navilluspm
Well-known
Hello.
I have been watching film suggestions here and it seems like this film is always overpassed. I must admit that, as an all around film, I like Gold 100. It is very sharp. It might be a little grainy, but has nice warm colors. And you can't beat the price you can find this film at. I perfer it over Fuji Superia 100 (I have not tried Reala yet).
What are some of your thoughts on Gold 100?
I have been watching film suggestions here and it seems like this film is always overpassed. I must admit that, as an all around film, I like Gold 100. It is very sharp. It might be a little grainy, but has nice warm colors. And you can't beat the price you can find this film at. I perfer it over Fuji Superia 100 (I have not tried Reala yet).
What are some of your thoughts on Gold 100?
Stephanie Brim
Mental Experimental.
I prefer Reala as a 100 speed film, or even Fuji Super HQ. I've never liked Kodak Gold. I do like Kodak UC100, though.
40oz
...
I really like it. I'm not sure why anyone would call it "grainy." It does have nice color. It's easily my favorite color film.
Some people prefer a color palette found in the Fuji lines and the "NC" line of Kodak Portra films, and don't like what I see as more realistic and yet still more colorful Kodak Gold/100, 400/MAX, "whatever they call it this year" line. Everybody has personal taste.
I don't think it helps that Kodak Gold isn't expensive and is found everywhere. Some people perceive value based on cost and availability. Some have more esoteric desires. I personally think the very qualities that make a film great for birthday parties and First Communions makes it excellent for art/street photography. Kodak Gold has no cachet, so it gets downplayed. People who use it and like it feel no need to tell people what film they use.
I guess the idea is that if you spent thousands on bodies and lenses, you ought to be buying "professional" film, even if you aren't shooting in a studio under controlled lighting. I'm not sure I see the logic there, but I get it from the salespeople at the film counter on occasion.
Some people prefer a color palette found in the Fuji lines and the "NC" line of Kodak Portra films, and don't like what I see as more realistic and yet still more colorful Kodak Gold/100, 400/MAX, "whatever they call it this year" line. Everybody has personal taste.
I don't think it helps that Kodak Gold isn't expensive and is found everywhere. Some people perceive value based on cost and availability. Some have more esoteric desires. I personally think the very qualities that make a film great for birthday parties and First Communions makes it excellent for art/street photography. Kodak Gold has no cachet, so it gets downplayed. People who use it and like it feel no need to tell people what film they use.
I guess the idea is that if you spent thousands on bodies and lenses, you ought to be buying "professional" film, even if you aren't shooting in a studio under controlled lighting. I'm not sure I see the logic there, but I get it from the salespeople at the film counter on occasion.
Peter_Jones
Well-known
The "Gold" available in the UK is the 200 ASA version. Every time I have used it I've liked the results. I am guilty of trying to find more exotic films, but I think Gold200 gives a nice look to older single/uncoated lenses, whereas Fuji Superia seems to suit modern lenses to my eyes.
vrgard
Well-known
Right or wrong, I have to admit to using Kodak Gold 200 pretty regularly since it's often on sale at my local Walgreens. And I've been happy with the results.
-Randy
-Randy
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
I used to like the Royal Gold line. I always thought the Gold wasn't as good. I guess I should try some, as I'm looking to shoot some color film in my GSN.
bmattock
Veteran
I like Gold 100 a lot, but it is no longer sold at retail in the USA, that I'm aware of. You can order it online. I like Gold 200, but not as well as 100, they are different beasts to me, not just 100 ISO difference, either. Frankly, I prefered Agfa Vista to both of them, but given a choice of what's available, Gold 100 is very nice.
charjohncarter
Veteran
I like the 200. I use it in my Agfa Optima IIs, because the ASA setting only goes to 225. Here is one from my last roll. It is great in filtered light and sunlight.
navilluspm
Well-known
For some reason I am not a big fan of the 200 (although it has been a while) and gold 400 was really grainy, but I have always gotten good results from Gold 100 (which was also sold under a more generic name for a while). It makes me wonder why I sometimes am looking for "professional" film.
Maybe I should try the 200 again. . .
Maybe I should try the 200 again. . .
