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

[braxus]

Matt. Does Kodak still retain some of its engineers, or do they only work on a case by case basis? I understood most of them were let go back when Kodak was in bankrupcy and film was on the downturn.

 

[MattKing]

One of the challenges that Eastman Kodak is dealing with is attracting new talent. They are actively seeking skilled and knowledgeable younger people - not unlike almost everyone else in this employment market.
I have reason to believe that the recent release of the first part of the three part "how film is made" Youtube feature was explicitly directed to this issue, and that the subsequent two segments will be oriented toward that too.
The R&D people and the technical support staff were affected much more by Covid shutdowns than the production staff were. But I believe that they are all back now.
Eastman Kodak is, of course, far smaller than it once was, not least because most of the employees were involved in marketing and distribution, not research and manufacture. With most of the marketing and distribution segments being sent off as part of the bankruptcy (much of it to Kodak Alaris), the remaining staff were just a fraction of what once was.
And of course, a lot of the people who were once in the R&D and engineering divisions retired out. I believe that Eastman Kodak never changed their mandatory retirement at 65 policy.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

True. I like a more saturated film. Like Velvia 50. I prefer chromes because i scan. I had trouble with Ektar 100 negative color getting the colors right. No problem with scanning chromes.

Provia chromes area nice to. More neutral. Ektachrome 100 chromes are nice. The reds are redder over Provia which is more orange.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I finally received my shipment of Gold in 120. Seems smaller shops that don't order as much as the big boys are prioritized lower. I'm still waiting for shipment notifications for quite a bit of other Kodak color neg stuff, but... Now I have my all time favorite color neg in 120 and plan to be shooting a pretty good amount of it. I'd expect it to look just like the 35mm version, but will go through and shoot a number of the same images on both as close to as the same time as possible for comparison, and try to get some controlled lighting in while I'm at it to see if there's any difference between the two.

Yes, Gold is a bit more saturated than Portra, so if anybody didn't like the saturation (or lack thereof) of Portra, but found Ektar to be too punchy, Gold is a good middle ground. Pro Image 100 is also a really nice middle ground too.

 

[braxus]

I agree Adrian. I find the bolder colors of Gold to my liking, as Portra to me is just too flat. Its closer to Ektar though, than the opposite. I'd say 80 percent of the saturation of Ektar 100. I have taken a break from shooting this film, basically because a lack of things to shoot that are worthwhile. I'd be curious to see your results though. As mentioned before, Gold 200 in 120 may become my main color neg stock from here on out.

 

[Agulliver]

the thing with Ektar is that most users don't feel it is an "every day" film....it is suited to certain scenes and weather conditions. I love shooting summer flowers on Ektar, people in colourful clothes, colourful buildings, cars or boats...in sunny weather. But Ektar just doesn't work for me shooting landscapes with lots of green, or shooting mostly monochrome buildings, or anything that isn't in bright sun.

Now...I'd love to be able to shoot the equivalent of Color Plus in most other circumstances, and have been using the Lomography branded 400 or 100. But Gold might just work for me. Still awaiting my scans/negatives back from my first roll of Gold 120.

What I was told by my camera shop also suggested that smaller distributors/retailers are not being prioritised. The only reason they even knew Gold was released in 120 was because I told them. It's not available to order from the distributor they use. But they are *very* interested.

 

[lantau]

the thing with Ektar is that most users don't feel it is an "every day" film....it is suited to certain scenes and weather conditions. I love shooting summer flowers on Ektar, people in colourful clothes, colourful buildings, cars or boats...in sunny weather. But Ektar just doesn't work for me shooting landscapes with lots of green, or shooting mostly monochrome buildings, or anything that isn't in bright sun.

Now...I'd love to be able to shoot the equivalent of Color Plus in most other circumstances, and have been using the Lomography branded 400 or 100. But Gold might just work for me. Still awaiting my scans/negatives back from my first roll of Gold 120.

What I was told by my camera shop also suggested that smaller distributors/retailers are not being prioritised. The only reason they even knew Gold was released in 120 was because I told them. It's not available to order from the distributor they use. But they are *very* interested.

Ektar is certainly a good film for spring colours. Frankly, there isn't much of an alternative for colour negative. I've used a roll of Fujicolor 100. Lets see what it does (did). My problem is to find lots of motives worthy to use Ektar and then print it optically. It is beautiful out there, but better for human vision than camera capture. Flowers here tend to be many, but small. More suited to digital macro photography. Lots of green in green, otherwise. I'm hoping to visit a rose garden inside a public park the upcoming weekend. But it'll be after a beer garden visit. Company event.

I just ordered two rolls of Gold from Foto Impex as part of an order. I never really liked the film. Until it dried up 2-3 years ago I could buy the three pack at a drugstore chain for €7,95. I mostly used it as 'control strips' for C41 processing.

I tried to RA4 print it, and didn't look too exciting. But those were images taken on a stormy, cloudy day, iirc. It have hope that it will be a much better film in medium format. The grain of 35mm ISO200 consumer colour films isn't very attractive, IMHO. Not here, not there.

The problem with RA4 printing is that contrast can't be adjusted. For that reason I really welcome to have consumer film return to 120. Now, one can choose between low contrast portrait films, consumer film with higher contrast and saturation and then Ektar. I *really* hope Fuji will, eventually, bring their Superia 400, and if possible the 100, to 120 format. They suit my taste better, but I'm happy that Kodak is there for its Fans, already.

I have an old roll of Gold 200 in 120. It came with a camera I bought a few years ago. I keep them in the freezer, but previsouly they were most likely stored at (central european) room temperature. Expiration was in 2005. They have the Kodak olympic moneywaste sponsorship printed on the box. I wonder if it would make sense to use, develop and compare it with the fresh Gold 200.

