Colorplus and gold 200 are different film. Colorplus is the stuff you find in £/$ stores. It is budget film, not just consumer film. It performs terribly under mixed lighting. I would be very upset I'd someone tried to say it was the same thing as gold.
Saying that there is nothing to stop Kodak renaming colorplus as gold 200 but hat would be deceptive.
One of the factors to consider in the formulation of a color film is how it records skin tones. If it is to be sold in Europe or North America when most of the subjects are Caucasian the film will be made one way. In other markets, like India, the film is made differently to record the darker skin tones there. I just so happens that it is also warmer where the skin tone are darker. So the warm temperature storage story may also be coupled with a different way of rendering skin tones and other colors and harsh light. Just my theory.
Also as far as I know Kodak has stopped selling Gold 100 in the USA. So the only "Gold 100" you can buy is grey market stuff.
I buy Profoto when I want to make sure my C41 chemistry is up to speed. I've used it a couple of times and it's....okay. But for consumer 35mm, because I refuse to believe it's anything else at that price, I'll take Superia over it.
I only have these two scans on my computer, which were me just screwing around with exposure settings, so take them with a grain of salt (there's still stabilizer smeared on the second one)...ran the jpegs through auto tone/color in photoshop.
For good measure, here's a shot on Reala I processed right after. Same photoshop treatment.
I wasn't crazy about the tones or the grain of the Profoto (nor Kodak Ultramax 400 for that matter), and find them disappointing next to Ektar and Portra, and even some old, old shots on Gold.
Isn't it interesting that, although the boxes for the various Kodak 200ASA films are obviously different, when you get inside the actual cassettes and the appearance of the film itself are exactly identical. ;) :whistling:
Originally Posted by Simonh82
Attached is one shot from Prophoto film that I took a few weeks ago. Make your own decision if you like it. Processed in Flexicolor SM developer, scanned on Epson V700/Epson scan. No adjustments of any kind. Negatives look OK, so I suspect it should print well optically on Fuji CA paper. I have not done it just yet.
Please inform us about your camera lens.
By the way I found Protofoto film is tending to yellow and green. Its like 1700s English village life paintings. Impressionist color pallette and blues are lost at weather.
The lens is Voightlander 40mm f2 lens on Nikon N90s. That's very strange what you describing about this film. That was not the result that I got. Mine was not bad at all color-wise. However, I only ran 1 roll of it through, so I don't have a lot of experience with it. I got this roll on a whim from Shutterbug store. It was not cheap, but I've never seen such a film from Kodak, so I suspected that it was related to Kodak Gold 100 and decided to try it.
Originally Posted by Mustafa Umut Sarac
I wonder if we are talking about different films here? Or maybe heterolysis is right and the film is rather processing sensitive.
My shots were on Nikon N80 and 50mm f/1.8. I found all of them to tend to yellow/green--even when I wasn't messing around--but all were shot on a sunny day. I think I bracketed two stops in each direction (not sure where those two were picked from) and in general I did not find that it was incredibly sensitive to exposure, as in, there were no crazy color shifts as a result.
Your shot looks a lot smoother than anything I've gotten from it. The stuff goes for $3.78 here in Canada, which is really cheap for a "pro" film---Ektar being about $7 and Portra $10. I suspect that it's like Ektar and you need to shoot for specific lighting, perhaps bright sunny days aren't the best for it.
I'm not sure how to interpret the intent of your "wink and whistle" but the similar/same appearance of the cassette is interesting, but the difference in the film istself is profound and obvious.
Originally Posted by railwayman3
I did not meant protophoto is a bad film , its a film faraway more tamed at saturation wise and romantic film than old gold films. Gold films have denser, stronger colors which I like very much. You can get wider pallette of colors and saturated base colors , very strong blues , burnt browns and burnt greens , reds and yellows. Protophoto is very much mellower and there is no punching water or air blue.