Personal experience: Gold 200 or Colorplus 200

[M-88]

Hello

It's my first post on here, so let's start with stupid questions. I'm in the middle of a dilemma here, I should either buy a bunch of Kodak Gold 200, or a bunch of Colorplus 200. There's no way I can buy both. I want to know which one is better, but opinions on the Internet vary greatly, some favoring Gold, others - C+ 200.

So here comes the question: if there's anybody on here who has an actual first-hand experience with both of these films and which one is better?

I know these films are cheap and probably most of you won't even get their camera dirty with it, but still. Any opinion hepls!

M.

 

[mnemosyne]

I use a lot of Gold 200 and have also used a little bit of ColorPlus in the past. The people that state that it's the same film have it wrong, the emulsion code in the rebate area is different and also I find that ColorPlus shows a bit more grain and the colors are a bit more muted. That being said, it's not a bad film. IMO, the quality of the development and scan/printing will make more of a difference in the final output than the different properties of the films.

 

[M-88]

I use a lot of Gold 200 and have also used a little bit of ColorPlus in the past. The people that state that it's the same film have it wrong, the emulsion code in the rebate area is different and also I find that ColorPlus shows a bit more grain and the colors are a bit more muted. That being said, it's not a bad film. IMO, the quality of the development and scan/printing will make more of a difference in the final output than the different properties of the films.

Thanks for the input!

I used to shoot Gold 200 ten years ago or so, along with Proimage 100 (branded Profoto 100 here). Never used Colorplus 200 however. It wasn't available on local market back then.

Unfortunately I don't have a choice when it comes to developing and most probably I'll have to buy one roll of Gold, one roll of Colorplus and shoot them both in similar cameras at a same time to make a side-by-side comparison. I'm more of an Ektar guy, but it's pricy and not for everyday use.

P.S. I also don't think Gold 200 and C+200 are the same. Gold used to give me a bit more of red, which I can't observe on Colorplus shot by my friend.

 

[Agulliver]

I've shot both, and while I clearly prefer Colorplus 200 I would say "your mileage may vary".

They are definitely not the same film. I understand that Colorplus is an older, less advanced emulsion than Gold. The latter was the more "premium" offering of consumer film in years gone by when the range was bigger. Colorplus is likely the same stuff that used to be sold under private labels or given away free with processing when such things happened.

I'm not a fan of very saturated colour photographs which effectively have a lot more colour vibrance than the original scene had in real life. However this has been the fashion for a couple of decades or more, most people would disagree with me. Indeed some people have criticised photos I've taken in cloudy/rainy conditions purely because they actually look like they were taken in dull weather. A film like Gold can lift a dull day and make it look tangibly brighter.

I find Colorplus more accurately reproduces what I saw through the viewfinder. I like it's colour palate, and it's not over sensitive to red so one can over-expose and still get good skin tones on white and Mediterranean people. The colours are vibrant enough to give very pleasing photos of flowers. Where it is perhaps let down is in landscape photography, it's greens are not as pleasing as Fuji C200 for example. Grain is ever so slightly more noticeable than Gold. I just find Gold is like watching an NTSC television with the colour turned up to max. The tendancy to keep good colour rendition when over exposed is important to me because half the time I am using vintage fully manual cameras without a light meter. I'm good at assessing aperture and shutter speed on the fly but having that latitude is helpful.

So I'd say it does depend what you are hoping to achieve and what your subject material is. Bear in mind that if you are having hand prints made or are having your film scanned, you can adjust the colours at the printing stage or after scanning.

 

[M-88]

I don't shoot portraits, however I do some street photography every now and then, so adequate skin tones is a good addition. As for the landscapes, of course I will use Ektar as usual, if the day is sunny and Portra 160 if it's cloudy.

 

[SilverShutter]

Colorplus is dissapointing on grey bleak days. But bring it to a sunny place and it will look like a completely different film. Less warm than gold but more muted, and less contrasty, reproduces colours in a lovely way, and has a subtle grain. It does not like to be underexposed however, and I find that it looks it best when measured at around ISO 160. All in all they are similar films, as I understand it Gold is an evolution of CP200 so it makes sense that they would.

 

[M-88]

Colorplus is dissapointing on grey bleak days. But bring it to a sunny place and it will look like a completely different film.

So in that it's similar to Ektar. Do you know any film which would be good for cloudy days?

 

[SilverShutter]

So in that it's similar to Ektar. Do you know any film which would be good for cloudy days?

If you don't want to go through the B&W route, I think Fuji is the option there, Superia 200 did give me some nice results but it's discontinued, 400H is also another one that would probably work quite well.

 

[M-88]

If you don't want to go through the B&W route, I think Fuji is the option there, Superia 200 did give me some nice results but it's discontinued, 400H is also another one that would probably work quite well.

I agree on Superia 200, had it a while ago. But Pro 400H didn't make me happy.

 

[thuggins]

Another vote for the Fuji Superia. It is still available as 400 speed, and I'd take that over Gold 200 any day. I shot many, many rolls of Gold 200 back when I shot print film. It was cheap, universally available, good in any light. Looking back at those prints, they are invariably flat and "blah". It may be OK for portraits, but for landscapes it was always disappointing. Superia beats it by every measure.

 

[Agulliver]

What's good for cloudy days depends on what you wish to achieve. If you wish to convey that the day was cloudy, then I'd go with Colorplus. If you want to enhance the colours a bit so that a scene looks less dull/cloudy than it was...then Gold. I believe that's kind of what Gold was developed to do.

 

[Rolfe Tessem]

Gold is true to its name -- it imparts a rather warm glow to everything. And a rather fine grain for a 200 ISO film...

 

[Berri]

this is a scan from a print I made on ENDURA paper. Film was kodak gold 200 shot with a nikon f4 and processed in bellini's C41 & RA4 https://berrizolonte.prodibi.com/a/mk2m06zk2918r5/i/2xe1rjx7r6oyoz

 

[RPC]

So in that it's similar to Ektar. Do you know any film which would be good for cloudy days?

In my experience, Ektar gives quite good contrast and saturation for cloudy days. That is my experience printing optically, I don't scan.

 

[Arcadia4]

The Kodak 200 consumer lines (dates for the UK) ran -
Kodacolor VR200 (CL)- 1982- 86 (First ISO 200, 35mm film utilising T grain technology introduced with disc films)
Kodacolor VR-G 200 (CB) 1986-88
Kodacolor Gold 200 (GB) 1988
Kodak Gold 200 (GB) 1997
Kodak Gold 200 (GB) 2007 (current V7)

Kodacolor VR 200 from '86 was re-introduced in 1990 as 'Kodacolor 200' a lower cost alternative to the new Gold films in selected markets inc Europe but not USA. It was later rebranded as 'Kodak ColorPlus 200'.(It is claimed this was an improved version) . This origin was confirmed in an interview in Emulsive last year; https://emulsive.org/interviews/com...kodak-alaris-community-interview-results-time
#1 COLORPLUS is a lower-priced color negative film offering, similar in nature to the old VR films. This product is sold only in specific regions around the world, and unfortunately there is no technical pub for it

The Lomography colour films are also believed to be Kodak VR based. In my experience Lomography CN100 and ColorPlus 200 are similar, both are granier than Gold 200 but have slightly more muted colors (giving a slightly 'retro' look). To give good results they need bright sunny conditions. Pricing is also close in the UK at ca. £3 a roll where ColorPlus its now easier to find than Gold.

Personally I prefer Gold 200 as an all round film as its less grainy and if you shop around can be bought for ca. £4/roll so its a small difference compared to total cost overall after D&P for a better result. But as other have commented ColorPlus is good value and in the right conditions can give reasonable results if you are on a budget or want retro colors.

 

[BrianShaw]

Thank you Arcadia4... I was once told by a prominent member here with extensive Kodak insights that a hit man would visit me if I kept asking about the origins of Colorplus.

I didn’t like the muted and grainy nature of Colorplus but really like Gold for general-purposes. But for those who like that old-time look its great. Even a few of the images I shot on Colorplus are quite nice.

 

[M-88]

Another vote for the Fuji Superia. It is still available as 400 speed, and I'd take that over Gold 200 any day. I shot many, many rolls of Gold 200 back when I shot print film. It was cheap, universally available, good in any light. Looking back at those prints, they are invariably flat and "blah". It may be OK for portraits, but for landscapes it was always disappointing. Superia beats it by every measure.

I use superia 400 A LOT. The only problem with it is its grain and the need of ND filters if I want to shoot with open aperture in daylight.

What's good for cloudy days depends on what you wish to achieve. If you wish to convey that the day was cloudy, then I'd go with Colorplus. If you want to enhance the colours a bit so that a scene looks less dull/cloudy than it was...then Gold. I believe that's kind of what Gold was developed to do.

Interesting input. What I find irritating about gold actually is that it does bad things to color of leaves.

Gold is true to its name -- it imparts a rather warm glow to everything. And a rather fine grain for a 200 ISO film...

Fine grain is vital to me, but color shifts isn't desired.

In my experience, Ektar gives quite good contrast and saturation for cloudy days. That is my experience printing optically, I don't scan.

I agree, but still in my opinion Ektar yields best results on sunny days.

Kodacolor VR 200 from '86 was re-introduced in 1990 as 'Kodacolor 200' a lower cost alternative to the new Gold films in selected markets inc Europe but not USA. It was later rebranded as 'Kodak ColorPlus 200'.(It is claimed this was an improved version) . This origin was confirmed in an interview in Emulsive last year;

That is an interesting information, thank you very much!

So, bottom line: One roll of Gold 200 and one roll of ColorPlus 200 are on their way. I will test them along with Fujicolor 200. I might get back to this topic with some side-by-side shots of all three, but given my lazy nature that will happen in a month or so. Thank you all for the input!

 

[Anon Ymous]

...So, bottom line: One roll of Gold 200 and one roll of ColorPlus 200 are on their way. I will test them along with Fujicolor 200. I might get back to this topic with some side-by-side shots of all three, but given my lazy nature that will happen in a month or so. Thank you all for the input!

As others have already mentioned, Gold 200 is finer grained and is more saturated than ColorPlus 200, but ColorPlus 200 is certainly not a bad film. I'd say it's underappreciated. Take grain for example, you will spot grain in a ColorPlus 200 shot when viewing a scan at full resolution, but a 20x30cm print will not show any grain. Surely, it's not Ektar, or Portra, but it's more than adequate for many purposes. And since you threw Fujicolor C200 in the mix, I'd say it's similar to ColorPlus 200, but with a cooler palette. But after all of what has been said, the most important thing is this:

... IMO, the quality of the development and scan/printing will make more of a difference in the final output than the different properties of the films.

 

[M-88]

As others have already mentioned, Gold 200 is finer grained and is more saturated than ColorPlus 200, but ColorPlus 200 is certainly not a bad film. I'd say it's underappreciated. Take grain for example, you will spot grain in a ColorPlus 200 shot when viewing a scan at full resolution, but a 20x30cm print will not show any grain. Surely, it's not Ektar, or Portra, but it's more than adequate for many purposes. And since you threw Fujicolor C200 in the mix, I'd say it's similar to ColorPlus 200, but with a cooler palette. But after all of what has been said, the most important thing is this:

That is why I decided to shoot some test rolls - to see which film looks better for my eyes, because in the end it's me who will have to look at those pictures.

Sadly I have zero influence on developing - there's only a handful studios that develop film in my country and all of them use the same chemicals, so I'll have to go with they offer. I don't really want to fuss around with C41 in my kitchen especially considering that I have never developed anything at all.

If Gold 100 was still available in fresh condition, it'd be a no-brainer for me to go for it and disregard everything else. I could possibly shoot Proimage 100 as well, but it's only 1$ cheaper than Portra 160 / Ektar 100 so what's the point.

