Question about Kodak Gold 200

[slugoon]

I know this is a very old thread but maybe you guys will get notified of my post. I too tried to find out what Color Plus was given that there isn't a data sheet for it like their other films and here is the reply I got from the Film Capture Business Manager at Kodak Alaris (and I quote):

"ColorPlus film is made in the USA by the Eastman Kodak Company. It is sold in export markets around the world by Kodak Alaris. It is similar in nature to the old VR films."

That was it, no more, no less. Fairly strong evidence that it is not repackaged or expired or QC-failed Gold 200. Personally, I absolutely love the stuff, and can't believe it sells for £3 per roll!

 

[BrianShaw]

Thanks for the update!

 

[Prest_400]

Fujifilm have Fujicolor C200 which sits in the same position as Kodak Color Plus, ie. no datasheet, low price and supposedly an older tech product.
My friend found a few rolls of C200 which I shot through the summer, while I had a bit of Superia 200 (Gold 200 equivalent) and for both Fujis the situation is similar. Some say that c200 is Superia and viceversa. I haven't done extensive tests but they are rather different, the c200 being grainier.

Colorplus 200 is the remaining stock from this factory. BTW the enthusiasts from lomography widely believe that the stock of the Lomo color neg ISO 100, 400, and 800 film that was marked as "made in china" came from the chinese Kodak factory and was based in Kodacolor VR. The ones marked "made in italy" have been identified as Ferrania.

I know this is a very old thread but maybe you guys will get notified of my post. I too tried to find out what Color Plus was given that there isn't a data sheet for it like their other films and here is the reply I got from the Film Capture Business Manager at Kodak Alaris (and I quote):

"ColorPlus film is made in the USA by the Eastman Kodak Company. It is sold in export markets around the world by Kodak Alaris. It is similar in nature to the old VR films."

That was it, no more, no less. Fairly strong evidence that it is not repackaged or expired or QC-failed Gold 200. Personally, I absolutely love the stuff, and can't believe it sells for £3 per roll!

Lomography (Color Negative) is speculated to be Kodak film, and quite probaly is. There's a table in the web which specifies that Lomo CN 100 and 400 could be kodacolor VR 100 and 400 respectively. I shot a bit of the Lomo 100 and the plastic canisters are identical to Portra's, bearing a 2018 expiration date and a "made in the USA" marking in the box. Then there was a partnership between odak Alaris and Lomography.
I don't know if Kodak 100 VR is Gold, and if it is the latest generation of that film, long gone from Kodak's own line. If it is, Gold lives as another ISO 100 option with its "classic snapshooting" rendering.

For the lower prices, I enquired in the Ferrania post whether the older tech, having a different BoM is simply cheaper to produce. All of these can be found for 3-4€ a roll.

 

[perkeleellinen]

Some say that c200 is Superia and viceversa. I haven't done extensive tests but they are rather different, the c200 being grainier.

They are certainly different. In my darkroom C200 prints at M100/Y80 and Superia 200 at M75/Y75. C200 is much warmer and oddly deep in colour but with a contrast that seems wrong somehow - struggling for the right words without knowing the technical language. It reminds me of the colour photos from the '80s that my father took. Superia 200 is more normal looking and a good replacement for Reala. In the UK C200 is branded as 'Agfa' and can be had for as little as £1. I've found it's inconsistent when sold on the high street - perhaps poor storage - certainly a real hassle in the darkroom. If you're scanning then I'm sure it's quirks can be sorted with a click but in darkroom the cheap price is outweighed by the longer time it takes to print.

 

[mynewcolour]

It's actually branded Agfaphoto (for legal/licensing reasons I guess).

C200 / Agfacolor 200 and Kodak Gold 200 make quite 'highly saturated' rather than soft colours. Gold seems to create warmer of the two. Both get a bit muddy in underexposed areas compared with Portra.

 

[mts]

Eliminate processing concerns by including a couple of frames of a sunlight illuminated MacBeth chart, one at metered exposure and a second one a stop over.

 

[GarageBoy]

I got a roll of Gold 200 from K and M camera in Manhattan, and it's got a 2018 exp date and has Kodak Alaris on it...
Glad to see it's not dead

 

[mynewcolour]

I may be wrong but I think Juergen Teller has shot Kodak Gold.

... perhaps used here:

http://www.wmagazine.com/gallery/best-performances-2013-actor-portfolio-cover-story-ss#slide=22

 

[trendland]

This thread is useless without pics:

Ecxelent as a photograpy AND to have
an idea of the special color look from this emulsion.

with regards

 

[Berri]

I know this is a very old thread but maybe you guys will get notified of my post. I too tried to find out what Color Plus was given that there isn't a data sheet for it like their other films and here is the reply I got from the Film Capture Business Manager at Kodak Alaris (and I quote):

"ColorPlus film is made in the USA by the Eastman Kodak Company. It is sold in export markets around the world by Kodak Alaris. It is similar in nature to the old VR films."

That was it, no more, no less. Fairly strong evidence that it is not repackaged or expired or QC-failed Gold 200. Personally, I absolutely love the stuff, and can't believe it sells for £3 per roll!

