Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,900   Posts: 1,584,389   Online: 664
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 40
  1. #11
    bvy
    bvy is offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    998
    Images
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianShaw View Post
    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...

  2. #12
    adelorenzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Whitehorse, Yukon
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    589
    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.


    Paul hiking down to an alpine lake by Anthony DeLorenzo, on Flickr


    Carbon Hill by Anthony DeLorenzo, on Flickr

    It seems to handle overcast pretty well but the colors get a little saturated (for my taste) in full sun:


    Packrafting the upper Wheaton River by Anthony DeLorenzo, on Flickr

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    93
    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.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    http://filmosaur.wordpress.com/

  4. #14
    Truzi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,260
    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.
    Truzi

  5. #15
    DanielStone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,043
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Hatchetman View Post
    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.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Finland
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    168
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianShaw View Post
    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.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    388
    DanielStone: Time for a 6x12 Horseman?

  8. #18
    ArtO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    260
    Images
    3
    I use quite a lot of GC400 and for me the colors are great. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Lilly wAnts - BC2013 18.jpg 
Views:	46 
Size:	1.07 MB 
ID:	73699
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Art

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    231
    The shots referenced by the OP look finer grained that what I'm used to seeing from the film. Here's my latest roll of GC400. Nothing special tho, just some snaps because I felt like burning a roll.

    http://www.lamarlamb.com/On-Film/Fil...8613&k=MhK8t36

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    1,490
    Not a ton, but I use them. I don't often spend extra for Portra or Ektar.

    80% of my color 35mm use is on Kodak Gold 200 or 400. I have always loved Kodak color films.

    Fuji are great too and I use them a lot but less than Kodak. I love the Fuji Pro 400H but have only used 2 or 3 rolls of that.


    So I guess I use about 40 rolls of Kodak Gold and 10 of Fujicolor per year.
    - Bill Lynch

Page 2 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