Who's Shooting the New Gold 200 120 Right Now?

braxus · May 1, 2022

Adobe Premiere Elements. It doesn't do the fancy stuff, but basics for me.

Alan Edward Klein · May 1, 2022

braxus said:
Adobe Premiere Elements. It doesn't do the fancy stuff, but basics for me.

That's what I use and it does great by me. Now that I'm shooting 4K video, I stopped dumping the shows on DVD's with menus and intros. Not enough space and they hang-up on playback. I just create the videos and dump them on a high-speed memory card that connects to my smart TV USB jack to show the shows there.

braxus · May 1, 2022

With my Fuji, I have it set to the 200mb file compression for 4K. It looks great, but Elements doesnt really play it without breaking up. It could be my lack of memory, but regardless of how many files I have, it still breaks up. I may have to jump up to the Pro version to avoid it. But Pro is complicated to use and the yearly fee to use it. I know Andy on here uses it with success. When I get my 8K camera, Im pretty much stuck using the Pro version. I think Youtube is the only option right now to view videos in 8K. Im running a Ryzen 5900 CPU, so the chip is fast enough for it.

Alan Edward Klein · May 2, 2022

Where do you play 8K? My TV goes to 4K only; my monitor to 2K. Isn't 8K overkill?

PS> My Sony RX100iv goes to either 60mb or 100mb 30P on 4K and Premiere Elements 2020 handles 100mb OK. Do you have a lower rate for the 4K than 200mb? BY reducing it, Elements should handle it. (Which Elements are you running)?

Here's 4K at that speed. OF course, I;m not sure what Youtube did with the file before they published it. After you open the video, go to settings to select 4K.

CORRECTION: VIDEO IS ONLY STILLS. I DON'T HAVE 4K ORIGINAL VIDEOGRAPHED ON YOUTUBE. BUT I DO HAVE VIDEO RECORDED AT 100MB THAT WAS HANDLED BY PREMIERE ELEMENTS, AN EARLIER VERSION THAN THE 2020. SO YOU MIGHT TRY RECORDIG YOUR VIDEO AT A LOWER RATE TO SEE OF ELEMENTS HANDLES IT.

gone · May 2, 2022

Alan Edward Klein said:
The question is is it easy or hard to scan compared to let's say Portra and Ektar?

If it's like the old stuff it should scan just fine. I have a print made from a 35mm Gold neg. It was scanned and made a beautiful print. The colors and look are one that I haven't seen other than w/ the Gold. It has more grain than other films, at least mine did in 35mm, so that would have to be watched. Scanning often does weird things to grain, but w/ 120 that shouldn't be an issue.

braxus · May 2, 2022

Alan Edward Klein said:
Where do you play 8K? My TV goes to 4K only; my monitor to 2K. Isn't 8K overkill?

PS> My Sony RX100iv goes to either 60mb or 100mb 30P on 4K and Premiere Elements 2020 handles 100mb OK. Do you have a lower rate for the 4K than 200mb? BY reducing it, Elements should handle it. (Which Elements are you running)?

Here's 4K at that speed. OF course, I;m not sure what Youtube did with the file before they published it. After you open the video, go to settings to select 4K.

CORRECTION: VIDEO IS ONLY STILLS. I DON'T HAVE 4K ORIGINAL VIDEOGRAPHED ON YOUTUBE. BUT I DO HAVE VIDEO RECORDED AT 100MB THAT WAS HANDLED BY PREMIERE ELEMENTS, AN EARLIER VERSION THAN THE 2020. SO YOU MIGHT TRY RECORDIG YOUR VIDEO AT A LOWER RATE TO SEE OF ELEMENTS HANDLES IT.

My tv at home is 8k. Just got it recently. YouTube does have 8k video on its site, so I have watched that. It does look very good in 8k. Whether you can tell a difference between that that and 4k is debatable, but I think the compression is less on YouTube with 8k.

I save my videos to 100mb compression, so I want that extra for rendering which is why I shoot at 200mb compression.

Agulliver · May 3, 2022

I finished my roll at the weekend and was going to pop it into the lab this afternoon after work....but tested positive for covid yesterday so that ain't happening for another week.

MattKing · May 3, 2022

Good luck and hope you quickly get well.

shutterlight · May 6, 2022

I've gotten my first Kodak Gold 120 negatives processed and scanned. I think it's a beautiful film. I bought two more 5 packs at the same time I picked my negatives up and I don't regret doing so at all. I'm a veteran 35mm user of Kodak Gold, but this was my first time using it in 120. I never thought my wish for Gold to be put back into 120 would come true, but it has and it's great.

Agulliver · May 7, 2022

MattKing said:
Good luck and hope you quickly get well.

Thank you.

I am almost asymptomatic but have decided to stay home for a few days. I don't want to walk to the camera shop as I inevitably end up having a long chat with the staff there...not what I want to do in an enclosed environment. Also staying away from work as going there involves trains, buses and then working with 1200 walking disease vectors.

I'm itching to see the images though. I was never a fan of Gold in 35mm but most of the shots on my first roll in 120 were shot on an overcast day of colourful things (eg English civil war re-enactment, flowers/gardens)...and I think Gold will suit the subject matter well. I also tend to use vintage 120 cameras with lenses that weren't coated with colour in mind, and the extra oomph of Gold or Ektar over the "Lomography" branded films helps.

Alan Edward Klein · May 7, 2022

Why is Gold so much cheaper than Ektar?

braxus · May 7, 2022

Well initially Gold 200 in 120 wasn't much cheaper then Ektar 100 or Portra 160 in 120. But the stores have since increased the prices on Ektar and Portra, to be way above Gold 200. Kodak in its announcement for Gold 200, said the 120 film was supposed to be 25 percent cheaper then the other films I mentioned. It was planned to be the less expensive 120 film, for those Millenials and young shooters using medium format cameras. People my age weren't asking for this film as much as the younger crowd were. But now everyone can enjoy using it. I shot 7 rolls so far, and have 6 still in my freezer. I've gone back to trying to use up my E6 film, as I need to get through that stash, as its expired a while back.

Greg 713 · May 7, 2022

Kyle McDougall did a nice side by side comparison of Gold and Portra on YouTube. If you a generally curious I think it will be worth your time.

braxus · May 7, 2022

I follow his channel. He is very good at explaining things and his method is also very good. I believe I did watch this video not long ago.

Alan Edward Klein · May 8, 2022

I saw his video previously. It's why I asked my previous question. Why buy Ektar at so much of a higher price when Gold performs almost as well? Are there other things about Gold not apparent such as holding it's colors over time?

Alan Edward Klein · May 8, 2022

Also, his video does not compare people shots and correct flesh tones which is the whole point of Portra's design. Frankly, without comparing these, his test misses the mark.

Greg 713 · May 8, 2022

Alan Edward Klein said:
Also, his video does not compare people shots and correct flesh tones which is the whole point of Portra's design. Frankly, without comparing these, his test misses the mark.

I don’t think it missed the mark for me. Many photographers us Portra for landscape photography. It might not be what Kodak designed it for but it is being used heavily for landscape so the comparison works for me. But I appreciate it might not work for you.

Perhaps you will do a side by side of flesh tones. I would be very appreciative and anxious to see it.

Your previous comment about Extar, Gold isn’t the quality film Extar or Portra are. The grain is much more pronounced in Gold. But if a photographer is going to share photos on Instagram and the majority of their audience reviews the images on a phone grain structure at an 11x 14 or 16 x 20 enlargement equivalent isn’t critical. But that is solely my opinion.

braxus · May 8, 2022

I would take pictures of people to show others, but these past few years, its been really difficult to get people to actually allow me to get pictures of them. So its usually landscapes for me. Someone gave my video a thumbs down, so it seems even when you put a disclaimer in there, they still don't like your video.

Agulliver · May 8, 2022

Ektar has colours that "pop" like probably no other film in the history of colour negative films. Try photographing flower gardens, colourful animals, and suchlike with Ektar and you may understand why it is special.

Portra is specifically designed for (Caucasian) skin tones. It's colours are somewhat muted compared to Ektar, and also great for landscapes.

Gold was originally an amateur "all round" film which has the effect of making dull days look brighter....the classic family vacation film.

They all have their place. As for why Gold is cheaper? You'd have to ask Kodak if there's some difference in quality control or manufacturing which makes it cheaper. I have been told by a representative of K-A that the intention is for it to sell at 25% less than Portra.

Alan Edward Klein · May 8, 2022

So what is Gold compared to Portra for portraiture?

Sirius Glass · May 8, 2022

Alan Edward Klein said:
So what is Gold compared to Portra for portraiture?

Portra is a professional film which by definition caters to accurate skin tones, while Gold handled skin tones well, not quite as accurately.

MattKing · May 8, 2022

Based on what I've seen of Alan's photography, I'm willing to bet that he would prefer the colour palette and saturation of Gold to the colour palette and saturation of Portra, even for portraiture.
But the differences are small.
And by the way, I expect the 25% savings comes as much from streamlined distribution than from any savings at the manufacturing end.

Sirius Glass said:
Portra is a professional film which by definition caters to accurate skin tones, while Gold handled skin tones well, not quite as accurately.

The name of the new film is "Kodak Professional Gold Film" and it is found in their professional film catalogue, not their consumer film catalogue.

Sirius Glass · May 8, 2022

MattKing said:
Based on what I've seen of Alan's photography, I'm willing to bet that he would prefer the colour palette and saturation of Gold to the colour palette and saturation of Portra, even for portraiture.
But the differences are small.
And by the way, I expect the 25% savings comes as much from streamlined distribution than from any savings at the manufacturing end.

The name of the new film is "Kodak Professional Gold Film" and it is found in their professional film catalogue, not their consumer film catalogue.

In that case it is not the Gold that I had shot 20+ years ago. But then every Kodak film morphed over the years.

braxus · May 8, 2022

Gold 200 I believe is on version 7 right now, which changed around 2008. Unless it had more versions then Gold 100.

MattKing · May 8, 2022

braxus said:
Gold 200 I believe is on version 7 right now, which changed around 2008. Unless it had more versions then Gold 100.

That would be the 35mm film. In order to put it on to 120 again, it had to be re-formulated.
The change in substrate and the the addition of backing paper and the wrapper offset challenges all require a substantial amount of re-engineering.

Who's Shooting the New Gold 200 120 Right Now?

braxus

Alan Edward Klein

braxus

Alan Edward Klein

gone

braxus

Agulliver

MattKing

Moderator

shutterlight

Agulliver

Alan Edward Klein

braxus

Greg 713

braxus

Alan Edward Klein

Alan Edward Klein

Greg 713

braxus

Agulliver

Alan Edward Klein

Sirius Glass

MattKing

Moderator

Sirius Glass

braxus

MattKing

Moderator

Who's Shooting the New Gold 200 120 Right Now?

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency