Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,301   Posts: 1,536,125   Online: 862
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 35
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,544
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianShaw View Post
    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.
    IDK. but having used Kodak films since the days of Kodacolor 32ASA, I'm totally convinced that 95% of the supposed "differences" in films are entirely down to the quality, or otherwise, of the processing and printing (or nowdays, scanning). Obviously there are grain and contrast differences in different speeds, but "consumer" film with proper processing can be amazing, while "pro" film with cheapo processing inevitably = crap.

    In my recent experience, Kodak "Farbwelt 100" bought in Austria, Kodak Gold 100 from Italy, and Kodak Gold 200 and Kodak ColorPlus from the UK all produce technically identical high-quality results, with quality processing. The respective cassettes are absolutely identical printed simple black on yellow "Kodak Color Negative film 100 (or 200) ASA", in English.

    My point is, how much difference (if any) is there, and how much is marketing? Most marketing generally is hype, and it is naive to think that our hobby is exempt.
    Last edited by railwayman3; 05-13-2013 at 03:56 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Capital of Oregon Territory
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    764
    I know what you mean about Gold film. I never tried KG100, but I did use a lot of 200 and 400. I do like their palette and sharpness and I agree, they do look different from this film. Maybe I made the wrong assumption that prophoto is Gold 100. Sorry about that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mustafa Umut Sarac View Post
    anikin,

    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.

    Umut

  3. #23
    Mustafa Umut Sarac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    İstanbul - Türkiye
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,821
    Images
    108
    IDK. but having used Kodak films since the days of Kodacolor 32ASA, I'm totally convinced that 95% of the supposed "differences" in films are entirely down to the quality, or otherwise, of the processing and printing (or nowdays, scanning). Obviously there are grain and contrast differences in different speeds, but "consumer" film with proper processing can be amazing, while "pro" film with cheapo processing inevitably = crap.

    In my recent experience, Kodak "Farbwelt 100" bought in Austria, Kodak Gold 100 from Italy, and Kodak Gold 200 and Kodak ColorPlus from the UK produce technically identical high-quality results, with quality processing. The respective cassettes are absolutely identical printed simple black on yellow "Kodak Color Negative film 100 (or 200) ASA", in English.

    My point is, how much difference (if any) is there, and how much is marketing? Most marketing generally is hype, and it is naive to think that our hobby is exempt.

    As you find same signiture at all Zeiss lenses or Leica Lenses spreads in 80 years , I believe Kodak have a signiture on all of its products. I think first non signiture product was Ektar. Everyone knows and expects the similar color pallette from Fuji or Kodak Products.

    If you invest in quality , you get extremelly high quality Kodak pictures from Kodak film not anything else.

    But you cant put Kodachrome and Protophoto in to same basket , if you could do that nobody posts thousands of posts to forum in 4 years for Kodachrome.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,544
    Quote Originally Posted by Mustafa Umut Sarac View Post

    But you cant put Kodachrome and Protophoto in to same basket , if you could do that nobody posts thousands of posts to forum in 4 years for Kodachrome.
    I agree...two totally different types of films, reversal and negative. Reversal, of course, has no printing stage to introduce variables (although my point about bad processing is still relevant).
    Also Kodachrome had a unique dye set, which was (at least in its last years) not shared by any other film, not even Kodak's own E6 family of films.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,035
    Quote Originally Posted by railwayman3 View Post
    ... In my recent experience, Kodak "Farbwelt 100" bought in Austria, Kodak Gold 100 from Italy, and Kodak Gold 200 and Kodak ColorPlus from the UK all produce technically identical high-quality results, with quality processing. ...
    I have no reason to doubt you, but our experience has been exactly the opposite of each other. I processed both Kodak Gold200 and ColorPlus200 at the same time and had them printed with the same machine... to get very different results.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,035
    p.s. I even contacted Kodak, both their customer service department (worthless) and a more inside contact referred by a regularly-published internationally-known photographic writer... and could not get one iota of inforamtion from them on the similarity or differences between the two products.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,544
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianShaw View Post
    I have no reason to doubt you, but our experience has been exactly the opposite of each other. I processed both Kodak Gold200 and ColorPlus200 at the same time and had them printed with the same machine... to get very different results.
    OK, I'll admit that I was being a bit mischevious in inferring that the films might be identical. Accepting that they are different, the printing machine, scanner, or whatever, must then be correctly adjusted for each type of film to get the best results. If not, obviously different results.....

    Still, I suggest, a lot of hype in packing virtually identical films for different markets. I live near the site of one of the former Kodak factories in the UK where films were finished and packed, and a close friend who worked there confirms that film from identical master rolls was finished under different names for different markets. (I have no reason to doubt this, it was well after the factory closed and he took early retirement, he was previously under a confidentiality employment contract.) No different to many other products.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,035
    Quote Originally Posted by railwayman3 View Post
    OK, I'll admit that I was being a bit mischevious in inferring that the films might be identical.
    Not mischevious at all.... but totally confusing in whether you are writing assumptions or a statement of knowledge/experience.

    Good day, madam.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,544
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianShaw View Post
    Not mischevious at all.... but totally confusing in whether you are writing assumptions or a statement of knowledge/experience.

    Good day, madam.
    Sorry. However, the second paragraph of my last posting, i.e. the packaging of the same film under different names for different markets is definitive. From my friend as a former employee, the information volunteered in a casual conversation a little while ago, with no questioning or prompting, and with no point to make or axe to grind. Don't think he (or I) thought it was particularly unusual or a big deal at the time. Amongst other branding, the Kodak 200ASA "High Definition" 35mm was identical with another consumer 200ASA film, the "High Definition" being marketing hype at the time HD televisions were the latest "new gadget" in the UK.

    There has been regular speculation that Fuji adopt similar marketing with their flagship films, their own consumer films, and other own-label films (e.g. current Agfa Precisa and Vista). Quite understandable, why should they incur extra costs by setting up a whole different product, when the profit is in the marginal cost of an extra run of an existing product. Some people aren't interested in paying more than £1 in the cheapo store, others turn up their noses and want to pay £5 to be seen using a posh brand....not just in films, of course.
    Last edited by railwayman3; 05-13-2013 at 05:11 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Chattanooga TN
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    498
    Images
    11
    Profoto and Gold are not the same. Profoto (aka ProImage) has slightly less contrast and saturation. I believe it is sold as a professional film in certain regions of the world.

    I have found that its tonality and contrast are similar to Portra 160, but it has larger grain. I have used it quite a lot, and for a film of that price level, I like it a lot. I also have a lot in my freezer; at least 200 rolls.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin