Question about Kodak Gold 200

[BrianShaw]

It sure looks like that to me but I'm only guessing from the results. Do you think this could be incorrect or just verifying source?

And while I'm inquisitating, why do you think that K provides no data and can't seem to answer any questions about colorplus (or colourplus either). I asked 1-800-Kodak and got a canned message on how to find a photofinisher and emailed a Kodak insider friend of Roger Hicks but did not get a reply.

Are you sure of that? Where did you get your info?

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

I'm really interested in where Ricardo got that info.

PE

 

[BrianShaw]

Me too.

 

[sagai]

Sagai,

I would like to see the other side of these cassettes, please.
Just check if the DX number on the other side:
see if Colourplus is 512714
and the Kodak 200 in the middle if is 512504.
Thanks!

Hi Ric,
Yes, its the same here, for the recent Gold is 512504, for Colorplus 512714.
For the expired Gold that has "Gold" mentioning on the canister it is 412504.
How far we can go with these numbers?
Cheers!

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Sagai and Brian,

Thanks!
Brian yours 512503 is a 24 exp. cassette, right?
Sagai, your 412504 is an early generation of Gold 200. They used to mark the cassettes with a big number denoting the generation. I didn't see that on your cassettes, that's why I asked for the DX code.

I'm really interested in where Ricardo got that info.

PE

Dear Ron (I hope this is your real name),

It is based on my own experience with these films of over 30 years. Colourplus is a grainier and less saturated film, similar in some ways as to what Kodacolor VR 200 was. That why I said that Colourplus is BASED on, but not the same.
Unfortunately, Koda doesn't provide datasheets for these films or they are very difficult to find on their website.
It is also the opinion of other users.
If you have different information or a different opinion, please state so.

Flavio, Sagai and Brian,

In the future, if you need to check a cassette, you can use this site: http://dexter.pcode.nl/
It was created with the input of several people. It tells you what film it is and also if one film is related to other.

 

[sagai]

I am scanning my negs, may be that's the reason, developing in Tetenal in a same batch gives no noticeable difference for me.
Hoping that I have no eyesight problem though

I curious to develop that expired gold, that my give another angle on this.

 

[BrianShaw]

Hi Ric. Yes, mine is 24?exposure. Thanks for the info!

 

[kb3lms]

Well, after making my statement about not being able to get Gold 200, I did go through Amazon and bought a 3x36 roll box. It arrived today and doesn't seem like a bad deal.

Statistics:

Expiration: 9/2016
Lot: 8020219
DX: 512504

Made is USA
Eastman Kodak Company, Rochester NY 14650

No mention whatsoever of Kodak Alaris

 

[wblynch]

One thing for sure. As far as photographic film goes, you can not use your experience of the last 20 or 30 years to define the products of today.

In the environment Kodak is operating now, it seems ludicrous to imagine that they are running different formulas for essentially the same consumer color print film. Packaging and catalogue numbers are inconsequential. You have to think in terms of inventory and plant management.

Now, is it possible that you're getting leftovers inside your ColorPlus containers? Yes, that could be.

I also believe in my heart that Gold 100 was eliminated to remove competition for Ektar 100 and there might not even have been much difference between those two.

 

[BrianShaw]

I really believe the leftover theory.

 

[flavio81]

In the environment Kodak is operating now, it seems ludicrous to imagine that they are running different formulas for essentially the same consumer color print film. Packaging and catalogue numbers are inconsequential. You have to think in terms of inventory and plant management.

I think exactly the same. Kodak (today's Kodak) is a company who does NOT like to give variety to their customers. Look how they killed Verichrome Pan (oh... just use Plus-X). And then they killed Plus-X (oh... just use Tmax 100). I bet that, if things continue as they are, they will only sell two films: Tri-X and Gold ULTRA 400.

Now, Colorplus might be something like outdated Gold 200 stock, sold as a different film.

I haven't used enough Colorplus to make an assessment of it.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Isn't sheer speculation nice?

 

[Xmas]

I think exactly the same. Kodak (today's Kodak) is a company who does NOT like to give variety to their customers. Look how they killed Verichrome Pan (oh... just use Plus-X). And then they killed Plus-X (oh... just use Tmax 100). I bet that, if things continue as they are, they will only sell two films: Tri-X and Gold ULTRA 400.

Now, Colorplus might be something like outdated Gold 200 stock, sold as a different film.