Kodak said the same thing a while ago in a emulsive interview. I confirm that gold and colorplus are two different films that print differently in my darkroom. They are both good if handled properly from developing to printing. I Suspect lomography colornegative 100 to be colorplus 100 because it prints very similar

 

[trendland]

Fujifilm have Fujicolor C200 which sits in the same position as Kodak Color Plus, ie. no datasheet, low price and supposedly an older tech product.
My friend found a few rolls of C200 which I shot through the summer, while I had a bit of Superia 200 (Gold 200 equivalent) and for both Fujis the situation is similar. Some say that c200 is Superia and viceversa. I haven't done extensive tests but they are rather different, the c200 being grainier.



Lomography (Color Negative) is speculated to be Kodak film, and quite probaly is. There's a table in the web which specifies that Lomo CN 100 and 400 could be kodacolor VR 100 and 400 respectively. I shot a bit of the Lomo 100 and the plastic canisters are identical to Portra's, bearing a 2018 expiration date and a "made in the USA" marking in the box. Then there was a partnership between odak Alaris and Lomography.
I don't know if Kodak 100 VR is Gold, and if it is the latest generation of that film, long gone from Kodak's own line. If it is, Gold lives as another ISO 100 option with its "classic snapshooting" rendering.

For the lower prices, I enquired in the Ferrania post whether the older tech, having a different BoM is simply cheaper to produce. All of these can be found for 3-4€ a roll.

Yes Prest 400 you've described the actual situation quite good.
From my point of view it makes no sence
to have very extensive tests with this kind of Films.
Because you van have a situation from identifying a film ans 6 weeks later the manufacturer has changed the emulsion.
As I refered in an other thread I remember a situation of Kodak Gold200
and Kodak Colorplus200 with the same
identification markings on the negatives.
Older Gold200 I had in use were definitivly different to Colorplus200.
It might be that I just mixed some films
from canisters so I can not say for sure
100% but let me say its sure for 90%.

I would say it might be the same with
C200. 91 % are indeed C200 the rest can also be superior200 (with a little luck).

with regards

 

[trendland]

Kodak said the same thing a while ago in a emulsive interview. I confirm that gold and colorplus are two different films that print differently in my darkroom. They are both good if handled properly from developing to printing. I Suspect lomography colornegative 100 to be colorplus 100 because it prints very similar

Berri you are also right from your position.And your experience shows it
quite clear.
But I would say this was the situation in the last years.
Today if Fuji is short with C200 or Kodak is short with Colorplus200 you might get
the better emulsion to some weeks as low budget emulsion.
And that is no problem to all I would say.
The other direction is of cause a no go way. WHEN YOU HAVE PAID SUPERIA FILMS YOU WOULD NOT BE HAPPY TO GET C200 - I am sure Fuji will know this.

with regards

 

[Agulliver]

I honestly don't know why anyone things C200 and Superia 200 are the same. Just have a roll of each with similar subject matter processed at the same lab......or look at the rebates....they are quite different films. The Same goes for Gold 200 and Colorplus 200.

The only way I can think that anyone might think they are the same....is if they use a cheap lab aimed at the holiday snap market where the automatic scanning and printing system is trying to make the prints look the same.

 

[BrianShaw]

I honestly don't know why anyone things C200 and Superia 200 are the same. Just have a roll of each with similar subject matter processed at the same lab......or look at the rebates....they are quite different films. The Same goes for Gold 200 and Colorplus 200.

The only way I can think that anyone might think they are the same....is if they use a cheap lab aimed at the holiday snap market where the automatic scanning and printing system is trying to make the prints look the same.

I totally agree with your first paragraph.

The second paragraph is such a long-shot that I don't know whether to agree or laugh out loud (LOL)... with you, not at you!

 

[trendland]

I honestly don't know why anyone things C200 and Superia 200 are the same. Just have a roll of each with similar subject matter processed at the same lab......or look at the rebates....they are quite different films. The Same goes for Gold 200 and Colorplus 200.

The only way I can think that anyone might think they are the same....is if they use a cheap lab aimed at the holiday snap market where the automatic scanning and printing system is trying to make the prints look the same.

Yes in case of Fuji it is just a speculation - why should Fuji today not have same problems with backing emulsions like Kodak? In general these two emulsions should be different - for sure.If C200 is off somewhere in the future (they must have giant amounts of c200 - just look on the price) Fuji have to make a decision - perhaps we will know what happens with amounds of superia?
Comming to Kodak: Why it is so hard to
identify Colorplus200 and Kodak Gold from the cans?
Where are the Art Direktors of Kodak's
Advertising Departements?
Why don't they redesign 2 different emulsions from packaging?
Agguliver - it would cost you 15 min.
with a simple graphic suite.
Kodak didn't notice this ?
It might be their Plan B !
To have one emulsion in the future.
Nobody, exept us will notice it.
Have a look to Agfa Precisa CT100.
1) Agfa Precisa
2) Kodak Elitechrome 100 (made in the US)
3) Fuji Sensia 100 (made in Japan)
4) Fuji Provia 100 (made in " )

Why you get today the more expensive
proffessional Provia as an Agfa ?
Why is the production of the more cheaper Sensia100 not sold as Agfa ?
Is there a todays production of E6 left in
Japan.
Think big Agulliver without restrictions !

with regards

 

[Agulliver]

I totally agree with your first paragraph.

The second paragraph is such a long-shot that I don't know whether to agree or laugh out loud (LOL)... with you, not at you!

Exactly LOL....they are so different and obviously so....that I cannot understand why anyone would insist they are the same.