the same thing as gold.

Isn't it interesting that, although the boxes for the various Kodak 200ASA films are obviously different, when you get inside the actual cassettes and the appearance of the film itself are exactly identical.

 

[anikin]

Attached is one shot from Prophoto film that I took a few weeks ago. Make your own decision if you like it. Processed in Flexicolor SM developer, scanned on Epson V700/Epson scan. No adjustments of any kind. Negatives look OK, so I suspect it should print well optically on Fuji CA paper. I have not done it just yet.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

anikin,

Please inform us about your camera lens.

By the way I found Protofoto film is tending to yellow and green. Its like 1700s English village life paintings. Impressionist color pallette and blues are lost at weather.

 

[anikin]

anikin,

Please inform us about your camera lens.

By the way I found Protofoto film is tending to yellow and green. Its like 1700s English village life paintings. Impressionist color pallette and blues are lost at weather.

The lens is Voightlander 40mm f2 lens on Nikon N90s. That's very strange what you describing about this film. That was not the result that I got. Mine was not bad at all color-wise. However, I only ran 1 roll of it through, so I don't have a lot of experience with it. I got this roll on a whim from Shutterbug store. It was not cheap, but I've never seen such a film from Kodak, so I suspected that it was related to Kodak Gold 100 and decided to try it.

I wonder if we are talking about different films here? Or maybe heterolysis is right and the film is rather processing sensitive.

 

[heterolysis]

My shots were on Nikon N80 and 50mm f/1.8. I found all of them to tend to yellow/green--even when I wasn't messing around--but all were shot on a sunny day. I think I bracketed two stops in each direction (not sure where those two were picked from) and in general I did not find that it was incredibly sensitive to exposure, as in, there were no crazy color shifts as a result.

Your shot looks a lot smoother than anything I've gotten from it. The stuff goes for $3.78 here in Canada, which is really cheap for a "pro" film---Ektar being about $7 and Portra $10. I suspect that it's like Ektar and you need to shoot for specific lighting, perhaps bright sunny days aren't the best for it.

 

[BrianShaw]

Isn't it interesting that, although the boxes for the various Kodak 200ASA films are obviously different, when you get inside the actual cassettes and the appearance of the film itself are exactly identical.

I'm not sure how to interpret the intent of your "wink and whistle" but the similar/same appearance of the cassette is interesting, but the difference in the film istself is profound and obvious.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

anikin,

I did not meant protophoto is a bad film , its a film faraway more tamed at saturation wise and romantic film than old gold films. Gold films have denser, stronger colors which I like very much. You can get wider pallette of colors and saturated base colors , very strong blues , burnt browns and burnt greens , reds and yellows. Protophoto is very much mellower and there is no punching water or air blue.

Umut

 

[railwayman3]

I'm not sure how to interpret the intent of your "wink and whistle" but the similar/same appearance of the cassette is interesting, but the difference in the film istself is profound and obvious.

IDK. but having used Kodak films since the days of Kodacolor 32ASA, I'm totally convinced that 95% of the supposed "differences" in films are entirely down to the quality, or otherwise, of the processing and printing (or nowdays, scanning). Obviously there are grain and contrast differences in different speeds, but "consumer" film with proper processing can be amazing, while "pro" film with cheapo processing inevitably = crap.

In my recent experience, Kodak "Farbwelt 100" bought in Austria, Kodak Gold 100 from Italy, and Kodak Gold 200 and Kodak ColorPlus from the UK all produce technically identical high-quality results, with quality processing. The respective cassettes are absolutely identical printed simple black on yellow "Kodak Color Negative film 100 (or 200) ASA", in English.

My point is, how much difference (if any) is there, and how much is marketing? Most marketing generally is hype, and it is naive to think that our hobby is exempt.

 

[anikin]

I know what you mean about Gold film. I never tried KG100, but I did use a lot of 200 and 400. I do like their palette and sharpness and I agree, they do look different from this film. Maybe I made the wrong assumption that prophoto is Gold 100. Sorry about that.

anikin,

I did not meant protophoto is a bad film , its a film faraway more tamed at saturation wise and romantic film than old gold films. Gold films have denser, stronger colors which I like very much. You can get wider pallette of colors and saturated base colors , very strong blues , burnt browns and burnt greens , reds and yellows. Protophoto is very much mellower and there is no punching water or air blue.

Umut

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

IDK. but having used Kodak films since the days of Kodacolor 32ASA, I'm totally convinced that 95% of the supposed "differences" in films are entirely down to the quality, or otherwise, of the processing and printing (or nowdays, scanning). Obviously there are grain and contrast differences in different speeds, but "consumer" film with proper processing can be amazing, while "pro" film with cheapo processing inevitably = crap.

In my recent experience, Kodak "Farbwelt 100" bought in Austria, Kodak Gold 100 from Italy, and Kodak Gold 200 and Kodak ColorPlus from the UK produce technically identical high-quality results, with quality processing. The respective cassettes are absolutely identical printed simple black on yellow "Kodak Color Negative film 100 (or 200) ASA", in English.

My point is, how much difference (if any) is there, and how much is marketing? Most marketing generally is hype, and it is naive to think that our hobby is exempt.

As you find same signiture at all Zeiss lenses or Leica Lenses spreads in 80 years , I believe Kodak have a signiture on all of its products. I think first non signiture product was Ektar. Everyone knows and expects the similar color pallette from Fuji or Kodak Products.

If you invest in quality , you get extremelly high quality Kodak pictures from Kodak film not anything else.

But you cant put Kodachrome and Protophoto in to same basket , if you could do that nobody posts thousands of posts to forum in 4 years for Kodachrome.

 

[railwayman3]

But you cant put Kodachrome and Protophoto in to same basket , if you could do that nobody posts thousands of posts to forum in 4 years for Kodachrome.

I agree...two totally different types of films, reversal and negative. Reversal, of course, has no printing stage to introduce variables (although my point about bad processing is still relevant).
Also Kodachrome had a unique dye set, which was (at least in its last years) not shared by any other film, not even Kodak's own E6 family of films.

 

[BrianShaw]

... In my recent experience, Kodak "Farbwelt 100" bought in Austria, Kodak Gold 100 from Italy, and Kodak Gold 200 and Kodak ColorPlus from the UK all produce technically identical high-quality results, with quality processing. ...

I have no reason to doubt you, but our experience has been exactly the opposite of each other. I processed both Kodak Gold200 and ColorPlus200 at the same time and had them printed with the same machine... to get very different results.