NickTrop
Veteran
Kodak Gold 100: Extremely fine grain and high in sharpness. Produces brilliant colors suitable for any type of subjects. Very high resolution film. It is one of the best ISO 100 print films available.
http://www.jafaphotography.com/film.htm
Description is spot on. I recall (but now can't find the links) this film used in several tests due to its high resolution. An underrated classic color print film that's getting difficult to find.
http://www.jafaphotography.com/film.htm
Description is spot on. I recall (but now can't find the links) this film used in several tests due to its high resolution. An underrated classic color print film that's getting difficult to find.
amateriat
We're all light!
It was probably something I read on Dante Stella's site at the time (around 2000-2001), about Gold 100 that made me snag a few rolls for fun and do a shoot around Prospect Park with galfriend (mostly) as subject. Perhaps all the stars were aligned a certain way (as well as my regular lab having an especially good day, who knows?), but I liked the results, and the film scanned really well on my older Minolta film scanner (this was either the QuickScan 35 using VueScan or the Dimage 2900 with either VS or Minolta's standard PS plug-in).
Bonnie, spring 2000 (I think), Konica Hexar autofocus, Kodak Gold 100-6
Legend has it (for whatever that's worth) that Gold 100-6 was the most "golden" of generations of the stuff; Rochester was hitting something of a stride at the time, even with the cheap stuff (well, perhaps Max was a different story...). But I liked what I saw with this batch, though it has to be mentioned that I didn;t use just any rinky-dink lab to soup the stuff (Flatiron, which was, and remains, deep in whatever's left of the heart of Chelsea). But I was already getting stuck on Portra at the time, and the relationship, if you will, has only grown stronger with the years. Galfriend, bless her big heart, understands.
- Barrett
Bonnie, spring 2000 (I think), Konica Hexar autofocus, Kodak Gold 100-6
Legend has it (for whatever that's worth) that Gold 100-6 was the most "golden" of generations of the stuff; Rochester was hitting something of a stride at the time, even with the cheap stuff (well, perhaps Max was a different story...). But I liked what I saw with this batch, though it has to be mentioned that I didn;t use just any rinky-dink lab to soup the stuff (Flatiron, which was, and remains, deep in whatever's left of the heart of Chelsea). But I was already getting stuck on Portra at the time, and the relationship, if you will, has only grown stronger with the years. Galfriend, bless her big heart, understands.
- Barrett
Attachments
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
I use Kodak Gold 100 a lot. Sometimes for colour but often with the deliberate intention to scan and convert to black and white - a treatment it takes to very nicely (as does Gold 200). In bright sunshine it allows me exposures I can't get with XP2 or BW400CN, which have ISO 400 box speeds. (An ND filter helps, too.)
...Mike
...Mike
amateriat
We're all light!
Mike: I'd be interested in seeing some examples, if you don't mind...
- Barrett
- Barrett
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Sure:amateriat said:
And, for a change, keeping the colour:
All with Elmar-M 50/2.8 I think.
...Mike
amateriat
We're all light!
Mike: Good going there, especially the last b/w. I'm not too big on conversion in my workflow/philosophy, but it obviously can be done, and with style. Thanks!
- Barrett
- Barrett
infrequent
Well-known
i am using reala as my b&w film! i personally like how it converts. also retains shadow detail very well.
lZr
L&M
If I want color, I use Reala for 100 and Kodak's UMax for 400. If exposed well, UMAX is beautiful
R
rich815
Guest
I find both Gold 100 and 200 very nice films and I've loaded up the freezer with a decent amount of both. I find they scan quite nicely with my Nikon LS-4000. I do find the 100 a bit grainy for a 100 speed film but the colors are just wonderful.
First one below is 200, the other 2 are 100.
First one below is 200, the other 2 are 100.
Attachments
amateriat
We're all light!
Rich: Nice examples, also.
I think the upshot of this for me is that, if I was out shooting for myself somewhere
and found myself out of, or running low on my film stash before my inspiration has flagged, I know what to grab if I walk into some garden-variety store for a few quick rolls of something. If there's any film to be had at all, it'll usually be this stuff, and it'll work.
- Barrett
I think the upshot of this for me is that, if I was out shooting for myself somewhere
and found myself out of, or running low on my film stash before my inspiration has flagged, I know what to grab if I walk into some garden-variety store for a few quick rolls of something. If there's any film to be had at all, it'll usually be this stuff, and it'll work.
- Barrett
Hates_
Established
One of my favorite photoghers, Raul Gutierrez, shot his stuff with Kodak 100 I believe: http://www.mexicanpictures.com/