Anyone actively shooting Kodak Gold films in quanity?
I've been using a good bit of MF lately, and have even been picking up my 35mm cameras again(F4's and a K1000).... Enough about that.
looking back from past exploits and shooting, I seem to have favored using Kodak Gold 200 and 400 for 35mm shootin. Mostly 200(rated @ 100). I still love the rendering and color palette. Reds are saturated, but not overly so, like with Ektar(that I've found w/ c-printing and even drum scanning them)....
Whilst browsing though Flickr this evening, I came across a series of shots done with Gold 400:
boy, I love it! Ya ya, I know that a scan(most likely a scan) isn't the "best" way to tell, especially with negatives.
But still... The colors have some great kick, but not too much kicks-ya-in-the-tushy saturation, like ektar does.
and @ $2.49/roll (36exp), it's cheap enough to not really "worry" about anything....
anyone with a good deal of experience with this emulsion?
That looks much better than anything I've seen out of Gold 400. Maybe I should try some in-date and get it developed promptly instead of waiting for months.
I used to really like Gold 100 (sigh).
"She's always out making pictures, She's always out making scenes.
She's always out the window, When it comes to making Dreams.
It's all mixed up, It's all mixed up, It's all mixed up."
From It's All Mixed Up by The Cars
EXACTLY what I was thinking.... Most of the 200-speed 'zombie'(what I've dubbed it, it "never dies" hahaha) stuff I've shot in my less-$$$-in-my-pocket-days was $1 store 3-roll 24exp packs. Usually 1-3yrs O.O.D. or so.
Originally Posted by Fixcinater
But some 400 fresh-dated stuff for $2.50/roll, nothing to stop me now(except it being back-ordered @ B+H )
Ditto that. I shot my last fresh roll while on vacation a couple weeks ago. Kodak Profoto XL 100 is the obvious replacement, though I'm not feeling the saturation.
Originally Posted by mopar_guy
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I have about a hundred rolls of Kodak Gold 100 in storage. Gold 200 is good, but I've lately been shooting more Fuji Superia 200 because it's easier for me to scan. Don't know why. My 400 speed film of choice is also Fuji's but the Kodak Gold I have shot has been good too.
In life you only get one great dog, one great car, and one great woman. Pet the dog. Drive the car. Make love to the woman. Don't mix them up.
IMO those look pretty good b/c the size of the film (xpan), not the quality of the film.
I have shot about 15 rolls of both Kodak Gold 400 and 200. I am still puzzled with the results. The colors are natural and not overly saturated, but both films are quite slow, I think actually Gold 400 looks best around ISO 100-160 and Gold 200 at 64-100, and not very consistent. I got mixed results depending on the type of light and the sunsets look more blue than with Fuji Superia. They are grainy films too. What I can conclude is that, even though color negative has great exposure latitude, it┤s important to find the correct exposure to get the most from these emulsions and hit their sweet spot, usually at lower speed than declared by the manufacturer.
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.
Originally Posted by mauro35
I used Gold 100 exclusively for around 10 years, it did a fine job for me. I have some Profoto, but haven't seen any negatives yet.