Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 77,660   Posts: 1,715,123   Online: 663
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 35 of 35
  1. #31
    heterolysis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Multi Format
    Looking at my negatives, the Profoto rebate actually says KODAK PROFOTO XL 100. It for sure is not just rebranded Gold, though the emulsion could very well be similar as Kodak says.

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Quote Originally Posted by newcan1 View Post
    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.
    Kodak ProImage 100 was/maybe still is a pro film, 35mm only, that was sold in 5 packs and did not require refrigeration. When I used it (late 90s - early 2000s) it was made in Kodak's new Chinese factory (I assume that factory has now gone the way of all the others). It was cheaper and aimed at volume photographers eg schools, grads etc. It was a very good film for its purpose and also had the bonus that it would print on the analogue minilabs of the day using the same channel as the Gold films. I have no idea if it was essentially the same as Gold 100 as that is a film I never used but given that Kodak manufactured the same consumer films in a number of different factories ProImage could well have been rebadged Chinese Gold. OzJohn

  3. #33
    bvy is offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Multi Format
    This is a follow up to my original post. I shot and processed a roll of Kodak Profoto XL 100, and I'm deciding that, for the price, I like it. I'm most of the way through a second roll.

    Without any correction, it scans with a greenish-yellow cast as someone here suggested. To compare, Superia and Portra scan with the color very close to what it should be, if not dead on. I knew better than to draw conclusions about the film itself based on this, so I picked a few frames and headed to the darkroom.

    My enlargements are shown below. I scanned each print with no color correction, so as to eliminate processing variables; I think the prints "pop" a little bit more when seen in person. I've also included a screenshot of the scans so you can see what I mean about how the negatives scan.

    Film: Kodak Profoto XL 100
    Camera: Olympus XA2 (exposed at box speed)
    Film Developer: Kodak Flexicolor
    Paper: Fuji Crystal Archive Type II Lustre
    Paper Developer: Kodak Ektacolor
    Print Scanner: Epson V500 with 'No Color Correction' set.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	CE0030-ncc.jpg 
Views:	35 
Size:	156.3 KB 
ID:	71923Click image for larger version. 

Name:	CE0031-ncc.jpg 
Views:	31 
Size:	108.1 KB 
ID:	71924Click image for larger version. 

Name:	CE0035-ncc.jpg 
Views:	38 
Size:	152.5 KB 
ID:	71925

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	profoto.jpg 
Views:	30 
Size:	136.6 KB 
ID:	71926

  4. #34
    Paul Glover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Salem, VA
    Multi Format
    Tried a roll recently and it seems quite good for the price. My scans had a slight magenta cast but I forgot to shoot a "calibration" frame in normal sunlight with a gray card, and my scanning software was being terribly uncooperative too (probably intimidated by the enlarger ;-) ). I plan to try some more of it.

  5. #35
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Multi Format
    Ordered Kodak Gold 100, got Profoto XL 100 (?!)
    So what, I married Cinderella, and she turned into one of the ugly sisters

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234



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