 

[Agulliver]

Got my scans back, and I am happy with Gold 200 in 120. It may well become my favoured colour film in this format. These were shot on my Kiev 6C, with the Mir 45mm lens. Only the final picture was in truly sunny conditions.

 

[Agulliver]

A little update, I picked up my negatives and as usual had a chat with the lady who processes film. She was curious about the new 120 Gold and these are the first she's processed. She said they looked good, and were a little warm so she toned them down slightly in the scanning. Not as warm as Ektar or as red as Agfa film used to be. Probably between Portra and Ektar.

 

[Moose22]

A little update, I picked up my negatives and as usual had a chat with the lady who processes film. She was curious about the new 120 Gold and these are the first she's processed. She said they looked good, and were a little warm so she toned them down slightly in the scanning. Not as warm as Ektar or as red as Agfa film used to be. Probably between Portra and Ektar.

That's an apt description of the two rolls I've shot. They do sit between Portra and Ektaar, saturation wise, the gold is definitely there. Warmer tone, not as over-colorful as ektar. But the warm tone not as overdone as I remembered "gold" from the early 90s. I am of two minds over it in 135, but in 120 grain and resolution are great.

 

[Agulliver]

I have not been a fan of Gold in 135, though I haven't actually used it since 2001. Maybe the current iteration is more to my liking? Though I have seen images here and elsewhere which suggest otherwise. However, I am happy with the results of this roll in 120. Something "between Portra and Ektar" could well work for me in 120....except when I specifically wish to shoot Ektar.

 

[Moose22]

Exactly, Agulliver. Ektar's awesome, but it is very definitely Ektar. Kind of like Velvia, I love it only when I love it.

I actually shot some gold -- rebranded Fuji 200 -- a couple of weeks ago in 135. It's not the same as 90s Gold, or should I say of my memories of 90s gold. But it definitely still has that tint to it:

I really need to scan my 120 myself and get a feel for it -- I've been lazy so this 135 and those two rolls of 120 I shot last month were just lab scanned, so its whatever the noritsu spits out. But the portra shot the same day has a crisp blue sky, not one that looks smoggy.

 

[takilmaboxer]

Gold 100 was my all-time favorite, waiting for the 120 200 to become more available!

 

[braxus]

I would love if they brought back Gold 100. That was my all time favorite color neg film. But I know it coming back will never happen

 

[Paul Howell]

I liked Gold, in general shooting situations it seem to have the right balance between Ektar and Porta, does not require refrigeration, wonder if they make Gold 400 in 120?

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Gold 100 was my all-time favorite,

I liked Gold 100, too. I have recently been scanning some of my 1990s Gold 100 negatives, and they look remarkably decent. Here is a tough one, taken on a gloomy day in St. Louis through a scratched aircraft window. Some of you old-timers (oh, oh, most of us fit that category) may remember the airline in the photograph. (Olympus OM2n, 35mm ƒ/2.8 OM shift lens). My Silverfast Ai software has a Gold 100 profile, but there is no indication which version they used for the color profile.

 

[braxus]

My Gold 200 video.



And here is a video I did on Gold 100. Many may see why I liked 100 so much.

 

[McDiesel]

Finally developed my first roll. I like it, and indeed it feels somewhat similar to Ektar in terms of suitable applications. This roll also taught me that my aftermarket Rolleiflex hood doesn't fit :-(

@Moose22 no worries, the skies look blue. you were right to blame Noritsu

 

[wblynch]

If gold 200 was the only color film left I’d be happy. Hopefully that won’t be until long after I’m gone. But then, my grandkids would be happy having film to shoot.

 

[koraks]

Yeah, nice. Looks very usable, that film. I do get a little desperate watching the scanning process; I really don't think I ever want to go there again...I'm sure it'll print fine on RA4 as well though.

 

[Huss]

Finally developed my first roll. I like it, and indeed it feels somewhat similar to Ektar in terms of suitable applications. This roll also taught me that my aftermarket Rolleiflex hood doesn't fit :-(

@Moose22 no worries, the skies look blue. you were right to blame Noritsu

View attachment 306897

View attachment 306898

View attachment 306899

Super results!

 

[Huss]

Got my scans back, and I am happy with Gold 200 in 120. It may well become my favoured colour film in this format. These were shot on my Kiev 6C, with the Mir 45mm lens. Only the final picture was in truly sunny conditions.

excellent!

 

[Huss]

Exactly, Agulliver. Ektar's awesome, but it is very definitely Ektar. Kind of like Velvia, I love it only when I love it.

I actually shot some gold -- rebranded Fuji 200 -- a couple of weeks ago in 135. It's not the same as 90s Gold, or should I say of my memories of 90s gold. But it definitely still has that tint to it:

I really need to scan my 120 myself and get a feel for it -- I've been lazy so this 135 and those two rolls of 120 I shot last month were just lab scanned, so its whatever the noritsu spits out. But the portra shot the same day has a crisp blue sky, not one that looks smoggy.

The problem is the scan made the image too warm which results in the sky looking smoggy. I have that issue using negativelabpro - if there is a lot of sky in the image it automatically thinks there is too much blue and tries to warm it up. Easy enough to correct, but still annoying.

 

[braxus]

My scans on the Epson 850 and Epson scan made the images way too cool toned. I had to add yellow to warm it back up again. This is the time I wish I had a dedicated film scanner for ease of use and color correction.

 

[braxus]

So now that the 120 film has been out for a year now, and people have gotten through their first rolls of this, who is still shooting Gold 200? Or have you switched back to Portra/ Ektar? The price is holding at $45 for a 5 pak, where as other films have gone up in price considerably.