I haven't used enough Colorplus to make an assessment of it.

They don't have the volume to support lower volume films it is commercial pressure. Verichrome pan, Plusx, PanAtomic, etc., when they are down to one mono and one C41 it will be just like Kodachrome ...

 

[ericdan]

Only 100 speed Kodak film is Ektar I think


Sent from Tapatalk

 

[wblynch]

Isn't sheer speculation nice?

Well it isn't like Kodak is forthcoming with any information. Questions have been asked and ignored.

Do you have anything for us?

 

[bvy]

Only 100 speed Kodak film is Ektar I think

Portra 160 can go into this category. I miss both Gold 100 and Profoto XL 100.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well it isn't like Kodak is forthcoming with any information. Questions have been asked and ignored.

Do you have anything for us?

No, and that is the point of my post.

It is all speculation.

 

[BrianShaw]

Isn't sheer speculation nice?

To a certain extent the discussion here and elsewhere on this topic is sheer speculation. In some cases, though, it is based on experience and "engineering judgment"... which is the best we can do in the absence of manufacturer-provided information. There is a lack of transparency by the manufacturer and some retailers, unfortunately.

There is no value, in my mind, to the speculative nay-saying where there appears to be no personal experience with the various films under discussion... or nay-saying just for the sake of nay-saying.

 

[wblynch]

No, and that is the point of my post.

It is all speculation.

Agreed. But it doesn't have to be ~~~wild~~~ speculation. We can apply logic and reason and try to arrive at a fair determination.

 

[BrianShaw]

Agreed. But it doesn't have to be ~~~wild~~~ speculation. We can apply logic and reason and try to arrive at a fair determination.

Exactly... and if not a "fair determination" at least a more accurate speculation!

 

[sagai]

An "old" Gold in my camera today that is labeled as Gold on the canister. Having 3 reels tank I will develop in the same batch all threes to see if there is any noticeable difference at least for me.

 

[miha]

GOLD use to be a huge family of films. Anyone remembers : Ektacolor Pro Gold 160 - GPX, Pro Gold 400 - GPY, Pro Gold 100T - GPT, Pro Gold 100HC - GPH, Ektapress Gold II 400 - PJB, Gold II 1600 - PJC...
Sadly we are left with one or two speeds in 135 only.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Let me explain more fully then Bryan and Bill!!

NO ONE has compared these two films under identical conditions. Not one picture with the same exposure, camera and processing, so how can one even make a suitable speculation? It is just random bits of conversation to my ears (eyes). And please explain your engineering judgment if you will? I worked on Gold 400 and knew the formulas for the 100 and 200 films. I also knew the specs of all 3.

I could do the definitive experiment but why invest the time and money? I'm off on other projects involving process control and coating machines.

PE

 

[BrianShaw]

Let me explain more fully then Bryan and Bill!!

NO ONE has compared these two films under identical conditions. Not one picture with the same exposure, camera and processing, so how can one even make a suitable speculation? It is just random bits of conversation to my ears (eyes). And please explain your engineering judgment if you will? I worked on Gold 400 and knew the formulas for the 100 and 200 films. I also knew the specs of all 3.

I could do the definitive experiment but why invest the time and money? I'm off on other projects involving process control and coating machines.

PE

You know that is carrying it to an extreme. I really expected a more reasonable response from you. What a shock.

I have used both, ColorPlus and Gold200, under reasonably consistent real-world situations with reasonably identical processing and compared the results. That is the basis of my "engineering judgment". Perhaps I should have not used the word "engineering" so loosely and used the term "experiential evidence" instead.

I could do the definitive experiment too... but your correct that it isn't worth it.

Do you know the chemistry of ColorPlus too? Is it the same, similar, or different from the Gold line? Seems like nobody - neither Kodak nor yourself - can address (or will address) any indicators of sameness or differentness: edge marking codes, DX code difference, or packaging. That kind of information would help, but we only have experiental "data".

Poo-pooing attempts to figure out the problem just because there isn't a definitive experiment is just a bit unrealistic... and trying to cast random doubt and worry just because there is a possibility that such attempts may be in error (not you... someone else who has done that repeatedly) is simply disingenuous.

 

[ericdan]

And I'm still trying to figure out if Ultramax 400 and Super Gold 400 are the same. The edge marking would suggest they are.


Sent from Tapatalk