Question about Kodak Gold 200

amellice · Apr 10, 2015

In the specs of Kodak Gold 200 on B&H website it says that it has "Rich color saturation". I want to hear your opinion about that because personally after my first roll I think it suppresses saturation. What's your experience with that film?

snapguy · Apr 10, 2015

Hokum

"Rich color saturation" is AdSpeak -- bullfeathers, hokum, nonsense, baloney. But methinks you can't really judge the quality from a single roll of film, either.

amellice · Apr 10, 2015

snapguy said:
"Rich color saturation" is AdSpeak -- bullfeathers, hokum, nonsense, baloney. But methinks you can't really judge the quality from a single roll of film, either.

true that's why I'm asking your opinion

Rick A · Apr 10, 2015

I treat it like any negative film and over expose it some. It's inexpensive film but is capable of good quality prints.

Ko.Fe. · Apr 10, 2015

I finished last roll from Walmart, which is not supporting film anymore, few weeks ago. Home developing.
It was nothing spectacular in colors department with Walmart developing as well.
It is cheap film, in terms of IQ. Some people shown good results from it, but I never get something special from it.
I scanned our family archives few weeks ago and plenty of Kodak Gold films, which isn't up to its name.

amellice · Apr 10, 2015

thanks guys for your response but do you notice that the colors are actually desaturated a little bit with it?

MattKrull · Apr 10, 2015

From a saturation perspective, I find it slightly muted. Superia 200 & 400 have brighter colours.

I like the slightly desaturated look. It reminds me of Porta 400, but it is lacking something special in the way that Porta handles skin tones and soft light (I don't know how better to describe it than that).

MattKrull · Apr 10, 2015

amellice said:
thanks guys for your response but do you notice that the colors are actually desaturated a little bit with it?

I think it depends on what you are comparing to. Digital is just so darned saturated. So is Ektar. Fuji Superia is closest to how I actually see the world (especially in bright hard light). I do find Kodak Gold to be slightly muted compared to how I remembered the scene in my head. If I'm shooting a 'calm' photo, it works nicely. If I was shooting a colourful bird or the Vegas strip, it would not be my first choice.

Photo Engineer · Apr 10, 2015

I was on the design team for the first Kodacolor Gold 400. Our job, with the Gold films was to design in higher saturation by means of interimage effects, meaning purer and brighter colors. The goal was also higher contrast (about 0.7 as opposed to the pro films of 0.6).

IDK what they are doing today, but that is what the goal was then for Gold vs the pro films of the era. It was not HOKUM! I was there. I think you may have had some film that was just a tad underdeveloped, or some silver was retained, or you have a lot of flare in yours system. -- Or, Kodak changed their goals.

PE

sagai · Apr 10, 2015

I have a sneaking suspicion that Gold and Colorplus is the same.
I am shooting with both, to be honest I found no real difference.
http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=139592 Kodak Gold vs Colorplus

j-dogg · Apr 10, 2015

I did some of my best portrait work on Gold 200......on a FED2 of all things. It isnt saturated like Velvia but its a warm film which I love to pieces

railwayman3 · Apr 10, 2015

sagai said:
I have a sneaking suspicion that Gold and Colorplus is the same.
I am shooting with both, to be honest I found no real difference.
http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=139592 Kodak Gold vs Colorplus

I've no evidence one way or another on your suspicion, but the Kodak cartridges for colour neg are all very similar in their quite-basic design, none of the bright multicolor printing which used to be used (particularly by the Japanese makers). Could just be that fewer colours are cheaper to print, of course.

OTOH, I'm absolutely convinced that there are no "bad" films nowdays, but a lot of poor processing and printing, particularly now that labs have a much lower throughput than a few years ago. The quality of printing, either analog or inkjet, can completely alter the results from any film.

sagai · Apr 10, 2015

Well said.
Since I have fixed my processing at home I am not exposed to shady lab quality any longer.

Rick A · Apr 10, 2015

I just read what PE had to say, and remembered the last roll I had processed locally was crappy looking. I think the machine hadn't come up to temp first.

BrianShaw · Apr 10, 2015

Exactly the opposite experience for me. And it had nothing to do with processing. The edge marking is different BTW

sagai said:
I have a sneaking suspicion that Gold and Colorplus is the same.
I am shooting with both, to be honest I found no real difference.
http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=139592 Kodak Gold vs Colorplus

flavio81 · Apr 10, 2015

amellice said:
In the specs of Kodak Gold 200 on B&H website it says that it has "Rich color saturation". I want to hear your opinion about that because personally after my first roll I think it suppresses saturation. What's your experience with that film?

Gold 200 was a film with nicely saturated colors (for a print film) and very good skin tones. Just a good all-around film, but IMO grainier than the Fuji counterpart. But, also sharper than the fuji counterpart. And I feel skin tones are a bit better than the fuji counterpart as well.

Just a nice all purpose film with nice colors. I preferred to use Gold 100.

sagai · Apr 10, 2015

Have a question !
Are we talking about comparing analogue prints, or about the processed negative or the scanned negative or the scanned negative printed digitally?

Is there any objective way of evaluating color redemption and reproduction? Or even more any measure that can be basis if comparison?

Well about egde marking, yes there is a GB marking on Gold, that's all.

amellice · Apr 10, 2015

sagai said:
Have a question !
Are we talking about comparing analogue prints, or about the processed negative or the scanned negative or the scanned negative printed digitally?

Is there any objective way of evaluating color redemption and reproduction? Or even more any measure that can be basis if comparison?

Well about egde marking, yes there is a GB marking on Gold, that's all.

I'm talking about RA-4 print. I don't have a scanner

railwayman3 · Apr 10, 2015

I'd suggest that two different darkroom workers would most likely produce a different result from the same negative (assuming that they didn't know one another's filter settings). Two labs certainly would, but each print could well look perfectly acceptable on its own.

As to comparison, you could certainly evaluate and compare prints with the correct measuring instruments (densitometers, etc.). Doesn't, of course, measure the most "pleasing" result, and the latter can also vary from one viewer to another depending on eyesight, vision and personal preferences.

Edge markings could be different, while the films might be the same....not saying that they are the same. For example, Agfa Vista plus
is obviously a Fuji-manufactured film in Agfa clothing. No problem with that, it works just fine.

pbromaghin · Apr 10, 2015

I no longer pay any attention to what lab prints look like. The quality is just too uneven to trust. If there is a way to make the shots look bad, they will find it.

Sirius Glass · Apr 10, 2015

Some color saturation but not as strong as Kodak UltraColor which for the most part existing supplies reside in my freezer. The skin tones on Gold is not as accurate as Portra which is a professional film for portraits.

amellice · Apr 10, 2015

just wanted to add more details, this was home developed in Tetenal C-41 kit and printed on Kodak Supra Endura E with Kodak RA chems

BrianShaw · Apr 10, 2015

Hmmmmm

02Pilot · Apr 10, 2015

As others have said, too many variables to make a blanket statement, but my experience with the current Gold 200 (edge marking 200-8) and the previous generation (200-7) is that they have quite a nicely balanced, slightly warm color palette, with contrast and saturation somewhere between Ektar and Portra. I'm shooting less color film these days, but I've been really pleased with what I've seen from the current Gold 200.

That said, I've seen very different results from all color films when shot through different lenses - so different that you'd never guess they were the same emulsion unless you were told. Without knowing what sort of lens you're using (coated/uncoated, classic/modern, hood/no hood, etc.) it's difficult to know where to start.

BrianShaw · Apr 10, 2015

That a good point. Gold200 looks best through Nikkor lens.

Question about Kodak Gold 200

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency