Where I have run into problems like you describe is when Adorama substituted "ColorPlus" for what they advertize as Gold. That happened to me once and it is such a different (inferior) film from Gold that I considered it a bait-and-switch tactic.
Same happened to me with Unique Photo. Ordered Gold and got Profoto. I ended up using and liking (if not loving) it. Still...
I've been buying Gold 400 at the local Wal-mart and running it through a Konica A4 from the thrift store. I take it on hikes and whatnot where I don't want to worry about the camera too much. 1-hour processing and scans at the Wal-mart, I re-scan any of the frames I want to use.
This is my only 35mm camera so I can't compare it to anything but here are a few of my pics. They seem really grainy, not sure if that is the lab or the film. I don't do any noise reduction when I process my scans.
I've got an order in with Adorama right now for some Gold 200 that seems to be slow in coming (the rest of the order already arrived)...this discussion makes me wonder what will actually show up. Hmmm....
In any case, I've been pretty happy with the Gold 200; less so with the Gold 400. As others have said, the former is no Portra 160 or Ektar, but at half the price it's perfectly serviceable for general use. I tend to shoot it at box speed, but erring on the side of overexposure whenever there's a question (I generally don't use a meter). For whatever reason, I particularly like the look of it through the uncoated lenses on some of my older cameras.
For the consumer film I always liked Gold 100. Not too long ago I had purposely used 400 (which I'd avoided for years if it were at all possible) and was very pleasantly surprised at how far 400-speed has come. Right now I have a nice stock of Gold 200, which I used often.
IMO those look pretty good b/c the size of the film (xpan), not the quality of the film.
agreed, but the color,density and apparent contrast was what I was referring to more, not just the larger negative size. I have given thought to an Xpan or TX-2 kit, but have always held off. Not so sure now . My usage of 35mm film is LOW, very low in fact. Usually 2-3 rolls/6mo period right now. I just prefer to use MF.
But I love the ratio of the Xpan's negative size, and find it "fits" my vision of things very well. And as we all know, "bigger is better" a lot of the time with shooting film: cleaner, clearer scans w/ less apparent grain, etc...
Now only if Gold film were still available in 120 format
Last edited by DanielStone; 08-29-2013 at 05:26 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Maybe there is a difference in light at your latitude, but my experience wiht Gold 200 has been excellent: virtually no grain and great color when shot at box speed. Where I have run into problems like you describe is when Adorama substituted "ColorPlus" for what they advertize as Gold. That happened to me once and it is such a different (inferior) film from Gold that I considered it a bait-and-switch tactic.
It can really be a light difference. Here in Finland the endless summer sunsets can be challenging to photograph and the light changes very fast in intensity and color temperature. It's difficult to remember that, cause our eyes are so incredibly adaptive. Or I might have had a long lag between exposure and development as well (few months). But I have tried ColorPlus too and can agree completely, it is a far inferior film.