 

[Agulliver]

Here are a few photos I shot a couple of weeks ago on Colorplus using a 1950s Agfa Super Silette. Conditions ranged from bright sun to cloudy. These have been scanned rather than printed and I've ripped them from my facebook album as I am currently at work and unable to access the originals. But hopefully gives an idea of what Colorplus can do. I think grain is most noticeable in the blue sky on the photo of Chiswick House.

I always preferred Kodacolor VR over the Gold offerings and was thrilled when VR reappeared as Colorplus. But different photographers look for different things. My preference is for a cloudy day to look cloudy in the photograph.

 

[M-88]

Here are a few photos I shot a couple of weeks ago on Colorplus using a 1950s Agfa Super Silette. Conditions ranged from bright sun to cloudy. These have been scanned rather than printed and I've ripped them from my facebook album as I am currently at work and unable to access the originals. But hopefully gives an idea of what Colorplus can do. I think grain is most noticeable in the blue sky on the photo of Chiswick House.

I always preferred Kodacolor VR over the Gold offerings and was thrilled when VR reappeared as Colorplus. But different photographers look for different things. My preference is for a cloudy day to look cloudy in the photograph.

View attachment 200007 View attachment 200008 View attachment 200009 View attachment 200010 View attachment 200011 View attachment 200012 View attachment 200013

These remind me of my childhood photos. Color cast is the same. Not as annoyingly reddish/brownish as with Gold. Thank you!

 

[RattyMouse]

Another vote for the Fuji Superia. It is still available as 400 speed, and I'd take that over Gold 200 any day. I shot many, many rolls of Gold 200 back when I shot print film. It was cheap, universally available, good in any light. Looking back at those prints, they are invariably flat and "blah". It may be OK for portraits, but for landscapes it was always disappointing. Superia beats it by every measure.

Fuji C200 is an excellent film, which I'm not sure is still available. I could not find it in Japan anywhere, no matter where I looked. The grain on this film is excellent. Far, far better than Kodak Gold.

 

[Agulliver]

Fuji didn't announce they were discontinuing C200 so it should be available, and I agree it's a lovely film. It's the stuff that was also being offered as Agfa Photo vista Plus 200 until quite recently.

Do bear in mind with my Colorplus pictures above, the age of the camera (and therefore lens) being used. But I would agree that my main reason for disliking gold since it's introduction was the overblown reds/browns. I used to wonder if it was intended to please Americans used to watching NTSC television....but having said that a lot of people liked Gold.

 

[M-88]

Fuji C200 is an excellent film, which I'm not sure is still available. I could not find it in Japan anywhere, no matter where I looked. The grain on this film is excellent. Far, far better than Kodak Gold.

C200 is all over the place out here. It sells for 5-7$ equivalent per roll, not cheap, I admit, but way cheaper than 10-11$ per roll of ColorPlus 200. The thing is, I've used it a lot in the past, but in light of current events I decided to switch to manufacturer which is actually oriented on producing/selling their film instead of wrapping up and killing some of my personal favourites, so I thought I'd switch to Kodak.

Fuji didn't announce they were discontinuing C200 so it should be available, and I agree it's a lovely film. It's the stuff that was also being offered as Agfa Photo vista Plus 200 until quite recently.

Do bear in mind with my Colorplus pictures above, the age of the camera (and therefore lens) being used. But I would agree that my main reason for disliking gold since it's introduction was the overblown reds/browns. I used to wonder if it was intended to please Americans used to watching NTSC television....but having said that a lot of people liked Gold.

I think in the long run it will be the last C41 Fuji film which will get discontinued. Either that, or Pro 400H.
As for the gear, I will use OM system with Zuiko glass, so everything should be just fine.

 

[Agulliver]

I think Colorplus is widely available throughout Europe but not in North America and possibly some other places. I can get 24 exposure 35mm for as little as £2.51 from online photo specialists.

Mind you the best bargain was the AgfaPhoto Vista Plus 200 (= Fuji C200) which was nationally available for several years at £1 a roll. Still...I ain't complaining at £2.51 for a roll of the Kodak stuff....£2.69 for 36 exposure.